House Of Lords
Tuesday, 21st January 1997.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
War Disablement Pensions: Deafness
asked Her Majesty's Government:
On which medical authority they relied in changing their policy on pensions for ex-service personnel suffering deafness.
(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)
My Lords, there has been no change of policy. Medical opinion on noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss has changed. Under the war pensions scheme we must abide by current medical opinion when determining claims to war disablement pensions.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security met senior officers of the Royal British Legion on 10th January to discuss the deafness change. After the meeting the legion confirmed that, together with its medical advisers, it accepted there was validity in the change in medical opinion.My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is playing with words, because there has been a change? Does he accept that the present situation is a fatuous one? In future, virtually no ex-service personnel will receive pensions for noise-induced deafness. That is contrary to the intention of the Act. The Minister shakes his head. Does he agree that the Ministry of Defence has stated that no service personnel leaving the services with less than 20 per cent. hearing disability will get a pension? That ignores the central fact that when noise-induced deafness is added to the ageing process, earlier and more severe deafness disability ensues. Some people can get by with ageing deafness, but when it is added to noise-induced deafness, they find themselves in very serious trouble. Can the Minister say whether there will be any new regulations?
My Lords, the noble Lord is confused between initial noise-induced deafness and deterioration due to age. Anyone who has noise-induced deafness at a level of 20 per cent. or above will receive a pension. There is no point in the noble Lord shaking his head in dissent. That is true. The current issue under discussion is whether age-related deterioration is affected by that noise-induced disability. The medical evidence is clear. The final change in medical opinion followed publication in February 1996 of articles by Mark Lutman and Adrian Davies in The Scientific Basis of Noise Induced Hearing Loss. Their findings represent the views of experts at the Medical Research Council Institute of Hearing Research and audiological scientists at the Institute of Sound and Vibration Research. The position on war pension legislation is that the agency and Ministers are obliged to follow medical opinion, whether that favours the war pensioner or the Government. I suspect that the noble Lord would not expect us to do otherwise.
My Lords, I declare an interest. I have a pension from the noble Lord's department as a result of deafness induced by flying. However, the department has not paid anything yet because first it wants back the lump sum that it paid me. However, at some future time I may have a pension. Without going into the medical evidence, does the noble Lord agree that if someone receives a pension because he has suffered war damage to his ears and the damage becomes worse as he gets older, his disability is greater and therefore there is a need for an increased pension?
My Lords, first I shall follow up the noble Lord's problem when I return to my office. I shall make sure that he gets his just deserts. To deal with the second part of his question, if there is noise-induced deafness in excess of 20 per cent., a pension will be paid. The medical evidence is that natural deterioration of hearing due to age is not affected by the original noise-induced deafness. The two are not mathematically additive; but I shall not get into the complications of the medical papers, which I commend to the noble Lord for his quiet reading.
My Lords, I should also declare a personal interest in this matter. I must spring to the Government's defence. At the back end of 1945, following the surrender of Japan, I asked a medical board to dismiss me from the Army. The board met in Blackpool and I attended. It was agreed that my tank had been blown up, that my eye had been shot out and that I should have a pension. I pointed out that after I had come out of hospital in January 1945, I had been put on gunnery instruction at Purbright. I had to go to Appleby on the ranges approximately once a month to instruct trainee guardsmen in the use of armour-piercing shells. For those who do not realise it, armour-piercing shells have a much higher muzzle velocity than other projectiles and therefore are dangerous. As the officer taking trainees all the way from Purbright, I had to stand at the back of a tank and shout orders. One could not use ear plugs because one would not have been able to communicate properly. I pointed out to the medical board that although I had suffered a certain amount during the war in fighting, and so forth, my main injury was severe deafness in my left ear. The board was chiefly examining the damage to my eye. I was asked whether I had had my ear washed recently. I was very hurt by that and said no more. However, last May all my friends in the legion and the Normandy Veterans Association asked me why I had not gone to the medical board. Is my noble friend aware that in May I applied to the board and was asked in October/November to go to London to be examined? In December I was told that I deserved the extra 20 per cent.
My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend has succeeded in getting his pension for deafness caused by his time on the artillery range. He makes the valid point that people were severely deafened on those occasions, and pension is paid for that. But that is not the point of this discussion. The question is whether that original deafness deteriorates thereafter. All the medical evidence is that it does not. The fact is that not a single expert has come forward to say that my advisers and the people whose names I quoted earlier are wrong.
My Lords, perhaps I may challenge the Minister's last assertion. He said that he was forced to act because the medical evidence was unanimous. He has repeated that today. Is that indeed the case? I have cuttings from Dr. Coles, the Nottingham spokesman of the MRC Institute of Hearing. He says that Dr. Braidwood, the Minister's adviser, had most of her facts right but has interpreted them wrongly. He goes on to say that if one looks at data from the Falklands, no one would receive compensation for noise injury on the basis of the new rules. The view of Dr. Coles is supported, I understand, by medical evidence from the RNID. Given that the medical evidence is not clear cut, unanimous or unambiguous, and that there are clearly dissenting, and well founded dissenting, views, will the Minister please reconsider the evidence before he removes £35 million from 10, 000 future war pensioners?
My Lords, in the first instance, I am not removing any money from anyone. The noble Baroness should know that, especially in a week when her right honourable friend the Chancellor—
Oh!
—the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer—I was trying to get at this too quickly—has conceded that the Government's spending plans all across Whitehall are totally adequate. Is not that in stark contrast to the usual pleas I receive? To come to the point, Dr. Coles and the RNID are in fact one and the same when it comes to this: he advises it on this matter. Although Dr. Coles has been in hospital for the past week or two, he has had the workings of the war pensions system clarified. What he thought in late December was:
that is, Dr. Braidwood—"I think she"—
I am sorry to tell the noble Baroness that no medical expert contradicts the evidence of all the other experts upon whose evidence we have drawn."is correct in her main findings that noise-induced hearing loss of itself does not increase after the noise exposure stops, and that hearing loss due to noise and ageing are less than mathematically additive in terms of decibels".
Prisons: Suicides
2.44 p.m.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to reduce the number of suicides among remand and other prisoners.
My Lords, the Prison Service has a comprehensive strategy aimed at reducing the incidence of suicide. This has been carefully developed and is based on independent research and professional expertise. The strategy is, though, kept under continual review.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree that more than half the people who committed suicide while in prison last year were remand prisoners? According to the British Medical Journal, approximately a quarter were seriously mentally disturbed. In addition, many of them were relatively young people. In the first three weeks of this year already three young men, aged 21, 19, and 17, have committed suicide. Will the Minister consider carefully the consequences of overcrowding in prison, which means that education and training schemes—the best chance to get young men and women to go straight—are having to be interrupted because people are being moved continually from prison to prison, as indicated so graphically last night by the Director of the Prison Service, Mr. Richard Tilt, in the "Panorama" television programme on the subject?
My Lords, the noble Baroness asked a number of questions. I shall make every effort to answer as many as possible. The last thing the noble Baroness mentioned before the "Panorama" programme was the factors contributing to an individual's suicide, which we must all agree is tragic for all those concerned. There is no hard evidence that environmental conditions in a prison cause suicides. The quality of relationships between staff and prisoners may, for example, be of greater significance than prison conditions. The noble Baroness quoted also the Director General of the Prison Service. He has said that the Prison Service is doing everything possible further to reduce the number. We believe that the preventive strategies we have developed in prisons over the past few years have helped and will continue to do so. The noble Baroness commented also on the figures relating to remand prisoners. She is correct. The percentages relating to the young are reflected throughout the whole of the prison population.
My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that the Minister is not responsible for prisons in Scotland. However, will he convey to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, are shared by the people of Scotland? Is he aware that during the past 18 months in the only women's prison in Scotland there have been 12 suicides or attempted suicides? Six young women have taken their lives in that one prison, and four should not have been there at all as they were on remand. Is this not a serious matter that should be addressed with some urgency?
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is correct in saying that this is a serious matter. As I said in a previous answer, it is a tragedy to all those involved, including families and those working in the prison service. I believe that the noble Lord refers to Cornton Vale Prison, which is a female remand prison. Many of those who took their lives were involved in drug-related offences. I understand that fatal accident inquiries will begin later in the year, and of course I shall pass on his thoughts to my right honourable friend.
My Lords, as a proportion of the non-prison population, these figures appear to be very high indeed. Can the Minister indicate, first, whether that is so and, secondly, the type of research that is being undertaken to understand the cause?
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is correct in saying that the figures are high. One must remember that those entering prisons are perhaps mentally introverted and do not want to tell people what their problems are. We are aware that there is a problem and we are making every effort to improve the situation. In particular, we are emphasising specific areas in which we believe improvements can be made: for instance, the communication of risk information; better targeting of staff training; re-examining the use of shared and unfurnished accommodation; improving reception and induction screening for prisoners and the reassessment of the special needs of young offenders and female offenders.
My Lords, can my noble friend say what proportion of those suicides or attempted suicides were committed by those kept in isolation?
My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. I do not have those figures available.
My Lords, understandably, the Minister's answers concern what can be done in prison. But, surely, arising from his first Answer, a major part of the problem is the wrongful remand in custody of those who are mentally unstable or at risk of doing harm to themselves. Should not his answers be extended to cover guidance to the courts about that important aspect of the problem?
My Lords, throughout the existing system, when individuals are arrested by the police and go before the magistrate, whether remanded on bail or going further into the prison system, reports are sent back to those affected in order to inform them of those who are at risk of these dreadful tragedies.
My Lords, can the Minister say whether all prisoners are given the telephone number of the Samaritans and whether bullying is one of the problems?
My Lords, of course the Samaritans are heavily involved in visiting prisoners. They also train prisoners as listeners to help their fellow prisoners. I believe that 80 prisons in the Prison Service have that action in progress.
Next Question!
My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that we have two more Questions. I hope that your Lordships will agree that we should give them a fair crack of the whip.
Hospitals: Additional Finance
2.55 p.m.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any further and additional financial resources are to be made available to hospitals which are having to treat an increased number of patients due to the recent cold weather.
(Baroness Cumberlege)
My Lords, yes, an additional £25 million has been made available to support the NHS with this winter's pressures.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that I am not for one moment blaming the Government for the lengthy period of inclement weather that has resulted in the pressure on certain hospitals. Does she recall that a few weeks ago I asked a Question which emanated from a document published by the BMA which predicted that there would be severe pressure on certain hospitals if resources were not made available immediately? Does the Minister agree that the BMA was right to say that and was not crying wolf, as the Minister then indicated? Will she accept from me that although the resources she has mentioned have been made available, they appear on the surface to be inadequate to deal with the very serious situation in which some hospitals find themselves today?
My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that one of the problems this winter has been not only the bad weather but the coincidence of the flu epidemic. That epidemic has not only had an influence on admissions. The number of emergency admissions is the highest ever. It has also affected the nursing staff. So the health service has been under pressure. I find the issue of resources very interesting since the shadow Chancellor made his announcements yesterday. I now imagine that the Labour Party believes that the level of resources we allocate to the health service is about right.
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in view of the shadow Chancellor's statement yesterday it ill becomes members of the Opposition to ask for an increase in public expenditure without saying where it is to come from? Does she also agree that despite the fact that the shadow Chancellor said that the standard rate of tax would remain the same he said nothing about decreased personal allowances for tax purposes or an increase in the national insurance contribution?
My Lords, yes.
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the efforts of some hospitals to try to free their beds is frustrated by the fact that certain social services departments are unable to help with the release of patients into the outside world because they closed down for three weeks during Christmas. That happened in the case of the Wandsworth social services department? Can the Minister give some guidance to councils on the matter?
My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Clearly, there must be close liaison between the health services and the social services. One of the reasons why we have problems with bed blocking is the fact that social services are not taking patients who are ready to go home. We have allocated £16 million to try to resolve the situation.
My Lords, when, as the Minister has described, those manning accident and emergency units and emergency wards are under huge pressure, with doctors and nurses, many of whose colleagues are off sick, working extremely long hours, is it not deeply dispiriting for them when all they read in the newspapers are complaints about long waiting lists, trolley waits and crowded A&E departments? Will the Minister now publicly thank them, as I have thanked our people, for a period of immensely hard work when we kept the service going?
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. As the chairman of a trust he will know only too well the pressures that hospitals have been under and the enormous commitment that staff make in order to keep the services going. I very much welcome the opportunity to thank those staff. They have been under great pressure this winter. As always, doctors, nurses, paramedics, therapists, porters and all those involved in the National Health Service have come up trumps.
My Lords, will the Minister give some reassurance to the people of Leeds and Hull who have had emergency cases shuffled between the two cities? Patients have died because of the lack of intensive care beds. Would it not be possible to be more flexible and open a few more intensive care beds in this problem period?
My Lords, we have allocated £25 million for this year, so that money is available to trusts if they wish to expand their services. But it is not just a question of opening beds; it is also a question of recruiting staff. As has been said, one of the problems has been illness among staff. However, I shall be visiting Hull next week and I shall certainly look at the situation.
My Lords, I am sure that we all join the Minister in congratulating those dedicated NHS staff who have struggled to keep services going this winter. However, we are entitled to ask a simple question: what has gone wrong? Does the Minister recall that in a debate on this subject she said that,
Why, then, do we have the catalogue of descriptions of depressing circumstances which come not only from the media but also from various Members of your Lordships' House? Is the Minister aware that, quite frankly, the excuses now being given by the Government for the situation in the hospitals are beginning to resemble an NHS version of leaves on the railway lines and the wrong sort of snow?"we have learnt the lessons of last winter. Since that time, planning for winter pressures has been a priority for the NHS"?—[Official Report, 6/11/96; col. 708.]
My Lords, I think that that is rather unfair. The noble Baroness will know that we have never had so many emergency admissions in one year. In fact, such admissions can double in a day and, coupled with the coincidence of the sharp winter weather and the flu epidemic, it is not surprising that the National Health Service is under pressure. As a past chairman responsible for 16 hospitals, I should say that it has forever been thus. I can remember 10 years ago when the situation was a great deal worse. We now have more patients treated. We have more staff. We are doing better and better and better, and the nation should be proud of its National Health Service.
Waste Management: Certificates
3.2 p.m.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the deadline of 10th August 1999 for waste facility managers to obtain their certificates of technical competence still holds; and whether they are satisfied that the waste industry is taking steps to ensure that all managers are qualified by that date.
My Lords, the deadline of 10th August 1999, by which waste management facility managers should obtain their certificates of technical competence, still applies—other than for two exceptions. One is for those who are covered by the Waste Management Regulations 1996 and Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations which grant an exemption until 1st October 2001. The other is for those who are covered by the Special Waste Regulations 1996, which allow some exemptions until 10th August 2000. We are confident that all managers can be qualified by the relevant dates and we are encouraging the waste industry to take the necessary steps.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that it is important that those managers who have worked so hard and made such an effort to obtain their certificates well in advance of the date and who have achieved the necessary standard should not have the goal-posts moved at any time so that those who have not done the work find it easier to obtain the certificates? Can he tell the House the Government's proposals for enforcing the regulations as regards technical competence certificates and say what will be the consequences for those companies which do not achieve the result which has been asked of them?
My Lords, it is very important that those people who have applied to obtain the certificates should be able to do so. It is our intention to ensure that as many people as possible are able to do that. The noble Baroness said that she does not wish to see the goal-posts moved. I can understand that. There is likely to be a slight change because there are at present nine certificates of competence and it is expected that that will increase to 11.
If a site is being run by a person without a certificate of competence, that will be a matter for the Environment Agency which will be able to revoke the licence for the site.My Lords, are the Government satisfied that the requirements of the vocational qualification are adequate and appropriate for practical managers? Who was responsible for devising this qualification and who was consulted about the requirements?
My Lords, the requirements are both adequate and sufficient. The noble Baroness asked me who is responsible for that. It is that remarkable body called WAMITAB. Your Lordships may not know what that stands for. It stands for the Waste Management Industry Training and Advisory Board. That board has consulted with its organisations and the Government. It is producing new proposals which will be considered by the Government and, if necessary, regulations will be introduced which will be laid before Parliament.
My Lords, the Minister said that the number of certificates will increase from nine to 11. I hope that that does not mean that there will be a watering down of the standards. It is very important that the goal-posts are not moved in relation to the standards required of waste managers. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister on that.
My Lords, no; the standards will not be altered at all. It will merely be easier for people to obtain a certificate in the particular discipline in which they wish to have one. The standards will remain just as high.
Police Bill Hl: Procedure
3.6 p.m.
My Lords, I wish to ask the Leader of the House for a Business Statement about yesterday's proceedings on the Police Bill and the Government's intentions for the next stage of the Bill. It may be for the convenience of the Leader and the House if I explain very briefly why I make that request.
I understand that discussions took place this morning and have been widely reported between the Home Secretary and Mr. Jack Straw for the Opposition about the future of the Bill. Although I fully understand that they were conducted properly, it would be extremely helpful if the noble Viscount would give some account to this House of the nature and outcome of those discussions. It would also be helpful if he could give an undertaking that at the various stages of any further discussions, your Lordships will be informed about progress and will not have to rely upon press releases or, for that matter, statements in another place to know how the matter is to be resolved. I ask that because the two amendments which were carried yesterday in your Lordships' House were of deep concern to Members on all sides. It would be discourteous—not of the Leader himself who is never that—if your Lordships were not kept fully informed of all developments. They should not simply learn of them after the event. I believe that the assumption is widely held that, in the first instance, the Home Secretary will make a decision on the question in principle. Although clearly the Leader of the House will not say so, it is inconceivable that the Government will attempt to overturn those very decisive votes of your Lordships yesterday. Therefore, first, I should expect a statement of principle. After that, no doubt the Home Secretary will come forward with his own proposals. I make it clear that any discussion of the proposals should not be on a bilateral basis between the Home Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition or his deputy nominee in another place. Instead, it should in some way involve all those who are extremely concerned about the issue and want to see a successful outcome and an amendment to the Bill which will ensure that the judicial authorisation would be credible in all aspects. I am sure that your Lordships recognise, as we do on these Benches, that the two amendments carried were in some ways mutually incompatible. Yet, at the same time, the will of your Lordships' House must be reflected in the future of the Bill. The second point on which I hope the noble Viscount will be able to help us is as regards the future progress of the Bill. As your Lordships will know, the House sat until 25 minutes before 2 a.m. in discussions on the Report stage. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House was not present, but I do not hold that against him. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was present, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, so they were a good team. But we sat very late indeed. I put it to the Leader of the House that it is not in the spirit of the Jellicoe Report that we should have continued in that way with what, by all accounts and in the view of the Government, are very important measures. Part V of the Bill, which is of great concern to your Lordships and indeed to many people outside, was reached at a quarter-to 12 at night. I would respectfully ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to reflect on whether that is the way in which we should be conducting our business when our task is that of scrutiny. We are due to reach the Third Reading of the Bill next week. I ask the noble Viscount whether it might be wiser to postpone the Third Reading until some of these matters have been resolved. As his noble friend Lady Blatch will say, some of the difficulties and some of the delays which occurred yesterday were in fact due to the amendments which had been carried earlier in the day. Would it not be better to settle that issue once and for all, before we attempt to deal with the rest of the Bill?My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, not least for the charming way in which he alluded to what I believe he called my "courtesy". That is something which I always try to preserve in the best traditions of your Lordships' House. Noble Lords will be aware that an agreement has been reached through the usual channels to complete the Committee stage—
Report stage!
I beg your pardon, my Lords; it must have been an even later night than I remember. As I was saying, agreement has been reached to complete the Report stage of the Bill this evening, after the completion of the Committee stage of the Firearms Bill. The noble Lord is quite right to say that the date for the Third Reading of the Bill, which was agreed some time ago through the usual channels, is Tuesday next, 28th January.
Of course the Government, as is only right and proper, will urgently consider the effects of the amendments which were carried in this Chamber last night. They will want to consider those amendments and their effects with some care and with due deliberation. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that, as this House has spoken, it would only be right for us to continue with the timetable of the Bill as agreed between the usual channels. I should stress that I am extremely grateful to the Members of the official Opposition for the co-operative way in which they have observed the traditions of this House and have taken part in constructive discussions regarding the timetable.Oh!
My Lords, I am sorry if I am embarrassing the noble Baroness in any way by paying her compliments; but I can hardly resist the temptation.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that the situation is very clear. Your Lordships have amended the Bill twice. It will be up to your Lordships to consider the Bill further on Third Reading and then in due course it will be up to another place to decide what to do with the legislation. The Government are content to rest on the decision of Parliament as the Bill proceeds in the normal way through this place and, in due course, through another place, and eventually, when it comes to the point, to consider any messages from the other place in relation to the Bill.My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, perhaps I could draw his attention to my first and central question; namely, what is the nature and outcome of the discussions which the Home Secretary engaged in this morning?
My Lords, I have to say that I have not been privy to any discussions that have taken place. As far as I am aware, if discussions have taken place, no announcement has yet been made. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be in a position to make a public announcement when the time is right. He is not in a position to do so as yet.
Procedure Of The House: Select Committee Report
3.14 p.m.
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 20).—(The Chairman of Committees.)Following is the report referred to:
COMMITTEES ON LEGISLATION OFF THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE
The Committee has conducted a further review of the procedures for committees on legislation off the floor of the House. As recommended by the Group on Sittings of the House (the Rippon Committee) in 1994, a number of procedures are now available. To avoid confusion and for the information of the House, we set out as an annex to this report a short description of each procedure, which will be included in the Companion to Standing Orders.
A year ago the Committee noted that in Session 1994–95 the House of Commons had implemented certain recommendations of the Committee on Sittings of the House (the Jopling Committee). As a result, the Commons had risen on average substantially earlier each day. With the more limited reform programme proposed by the Rippon Committee, the House of Lords had also risen earlier although the trend was less marked than in the Commons. In Session 1995–96 the House of Commons continued to rise earlier but the House of Lords sat for longer hours—on average for 6 hours 53 minutes each day compared to 6 hours 22 minutes in Session 1994–95—and there were 47 sittings after 10.30 pm compared to 33 such sittings in Session 1994–95.
We remind the House of our recommendation in 1994 (1st Report, 1994–95, HL 9) that "whenever possible business should be arranged so as to avoid the need for the House to sit beyond an agreed time, say 10 pm". We recognised then that a significant improvement in sitting hours could come only with general support throughout the House.
The Committee makes the following observations on the new procedures for committees off the floor:
Annex
Committees On Public Bills In The House Of Lords
I. Committee of the Whole House
This is the traditional method of proceeding with a Bill after Second Reading. A Bill is committed to a Committee of the Whole House taken on the floor of the House unless the House otherwise directs.
II. Grand Committee (in the Moses Room)
This procedure was recommended by the Group on the Sittings of the House (chaired by Lord Rippon of Hexham) in 1994 and first used in 1995. The Committee considers the Bill and amendments are tabled in the same way as a Committee of the Whole House, but no divisions may take place. All Lords are free to attend and participate.
III. Public Bill Committee
This procedure has been used on nine occasions since 1968 and was last used to consider the Trade Marks Bill in 1994. The procedure differs from Committee of the Whole House off the floor in that a limited number of Lords (proposed by the Committee of Selection) are appointed to undertake the committee stage. Divisions may take place. Lords who are not named of the Committee are entitled to participate in the proceedings but may not vote.
IV. Special Public Bill Committee
This procedure, which was first used in 1994, was initially recommended by the Committee on the Committee Work of the House (chaired by Earl Jellicoe) and later by the Rippon Committee. The Committee may take written and oral evidence within 28 days of its appointment. As in the case of a Public Bill Committee, a limited number of Lords are appointed to conduct the committee stage. After hearing evidence, Special Public Bill Committees proceed in the same way as Public Bill Committees: they consider the Bill clause by clause, amendments may be made and divisions may take place.
V. Select Committee
This procedure allows detailed investigation by a Select Committee (appointed by the House with the members proposed by the Committee of Selection) at any stage between Second and Third Readings. The Committee may take evidence and reports to the House on the provisions of the Bill, recommending whether or not it should proceed. If it recommends that the Bill should proceed, the Committee may make amendments to it. Thereafter the Bill is re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House. The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill in 1995 was the last Bill to be committed to a Select Committee.
VI. Scottish Select Committee
This procedure was first used early in 1996. It allows a Select Committee (appointed by the House with the members proposed by the Committee of Selection) to take evidence on Scottish Bills. The Committee may take written and oral evidence in Scotland and reports its evidence to the House. The Bill is then recommitted to one of the committees described above. A Scottish Select Committee may not make amendments to the Bill. Lords not of the Committee may attend meetings and participate in the proceedings, whether at Westminster or in Scotland.
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees just one question about the Committees in the Moses Room. I agree with the report of the Select Committee that these are working very well; indeed, I came in today expecting to chair the Committee on Scottish crofting to find that it had finished its deliberations yesterday. I believe that that is an example of the fact that the work is being dealt with expeditiously.
However, I just wonder whether this is the right way to describe it. The report suggests that such Committees should be called "Grand Committees". I have no quarrel with that because I am sure that all Committees of your Lordships' House are grand in the sense that they are distinguished. But is that not rather a grandiloquent title for what is a fairly small but important Committee? Why cannot it be called a "Standing Committee" as similar committees are called in another place?My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees if I also made some comments at this point. He will then be able to answer all observations at the same time. The Select Committee is very bold when it refers to Committees taking place in the Moses Room in subparagraph(2). It suggests that the procedure, "allows all Lords to attend and participate fully".
If noble Lords will cast their minds back to yesterday afternoon when the crofting Bill was being discussed in the Moses Room, it will be remembered that there was also a fairly major debate taking place in this Chamber on a very important topic. That debate was very well attended by a large number of your Lordships. Although we are supposedly very clever people, we do not have the opportunity as yet to be in two places at once. It is rather difficult for a number of noble Lords to attend business in the Chamber and also try to take an interest in what is being discussed in the Moses Room. I should also like to refer to subparagraph (4) of the report which highlights the experiments of the Scottish Select Committees,I believe that that may be a very useful procedure for your Lordships' House. Indeed, where there is a need to take evidence on a Bill, it would be useful for a Select Committee to take evidence prior to consideration in Committee on the Floor of the House. One of the aspects that we all need to bear in mind is something to which I referred last week; namely, the two strengths of your Lordships' House compared with the other place. I refer to the fact that virtually all the business is taken on the Floor of the House; all amendments are discussed; and every Member of your Lordships' House has the opportunity to table amendments and to take part in debates on amendments. One of the problems with the purport of the report is that it pushes this House further down the road of taking business away from the Floor of the House. If we go too far down that road, I fear that we may lose some of the essential strengths of this Chamber compared with the other place. I hope that the remarks that I have made will be taken on board not only by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees—I am sure that he will do so—but also by the Procedure Committee when it comes to consider specific recommendations on how individual items of business should be considered by the whole House."whereby a committee with a fixed membership takes evidence".
My Lords, I should like to raise another point about the Moses Room; namely, that the acoustics are so bad that we need some extra hearing aids to enable us to hear what the Minister says.
My Lords, I speak as one who took part in the Committee in the Moses Room yesterday. I hope that someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Standing Committees in another place are limited as to those who may take part. Our Moses Room Committees—and I shall call them thus for the moment—are not limited. Indeed, any Member of this House can take part. Any Member of this House can table an amendment to a Bill which is being considered by one of those committees, and there is no question that all amendments which are tabled are not considered. There is no guillotine. I do not like the name "Grand Committee" and I have talked with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees about this. In the absence of any more suitable name I suggested Moses Room Committee, but as he pointed out—and I was glad to hear—these Committees will not necessarily invariably be held in the Moses Room in future. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was right to mention the bad acoustics in the Moses Room. In view of that, I should be glad if sometimes they could be held somewhere else. Under the circumstances, for the present we probably should go along with the phrase "Grand Committee".
My Lords, a practical problem has been drawn to my attention in connection with these Moses Room Committees. There is a shortage of trained reporters and there are certain problems with the Official Report. Extra staff have to be drafted in. I merely raise this matter so that consideration might be given to the possibility of increasing the establishment.
My Lords, did the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees note the point made by my noble friend Lord Rodgers about the extremely late sitting on the Police Bill which continued until 2 a.m.? How can that be reconciled with the reminder given by the Select Committee that,
when the example given by my noble friend shows that that limit was exceeded by four hours? The Select Committee also recognised,"whenever possible business should be arranged so as to avoid the need for the House to sit beyond an agreed time, say 10 pm",
Is it not equally true to say that this general support must be matched by a willingness on the part of the Government not to table contentious legislation to be debated within a time-span which is far too short in view of the importance of the matters that are discussed?"that a significant improvement in sitting hours could come only with general support throughout the House".
My Lords, I shall deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It is probably right to say that there are few issues which cause greater controversy and discussion than naming something. The Procedure Committee had some difficulties with that aspect. In fact, the noble Lord will probably know that one of the suggestions made was for them to be called open Committees, but that was objected to for reasons which may well be all too obvious. We settled in the end for the title "Grand Committees". The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, also referred to that matter and to the discussions which she and I had. On the matter of Grand Committees, that name was thought to be in danger of causing confusion with another place where of course, there is a Scottish Grand Committee. However, the feeling was that the two Houses are separate and distinct as regards their committees. Therefore we settled for this name in the absence of anything better. If something absolutely splendid were to emerge, I am sure the Procedure Committee would give the matter further consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, raised the question of proceedings taking place in the Moses Room when major matters are being discussed in this Chamber. If notice were to be given in advance that that was to happen to a considerable extent, I have no doubt at all that, with the helpful discussions which go on between the usual channels, account would be taken of that sort of consideration so as to try to avoid such a situation if at all possible. However, of course the prime purpose of the Procedure Committee in suggesting these reforms, which emerged from Jellicoe and the group of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, on the workings of the House, was to save time in the Chamber. That remains the basic aim. Of course I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has said about that. I am sure that the usual channels will also take note of it. As regards the noble Lord's point about Scottish Select Committees, again I note what he said. I am sure that the usual channels will note what he said. That is an option for particular Bills. It is not the case that every single Scottish Bill to come before your Lordships' House would automatically be dealt with in that way. It would have to be a matter of choice and it would have to depend upon the particular nature of a Bill. It is a permanent option which is available to your Lordships for dealing with these matters. However, it will be used on a selective and carefully discriminating basis. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to a possible shortage of reporters. I am not aware of that but I shall, of course, look into it. If anything needs to be done, I shall ask for the matter to be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, referred to the awkward acoustics in the Moses Room. I agree with him that they are not good. However, some improvement has been made. Complaints have been made about the Moses Room. It is a difficult room from that point of view. Improvements have been made in the acoustics there over the years but I shall look into the matter further and see whether further improvements are possible. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to last night's late sitting. I hesitate to make any predictions but tonight could be another late sitting. We are concerned with another important matter in the Chamber this afternoon. It depends upon the will of the House. That is perfectly clear. The noble Lord fairly pointed out that this is a matter which is referred to in the report of the Procedure Committee which is now before your Lordships. It is the case that some time has been saved by the new procedures which have been introduced. However, again, I am sure that all those of us who have dealings with the Business of the House have noted what he said. Certainly every attempt will be made to avoid that situation. My next point is relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said. I draw attention to the fact that among the procedures suggested to your Lordships by the Procedure Committee is the one about Friday sittings; namely, that those should be used as a means of limiting late nights in the House. Again that is something which will probably be pursued perhaps a little more than it has been in the past. I take note of what the noble Lord has said, and certainly every attempt will be made to meet those desirable ends. I believe I have covered all of the points which have been raised by various noble Lords. I hope that I have done so.On Question, Motion agreed to.
Town And Country Planning (Scotland) Bill Hl
3.28 p.m.
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill or to the other three Bills standing in my name. I also understand that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment to any of the Bills or to speak in Committee on recommitment. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
Planning (Listed Buildings And Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Bill Hl
My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Bill Hl
My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill Hl
My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill Hl
Report received.
Welfare Of Broiler Chickens Bill Hl
Read a third time.
My Lords, in proposing the Motion that the Bill do now pass, I should like to thank all noble Lords who took an interest and a part in the Bill. In particular I thank the Minister for his reaction to our suggestions. I hope that we have now produced a Bill in a form which could be taken up in a later Parliament either in another place or possibly again in your Lordships' House and become an Act. In the meantime, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.32 p.m.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 11 [Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms, ammunition and ancillary equipment]:
moved Amendment No. 33: Page 6, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert—
("(a) which they lawfully had in their possession on or immediately before 16th October 1996; or
(b) which on or before that date they had contracted to acquire and were entitled lawfully to have in their possession,").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 33, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 which stand in my name. I wish to comment briefly on Amendment No. 38 which stands in the name of the Minister, and Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. Before doing so, having not spoken on the Bill before, I should make it clear that I have no personal involvement or interest in handguns. I use a shotgun for sport and some of my farm staff are licensed to carry rifles. By profession I am a chartered surveyor with some involvement in compensation matters, hence my interest in this part of the Bill. I am the father of three children, two of whom are at primary school.
I thank the Minister for her courteous response to letters that I sent her. She well knows my views and some of the reservations that I have on other parts of the Bill. My starting point on compensation under Clause 11 is Lord Cullen's report. With the permission of the Committee, perhaps I may quote from paragraph 9.108:
"No assessment of what should be done would be complete without considering what would be proportionate and just, having regard on the one hand to the scale of risk and on the other the implications of one course of action or another."
At paragraph 9.111 the report continues:
"It is necessary to decide what risk is acceptable, bearing in mind that some risk is an inevitable feature of daily life. Against the risk to society has to be balanced the loss of freedom of the individual and the other implications which 1 mentioned earlier".
It is clear that Lord Cullen felt that it was for Parliament and government to weigh the matters in the balance and that deliberations would be incomplete without a process that he himself felt unable to undertake. I merely add to that by suggesting that the process should be a transparent one with the entire methodology, documentation and basis on which considerations and decisions are made laid open for scrutiny.
I note that paragraph 2(a) of the Money Resolution to the Bill specifically covers,
"property which is surrendered or forfeited under that Act",
meaning this Bill when it becomes an Act, and at paragraph 2(b),
"any other loss which may be incurred as a result of that Act".
So I am surprised at the somewhat narrower view that I discern was taken by the Home Secretary in another place on 4th December last. He made some comments which warrant further scrutiny. At col. 1100 of the Official Report he compared situations where one could say that "on all precedent" compensation should be paid with other situations where "on a proper analysis of the case" it should not. He said that if the effect was to deprive people of property, or the use of it, they should be compensated. I say "Hear, hear" to that.
However, at col. 1101 he sought to distinguish compensation where an individual holds an object which then becomes unlawful or unsaleable from the activities of businesses and clubs which would not be able to be compensated. Yet those bodies also hold equipment, land, buildings and contractual liabilities which, while not necessarily made unlawful by the Bill, are devoted to narrow purposes which effectively may become so, or are unsaleable, worthless or a liability as a direct consequence of the Bill.
The Home Secretary then compared the phasing out or banning of products to the example of how businesses were all subject to the whim of the regulator as an occupational hazard. But he did not cite any comparable instance in which 80 per cent. of a bespoke activity with no alternative function was, on the Government's own estimates, to be discontinued. None of his comparisons are ad idem with the present case. At col. 1102 he concluded with a statement which is worth repeating. I apologise to the Committee for quoting again. He said:
"The Government have a fundamental obligation to protect public safety. It would be a very significant inhibiting factor if, on every occasion that a decision has to be made, the Government were obliged to pay compensation for the business losses that resulted".
With respect, the much larger duty of government is to ensure justice and equity. There is an overarching obligation to act reasonably and with due regard for the actions taken. Government may not act capriciously or to the unreasonable detriment of any individual or group. Without that there is no equitable or sustainable system of law and order in any sense of the term, and certainly no guarantee of public safety arising therefrom. The licensing function of government in relation to firearms and shooting premises is part of that duty and it is impossible, I submit, to ignore the reliance that has been placed by many people on the continuation of that system and the investments that they have made.
The Home Secretary's uniquely narrow interpretation falls a good way short of the principles of fair play that should properly apply. I put it to the Minister that her right honourable friend has used a lesser principle to overrule a much greater one in a manner that I find somewhat untenable. It is indeed a very grave matter to make a statutory assumption that individuals who were licensed and regulated one minute have in the next moment ceased to be fit and proper persons. That is an unprecedented shift of policy especially when based on theoretical public safety arguments in the light of a report that primarily identifies a major regulatory system failure.
In another place on 12th November 1986, the honourable Member for Swansea East referred to cases on human rights— Nold v. Commission, and a business loss case, Lithgow v. United Kingdom. However, there seems to have been no answer to those points which indicates to me that the compensation terms of the Bill may not be entirely well founded. I am no lawyer but I hope that the Minister can enlighten me on that at some stage, although perhaps not today; I did not mention the point in my letter in which I set out in broad terms the issues that I would raise.
I regret that the Government have not seen fit to carry out a public assessment of proportionality and cost benefit as suggested by Lord Cullen. It seems to me that that is one area where they have not gone beyond the terms of Lord Cullen's report but have omitted to undertake a significant part of his recommendation. A large part of the Bill is about economic and personal cost; and proper compensation forms part of that balance.
I have heard various costs mentioned. An official figure of £ 150 million as the total cost seems to have grown from a rather smaller sum in the middle of last year, and far higher figures are voiced at an unofficial level. In another place last week, Miss Ann Widdecombe admitted in a Written Answer that the Government have no real idea how much all this will cost. How on earth is the Committee supposed to deal with a Bill, the consequences of which are in such doubt, when no costed estimates have been placed before us?
From my professional involvement in compensation matters, I well understand and sympathise with the Government's problem: an unreasonable drain on the public purse versus the risk that activities involving handguns, if not the guns themselves, may simply disappear from sight. However, in all such cases the benefit of any reasonable doubt should be given to those whose loss clearly flows from the proposals. Any overriding public safety argument demands nothing less.
On the question of precedent, I discern that there can be few occasions when government reaction to an event, such as the tragedy at Dunblane, results in an accepted and regulated sport, leisure pursuit and, by association, business activity becoming at a stroke so inherently dangerous to the greater public safety that the proposed level of near-total cessation must be procured. If, as it is claimed, the tragedy justifies exceptional measures, then it follows that the circumstances of compensation are also wholly exceptional; and exceptional circumstances set no general precedent.
It is well established in law that there are circumstances when it is proper for compensation to extend not only to those who are directly deprived by law of some property or possession, but also to those whose businesses are affected, or to circumstances where a loss occurs which, but for statute, would have been actionable. Two examples from the compulsory purchase code come to mind. They are "injurious affection", when the capital value of some other property is affected, and "disturbance", where other costs not directly related to property values are involved.
The entitlement to compensation where no land is taken where a property is adversely affected by certain physical factors such as noise, artificial light and so on is provided for in Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973. Highways legislation also provides for compensation for loss or damage in certain circumstances arising out of highway works. Last year a private water undertaking paid compensation to three of my clients (and my fees) for pure business losses following a temporary closure of the A.24.
Basic human rights demand proper compensation, particularly when the proposals go beyond what Lord Cullen recommended. We are not considering some shady activity such as cock fighting, even less the "holy water shops" referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but an honourable sport of centuries-old standing regulated by government.
On what grounds do the Government distinguish the situation of a householder or business adversely affected by, let us say, a new bypass from that of a gun club whose operation is forced to close as a result of the withdrawal of its licence and the banning of the guns which make its very existence possible? Is not this summary and premature removal by law of a privilege by rescinding a licence obtained and paid for in good faith by the applicant, a law-abiding citizen, somewhat different from the norms of phasing out defective products, outlawing harmful substances or banning the use of potentially dangerous upholstery material, to name but three? Further, were there not perfectly acceptable alternatives in each case? I am afraid that I do not follow the Government's logic.
There are compelling reasons why compensation provisions should be fair and seen to be fair. The tragedy of Dunblane and the haste on the part of the Government to act cannot justify parsimony or risk a bitter legacy of shabby treatment in some other direction, even less give reason for avenging 18 deaths by exacting retribution from more than 50, 000 other admittedly innocent people. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Nor do I accept the Government's position that there is no precedent for compensation for business losses, losses from clubs or indeed consequential losses. The example of CJD was quoted; however, I prefer the analogy of the phasing in of the national non-domestic rate and the period allowed for the upgrading of abattoirs, when time was given to meet the additional commitment. Handguns are no different. The logical consequence of denying that and insisting on immediate withdrawal—I stress the immediacy angle—is nothing more nor less than full compensation.
Amendment No. 33 is designed to ferret out the meaning of the formulae of the words in the Bill, "by virtue of firearm certificates", and the analogous term,
"by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers".
To what extent will firearms and ammunition be treated as "by virtue" in these contexts and, more to the point, at what juncture will the same articles be treated otherwise? The same formula of words also appears in subsection (7) in reference to ancillary equipment. I therefore take the opportunity to ask the same questions in relation to that.
This amendment would establish the material fact leading to compensation; namely, lawful ownership of a gun on 16th October 1996 howsoever that lawful ownership arose. But my purpose is to uncover a wider range of issues.
I understand that certain types of ammunition have a use in particular circumstances of competition and may be usable in rifles or pistols. It may be termed dual purpose ammunition. If such ammunition is possessed but used only in a pistol, is it held by virtue of a licence or not? If a dealer stands possessed of spares for pistol repairs which could be assembled to make up further weapons, what is the position regarding those? I could point to other anomalies, including the hiatus that appears to arise over compensation if, for instance, a club where a gun is held cannot, after a period of trying to do so, perhaps due to the costs and process of upgrading its security provisions, stay in business thus preventing it legally holding firearms and necessitating their surrender to the police but perhaps outside the period provided for in the surrender and compensation scheme. What happens then?
Amendment No. 34 endeavours to provide for the assessment of compensation by reference to a date prior to the day when an effect on the market for firearms could have occurred as a result of news and media coverage of the Dunblane incident and the initial response to it of politicians and the public. There are such precedents in the world of compensation theory and practice in which the effect on market values of the events that lead up to the circumstances of compensation are to be eliminated from the calculation. That serves to prevent manifest injustice to compensation claimants and eliminates the risk of the compensating body manipulating the circumstances of compensation so as to procure an unfairly low basis for payment. I do not suggest that the Government have that in mind; however, it is one matter that has developed over the years as a proper way of dealing with compensation. So if, for instance, a date for the Home Secretary's announcement is chosen, I should think that by that time—other noble Lords with more knowledge will be able to tell the Committee—the market will be non-existent. It will be very difficult to assess the value of any handgun on the basis of such a date and there may be unfairness in settling values. I invite the Minister's comments on that point also.
Amendment No. 35 sets out to explore the extent of the ancillary equipment which will rank for compensation. I have in mind the handgun enthusiast who makes his own ammunition and for that sole purpose may have some specialist manufacturing equipment. What of that equipment and any spare parts held; or of cleaning and maintenance tools, the secure carrying case, the target papers, sighting scope, holster and competition sights? Will those also rank for compensation? Will they qualify as ancillary equipment, or merely the gun itself and the ammunition, amounting perhaps to a fraction of the total value of the equipment held by an individual?
Amendment No. 36 seeks to address those items that are lawfully held but may not need to be on a licence as such or even specifically mentioned on it, but which become inadvertently or deliberately unlawful or obsolete by virtue of the operation of the Bill when it becomes law. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten me on that point as well.
There should be seen to be no expropriation in the compensation provisions of this Bill. It should cover all matters where loss can be shown to be attributable to its provisions. The courts are well able to determine cause and effect in these special circumstances. Noble Lords may take issue with the wording of my amendment but it gives me an opportunity to voice very real fears.
I have little to say on the amendments of other noble Lords. In connection with Amendment No. 38, which is grouped with mine, I shall have to hear what the noble Baroness has to say. I wonder when we shall see the details of the scheme referred to in that amendment. For precisely the reasons that the Minister gave last Thursday on the matter of the referral of Clause 6, I believe that the details of the compensation scheme should be known, discussed and approved by the time the Bill is law and comes into force. I strongly support the sentiments behind Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
I have a few further questions. Does the Minister not agree that there should be some recognition of the consequential losses and problems caused to clubs and businesses as a result of this far-reaching Bill and its quite exceptional circumstances? Does she agree that there should be relief from all non-domestic rates for property used by businesses which are forced to close? This is, after all, a property tax. Does she not agree that there should be grants towards the cost of obtaining planning consent for change of use of gun club premises forced to close? Does she agree that there should be some tax relief, the ability to write off capital allowances in this and previous years and other measures to mitigate the effects of ongoing liabilities? Does she also agree that there should be special assistance to help with redundancy payments where businesses and clubs are forced to close?
All these are matters which are crucial to fair play, honesty and the up-front way in which a Bill such as this should be dealt with. I beg to move.
It seems that all these amendments are to be spoken to together; I shall therefore speak on Amendment No. 40. It has long been recognised that Parliament does not expropriate private property without compensating those affected. Yet the plight of small businesses in the gun trade which will be put out of business by the Bill has been ignored by the Government. Payment for stock is one thing; loss of a business, with no proposal by the Government to compensate, is quite another.
The trade faces serious financial hardship but the Bill provides no compensation for the substantial loss of value to businesses which the Bill will cause. Compensation provisions should apply to people severely hurt by the devaluation of assets other than the banned guns and their accessories. Compensation is offered for stock but not for loss of business. Many dealers will lose their livelihoods as a result of the Bill. This is not just an occupational hazard; it is a sudden imposition of law that will take away such a large amount of trade that an enterprise could become non-viable. Loss of employment within the industry is another serious consequence of the Bill. Returns from 163 dealers show an estimated loss of 155 jobs. That, if reflected across the whole 3, 000 businesses, implies job losses of some 3,000. I am sure that the Bill will have a devastating effect on a significant minority of people. Natural justice requires that those people are entitled to receive proper compensation for assets which are confiscated through no fault of their own. Many have given personal guarantees on leases which they have signed and which they will have to meet over the years. These businesses cannot easily diversify. What alternative use will there be for a purpose-built shooting range once the Bill has taken 80 per cent. of legally held guns out of circulation? Some businesses will have been financed by personal guarantees, with terrible consequences for the guarantor. At Report stage in another place the Home Secretary said that, so far as he was aware, there was no precedent for paying claims for business losses which occurred as a result of Government legislation. He ignores the compensation given to farmers, as my noble friend mentioned, as a result of BSE regulations. Farmers were able to carry on farming with other enterprises. He ignores the £ 118 million offered to the rendering industry. He ignores the precedent established in Australia earlier this year, a Commonwealth country with a similar legal system and whose case law is often cited as a precedent before the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords. The Australian Prime Minister, during the passage of legislation on the prohibition of rifles and guns, said that the Government had a duty to pay fair and proper compensation, including compensation to gun dealers who had suffered a loss of value to their hitherto lawful businesses. The following principles were to apply to dealers for loss of business: compensation was to be available to any dealer whose business included sale, repair or importation of firearms; such dealers were to arrange prescribed and certified valuation of loss and were to recover reasonable cost of valuation; and they were to accept the valuation which would be subject to audit. There were a considerable number of other conditions and requirements. The Australians have now found that the generous compensation to owners for the withdrawal of automatic weapons is costing far more than anticipated, as will be the case here. Perversely, the compensation is being used to legally purchase bolt-action and lever-action guns which can fire almost as fast as automatics. As a rapid-fire marksman in the Army myself, I can testify to the possible accuracy of high-speed shooting. Similarly, once pistols have been withdrawn here, at great cost to the nation, no doubt keen marksmen in this country will purchase other weapons which they are allowed to keep and so maintain their sport in some other way although they will not necessarily be able to use the same ranges. The proposed expenditure will not therefore have much effect. The mass-murder tragedies have each taken place with a different weapon: New South Wales with a rifle; Middlesbrough with a knife; Sullivan with a flame-thrower; Wolverhampton with a machete; and Monkseaton with a shotgun. There remain chainsaws, pitchforks, poison, petrol bombs, swerving into a queue with a motor car, explosion and other weapons including, incidentally, a cricket bat. In only one of those tragedies was a pistol used. There are as many ways of committing mass murder as there are holes in a sieve. Today it has been reported that a baby was stabbed in its pram. To withdraw legally held pistols cannot do more than scratch the surface of the problem of mass murder. It does not begin to stop another tragedy with an illegally held pistol. It is like stopping one hole in a sieve, at a cost of perhaps £500 million to the country, while leaving all the other methods of mass murder unaffected. It is an expensive but purely cosmetic exercise to satisfy an understandable emotion, as a result of which a large number of businesses will be bankrupted. My amendment gives the Government the opportunity to say how the buy-in will contribute to stopping further attacks by any of the other weapons available: shotguns, rifles, chainsaws and so on. If they can justify the expenditure of some £500 million for a useless confiscation, how can they justify not paying compensation for business losses? It may be inappropriate for this House to suggest increased expenditure on compensating dealers, which is a matter for the other place, but it cannot be wrong to tell the other place that it is wasting money in the first place. Perhaps the Government can explain how the reduction in the number of legally held pistols affects the prospects of another mass murder with an illegally held pistol, there being about four of them to every legally held one. There is all this cost, distress and damage to plug just one hole in the sieve. It is not more legislation that is needed but proper application of the existing law. If innocent gun dealers and range owners are to be gratuitously distressed, they should at least be adequately compensated.4 p.m.
My noble friend Lord Swansea has agreed that I should move Amendment No. 39, which deals with compensation for clubs and associations. I begin by declaring an interest as the current chairman of the Firearms Consultive Committee.
I firmly believe that the present plans will lead to gross injustice. Many of the worst hit by the Bill will be ordinary club members who have pitched together to run their clubs or ranges. Many of these individuals will remain liable for long-term mortgages and leases for clubs and ranges which will be forced to close by this Bill. A survey of 139 clubs showed that 71 per cent. of those clubs will not reach the Government's requirements for security. They will have to close, making an otherwise valuable asset worthless. It will leave many people bankrupt. The Government must put that right. A return from 126 clubs shows that they are expected to suffer financial losses as a result of the changes to the tune of £31.24 million in total. On the basis of 2, 067 clubs, the total loss will therefore be over £64 million. The worst hit in the case of clubs will be individuals such as those who have given personal guarantees. In many cases, that responsibility has been undertaken without any commercial consideration or personal gain. I turn to a matter touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. The European Court of Human Rights has stated:these are exceptional circumstances, I suppose—"The taking of property in the public interest without any compensation is justifiable only in exceptional circumstances"—
That quotation comes from Lithgow v. United Kingdom in 1986. I welcome the fact that the Government have acknowledged that the cost of this operation will be higher than the original offer from the Treasury of £25 million to £50 million. As we all know, it has risen from that figure to £150 million. The Government originally proposed to offer the market value of banned guns prior to the announcement of the Government's intention to legislate. I believe that they have since been advised by their lawyers that they are obliged to include ancillary equipment, which will have no value once the gun to which it relates is banned. The FCC has been consulted on that issue, although not entirely in this context. We need to learn from the Australian experience. It offers an insight into what can be expected in the United Kingdom. In Victoria state alone, 14 collection sites were set up. The weekly destruction of guns will continue until the end of the year, as only 10 per cent. of the total weapons expected under the amnesty have been destroyed. The crunch comes in that the Premier of Victoria, Jeff Kennett, has already criticised the federal government for not providing enough money to run the firearms buy-back scheme. He said that the compensation payments in general and the disposal of surrendered weapons was costing more than expected. That, I think, must be fairly obvious. Those responsible for administering the scheme are now having to face those real practical problems, as the government will have to do. The Victorian Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Bill McGrath, has summarised the feeling among his colleagues:"A fair balance has to be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the protection of the individual's fundamental rights. A disproportionate burden should not be placed on individual owners".
We seem to have heard that sentiment echoed in this Chamber. I and many others feel very strongly indeed that the Government should correct this injustice. I urge my noble friend to accept this amendment. Let me give just one example of many. Dave Richardson of the 10th Battalion Suffolk Home Guard Rifle and Pistol Club in Sudbury writes:"The whole thing was done in too much haste and there was not enough proper thought".
I urge the Minister to try to accept this amendment. A great injustice is being done to those who will suffer loss, as has been described over the past few minutes by a number of noble Lords. I commend the amendment."We've just taken out a £6, 000 loan. We own the freehold, about 6 acres or so … We've just rebuilt the club house and installed a new 11 kva automatic generator. The 3 main ranges are all equipped with electro-magnetic turning targets. We consider the complex before the legislation to have been worth £200,000+ and it is now effectively worthless".
If the Committee adds Amendment No. 39 to the Bill, we shall be able to build on what has already been achieved for pistol shooting. We should bear in mind that in another place the Government have already undertaken to give compensation for ancillary equipment used by the larger calibre revolvers. That is the equipment mostly used by the hand loaders. Some of it is extremely expensive. It has been a great relief to many people to know that that compensation is agreed. It is also agreed that someone who owns a .22 rimfire pistol, which will be legal in future, but can no longer find a pistol range which is still operative in his own area, will be entitled to receive compensation.
Amendment No. 39 in particular deals not so much with compensation but with a fair and just payment for what amounts to confiscation. If someone's livelihood has been removed and that person has been injuriously affected, the principles of compulsory purchase apply 100 per cent. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury has already quoted the statement from the European Court of Human Rights. In another place the Government argued that many legislative actions do not necessarily justify compensation. Cars which fail the MoT test were mentioned. If one buys a cheap car, one accepts the risk that it will probably fail the MoT test in the not too distant future. Fire precautions were mentioned. Many boarding houses receive substantial grants from tourist boards and other development authorities towards updating their fire precautions and noise abatement arrangements. The point is that people with a car or a boarding house that suffered a fire or a factory with noise level requirements all have the option of continuing their business in a modified form. The pistol shooters have no option because their ranges are confiscated. There is one other helpful thing that the noble Baroness could do or might be encouraged to say today. I believe that many of these ranges need not be compensated for if, rather than the ranges themselves being fortified so that the .22 pistols can be kept there, the guns are allowed to be kept at the premises of the local gun dealers. Many of them own the ranges and their premises are already fortified and up to standard. Without that concession, we are in fact confiscating a very large number of facilities for which people deserve full and proper compensation.Let me raise two small points on the issue of compensation for weapons. We might perhaps obtain some enlightenment on the subject.
A club may feel that it should try to remain open and comply with the new regulations. But planning may well take a considerable time and finally be turned down; or perhaps after some considerable time there may be another reason why it would not be able to carry on. Eventually, surely, the members of that club will not be able to get any compensation for their weapons because the period of time will have expired. I wonder whether that is fair. There is also the question of who will do the valuation for the weapons when they come in and how long it will take. I suspect that that may take quite a considerable time. I feel that this matter should be looked at.I should like, somewhat anticlimactically, to speak to my Amendments Nos. 81 and 82, which find themselves in this enormous grouping, before I turn to the somewhat more important amendment, Amendment No. 40.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 is to ensure that owners of .22 pistols, who find that they have to surrender them because their clubs cannot afford the extremely expensive security systems that the Bill will oblige them to install, are compensated at market value in the same way as owners of larger bore pistols will be compensated. It is true that the Home Secretary has apparently said that they will be compensated on an ex gratia basis and, what is more, at market value. But it is surely more normal and proper to write such a guarantee formally into the Bill. Furthermore, I understand that nothing has been said so far about compensation for accessories for those .22 pistols, accessories which in some instances may have cost more than the pistol itself. So I look to the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, for cast iron guarantees on proper compensation for both .22 pistols and their accessories. Without minimising in any way the undoubted merits of Amendments Nos. 31 to 36, so brilliantly moved by my noble friend Lord Lytton, I turn to Amendment No. 40. On 24th October of last year in her winding-up speech at the end of the first day's debate on the gracious speech, referring specifically to the proposed firearms Bill which a number of the speakers had mentioned, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, stated categorically:note the word "both"—"We shall compensate both"—
That official pronouncement has only one possible meaning, notably that the Government undertake to compensate dealers not only in their capacity as owners—that goes without saying, of course they would do that—but also other than in their capacity as owners. The statement would otherwise make no sense whatsoever. It would be as tautological as saying in another hypothetical context: "We intend to ban both motor vehicles and pick-up trucks". That would be an absolute nonsense, since the first embraces the second. From time to time most of us make off-the-cuff assertions which cannot later be sustained—Ministers, by the nature of their heavy workload, more so than most of us—but this is not one of those occasions. The speech which concentrated most upon firearms finished one hour and 20 minutes before the statement of the noble Baroness regarding compensation for dealers, so clearly civil servants had vetted it and may even have drafted it. For this reason I believe that the Government have a constitutional as well as a moral obligation to compensate dealers for the collapse of their businesses through no fault of their own."owners and dealers".—[Official Report, 24/10/96; col. 98.]
I have my name down to Amendment No. 40 with my noble friend Lord Gisborough. I should like to speak to that amendment, although I say first of all that I have very considerable sympathy for Amendment No. 39 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea.
I start by saying that I agree with my noble friend Lord Kimball when he welcomes the fact that the Government have introduced increased compensation for certain aspects of firearms and accessories. We very much welcome that but, as other noble Lords have already said, there is no shadow of doubt that this Bill is going to bring great hardship and great difficulty to many businesses. I appreciate that this is a very difficult subject and the rules, if indeed there are any, are blurred. To what extent the Government should be responsible for compensation to businesses due to direct legislation is in fact an extremely difficult point, and I understand the Government's problems. I understand the difficulties we have in trying to reach a compromise on this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, gave some very good examples, as he would, being a thoroughly professional person who understands these things in a way that I certainly do not. I was very much taken by some of the examples that the noble Earl gave. However, it is fair to say that, generally speaking, in the past when businesses have been closed down for whatever reason they have had time to adjust. In this case gun trades and gun businesses have had no opportunity whatsoever to do so. It is a simple fact that so far as many are concerned there will be no product and, indeed, there will be no customer. We cannot lose sight of that fact. It has been argued that businesses which will suffer from the outlawing of large calibre handguns will find alternative markets, switching to .22 calibre weapons. This is extremely unlikely, for two main reasons. First, the security regulations attached to new licensed clubs will deter many potential members. Secondly, there are likely to be many fewer clubs because of the expense of having to comply with these new regulations. I have declared an interest during the course of this Bill on a number of occasions in that I am president of the Gun Trade Association. I attended a meeting in Birmingham before the Bill came before your Lordships' House and I have spoken to many of these people whose businesses are going to suffer under this Bill—real people, not just fictitious names, but people who are genuinely going to suffer from this Bill. There are businesses that have been built up over years, in some cases over generations. They find it quite incredible that their very livelihoods can be affected in such a way, affected, as they see it, by a madman and by a system that failed purely because the existing law was not adhered to, through no fault of their own. I am bound to say that they find it equally incredible that they will suffer through what they perceive as hasty legislation, with no consultation and no time to make any adjustment, as I said earlier. Also, they find it quite extraordinary that a learned Lord's studious recommendations on this particular matter have been ignored. We must not lose sight of the fact that, in addition to straightforward business activities, there are mortgages and loans which will have to be met. These will have a heavy bearing on a number of people. Precedent or no precedent, I believe that we have to look at every single case in its entirety. This is a different case, and I firmly believe that given the circumstances in which we find ourselves we have a moral obligation to help these people. I wholeheartedly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Gisborough.4.15 p.m.
I, too, have put my name to Amendment No. 40 and, like the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I have considerable sympathy with other amendments dealing with compensation to pistol owners and to clubs. However, as I made perfectly clear in my Second Reading speech, I am no expert in these matters; nor, indeed, do I represent any interest. What I do know is that over the past days and weeks I have received shoals of letters from perfectly ordinary people who are concerned about their sport and the losses that they will incur personally and that their businesses will incur as a result of this legislation, which I believe to be considerably unjust. That is why I have taken an interest. I am not a shooter, as I said; I never have been a shooter and I am never likely to be a shooter.
What I am concerned about, and what every other Member of this House should be concerned about, is that legislation should be just and it should be fair. This legislation is neither. It was conceived in haste and it was cobbled together in response to a campaign based on emotion; it was understandable emotion, but nevertheless it was based on emotion rather than on logic, fairness and rationality. That is why I believe we should have given a lot more consideration to this in the House of Commons and in this House. Indeed, the Government should have given it a lot more consideration over a much longer period of time before they brought it to Parliament in the first place. There has been no time and little effort has been made to consult with those who will be most hurt financially by this Bill by the loss of value of their pistols, by the bankruptcy of their clubs and, worst of all, the loss of businesses and, with the businesses, jobs. We ought all to be concerned—indeed, we are all concerned—about the loss of business and the loss of jobs. The suggested compensation arrangements, as far as they are known, will be grossly inadequate. They will be tantamount, as some other noble Lords have mentioned, in some respects to simple confiscation. I find that odd coming from a Conservative Government. It would not come from a Labour Government. I am sure that Members of the Committee opposite will have that point very much in mind. I cannot believe that the people of Dunblane or the newspapers which have campaigned for this legislation would want, in addition to the severe restriction of the sport of pistol shooting, to see people's assets slashed, their businesses destroyed and gunsmiths thrown onto the unemployment scrapheap. We have to come back to the fact that Dunblane was the result of the actions of a madman who would not have possessed legally held firearms but for the neglect and misjudgment of a senior policeman. We must keep on making the point that it was not the guns that killed; it was the man who pulled the trigger who killed and had the intention to kill. We must never forget that. Can it really be the action of a democratic society as a result of those actions of that madman, that ordinary, decent law-abiding citizens should be disadvantaged in every possible way, especially since they have not been consulted and the Bill has been rushed through the House of Commons—indeed, rushed into print—without proper consideration? I think it is extraordinary that I, as a Labour Member—and not a "new Labour" Member but a straight Labour Member to boot—should have to nag and chivvy a Conservative Government to pay proper compensation to the very sort of people whom one would expect the Government to support. I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will take account of everything that has been said. Although I believe that the Bill is awful and unjust, I hope that the Government will at least agree to pay compensation—proper and adequate compensation—to all those who are being and will be disadvantaged by it.I should like to support all the amendments in this grouping except for the amendments in the name of my noble friend the Minister. I refer in particular to Amendments Nos. 39 and 40, which deal with compensation.
There is one other aspect about compensation in this matter which has not been fully touched on. It is generally agreed that compensation is paid when an Act of Parliament results in the public good; for instance, when a road which the public may require has been put through one's property, or whatever. But there is a growing realisation all over the country, in your Lordships' House and, I understand, in the other place, that the Bill will not achieve its aim of saving lives or of preventing another terrible tragedy such as Dunblane. In those circumstances, the pistol shooters do not want compensation. They will want to go on with their sport. No amount of compensation can recompense them for what the Bill will deprive them of. Therefore, if these pistol shooters—these thousands of people—are forced to take compensation, it must be unusually generous. That is thanks to this most unusually bad and flawed Bill.Before responding to the amendments in this group on the Marshalled List in the names of various noble Lords, if they will forgive me, too numerous to mention, it may help the Committee if I turn first to my own amendments, Amendments Nos. 37 and 38, and outline the arrangements the Government propose for compensation.
The Government are committed to paying compensation at a fair market value, as at before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's announcement—repeated in this House—on 16th October, to people who hold firearm certificates for the higher-calibre handguns which the Bill will prohibit. To qualify for compensation an owner will have to have held his firearm on a firearms' certificate or have held it by virtue of being a registered firearms' dealer, or have been contracted to acquire his or her gun on 16th October, and to surrender it to the police. Owners will be able to choose between three compensation options. First, there will be a basic flat rate figure which an owner may claim for each high-calibre handgun he surrenders, whatever its make, age or condition. Secondly, we are discussing with the British Shooting Sports Council the preparation of a list of values for the most commonly held types of handgun. These figures will be higher than the basic compensation figure and owners who hand in a gun of one of these types will be able to claim that value. Thirdly, there will be owners whose guns do not fit within these arrangements or who want to obtain their own valuation. We intend that those who wish to will be able to submit valuations which they themselves have obtained. In cases of dispute there will be recourse to a second independent valuation of the gun. Owners will also be entitled to compensation on a similar market value basis for ammunition, including expanding ammunition, which the Bill would prevent them from owning, and for accessories and other ancillary equipment which they own and which has no use other than in connection with prohibited higher-calibre handguns. We are discussing with the British Shooting Sports Council what these accessories will be and their values. The details are not fixed yet but examples might be reloading equipment for cartridges, specialised holsters and spare parts. There will also be ex-gratia payments—separate from the compensation scheme—for shooters who own .22 rimfire and other small-calibre handguns which will not become prohibited by the Bill but which the Bill will require to be kept in licensed pistol clubs. Owners who cannot find a club to keep their pistol in, or who choose not to join a club, will be able to claim an ex-gratia payment for their gun. But this will, as I say, be separate from the statutory compensation scheme. The Government have listened to the concerns raised earlier during the passage of the Bill, both by noble Lords and in another place, about the nature of the compensation scheme which is needed on this occasion. We have decided that the scheme should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 standing in my name will enable parliamentary oversight to be given to the scheme. A previous scheme introduced following the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 to compensate owners who surrendered their semi-automatic rifles was not subject to parliamentary scrutiny but nevertheless was successful, with most owners receiving a fair rate within a reasonable timescale. A later scheme in 1992 and 1993 made payments to people who surrendered disguised firearms—for instance, walking stick guns—after these had become prohibited, except for collectors, following the Firearms (Amendment) Regulations 1992. This too was successful in terms of fair payments being made in good time. But it was similarly not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State would lay the scheme in draft form before this House and another place. The scheme could not be made until approved by a resolution of this House and by a resolution in another place. This provision would not affect the principles of the compensation arrangements. The current Clause 11 of the Bill sets out those things for which compensation will be payable. Both in this House and in another place very full consideration has been given to this issue, and we have explained why the Government have decided that compensation should be paid for weapons, ammunition and other ancillary equipment. This amendment will enable the details of the scheme to be fully considered by Parliament before it comes into effect.4.30 p.m.
I believe it is all to the good that the draft scheme should be brought before both Houses. Can the noble Baroness say whether the scheme will be amendable? That is the important point. Will it be amendable by one or by both Houses?
My understanding of the procedures for discussing orders that come before the House is that it can reject or accept them. Any influence that is brought to bear takes place during the consultation period. The House can reject a scheme and then it would be for the government of the day to go away and reconsider the details.
In fact the House would have to take an H-bomb to the matter if they want to bring back another scheme. Is there no way in which we can have a draft scheme brought before the House which we can discuss and amend?
As far as I know there is not an official mechanism for amending a scheme. There will be a draft scheme laid before the House and there will be an opportunity for people to pray in aid against it. I have to be advised by the usual channels. I am no expert in parliamentary procedures, but to my knowledge it is not possible to amend an order in this House. I am receiving an affirmative nod from the Clerk at the Table.
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but maybe I missed it or she is about to get to the point. I would particularly like to know when the scheme is going to be laid before Parliament.
I am unable to say. I know the particular concern that the noble Earl posed when he was speaking to his amendments that he would like the scheme to be laid before the House before this Bill completes its progress through both Houses. I promise that I shall come back as soon as possible after this stage of the Bill is completed with some idea of what the timescale will be. I cannot be definitive at this moment.
Does my noble friend understand that she is therefore asking us to accept this Bill without knowing what the terms of compensation will be? That adds insult to injury owing to the fact that we shall not even know what the terms will be for the security of gun club premises. We are told that 71 per cent. of the clubs will be put out of business; but there may be many more. We are being asked to take so much on trust. It is very difficult to proceed if we do not have information on these two vital areas as to what the security arrangements are going to be and what the compensation will be.
A good deal of information is available to my noble friend which has been put on the record more than once—that is to say, the market value from a particular date will be the base for payment. The categories of items that will be compensated for are subject to amendment. We have many amendments before the Committee today. There will be an order and a full debate in the House. Both Houses will have the opportunity to accept or reject the terms of the compensation arrangements. I can say no more than that. There is not another mechanism other than during the consultation process and/or at the time of considering the order when both this House and another place will have an opportunity to have their say.
Can my noble friend say whether there are plans to compensate those people who have, for example, committed themselves to long leases?
They are not included in the compensation scheme as I have set it out. Again, there are a number of amendments and that particular point is explicit in some of them. I cannot pre-empt the outcome of today's business. It is a matter to be determined by the Committee.
I now turn to the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, which would remove the precise terms in Clause 11 which specify that the persons eligible for payments should be firearm certificate holders or registered firearms dealers. I am not sure that I see any benefit in removing this fair and, I would argue, reasonable qualifying criteria if the Government are to make substantial payments to the persons concerned. Those people whose firearm certificates may have expired since 16th October and who hold their high calibre pistols temporarily on a Section 7 permit will still meet the laid down criteria and will qualify for compensation. Amendment No. 35 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, which removes the wording "firearms prohibited" from Clause 11 (5)(a) in favour of the phrase "any firearms" would bring ancillary equipment belonging to the owners of small calibre pistols into the compensation scheme, which is the intention of the noble Earl. Point 22 pistols will not be banned and the Government have taken the view, and gone to some lengths in this Bill, to ensure that .22 pistol shooting can continue to take place in conditions of safety. Unlike accessories for high calibre handguns, therefore, .22 accessories will continue to have a use. There will continue to be a market for them both for gun dealers and for individuals who give up .22 shooting, but have accessories which they would wish to get rid of. The last of the noble Earl's amendments, Amendment No. 34, introduces the earlier date of 11th March 1996 immediately prior to Dunblane, as the date to assess market values for the purposes of the compensation scheme. The Government cannot be held responsible for fluctuations in a market over which they have no direct control. The Bill specifically refers to 16th October because this is the date of the Government's response to Lord Cullen's report, and that must be right. Perhaps I may refer to a point made by a number of Members of the Committee about precedents and whether there were any on the statute book. We have found no examples of compensation being paid for loss of business resulting from legislation. Examples of legislation leading to loss of business, for which no compensation was paid, include the Marine, & c, Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967. That outlawed off-shore private radio. There was also the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, which prohibited self-loading rifles, pump action shotguns and a number of other items of weaponry. Compensation was paid to owners of prohibited guns, but not to businesses. Cattle head de-boners and the specified bovine material order of 29th March 1996, which is fairly recent, prevented meat from the heads of slaughtered cattle being sold for public consumption. That has done considerable damage to the industry, as we all know, which processed cattle heads. No compensation was made in that case and neither was there any time to adjust to that change. I make that point to my noble friend Lord Peel. Other examples of Government action leading to loss of business without compensation included the banning of the use of hormones in red meat in 1988 under EC legislation and the banning of products such as drugs or pesticides on health and safety grounds. I now move on to Amendment No. 39 in the names of my noble friends Lord Gisborough, Lord Swansea and Lord Shrewsbury, which deals with compensation for clubs and businesses. The Government will put in place arrangements which will allow clubs to continue to shoot small calibre .22 rimfire pistols under Home Office or Scottish Office licence. We hope that we shall have the co-operation of the shooting community in making that work. Unfortunately, it may be that some existing clubs will not be able to take advantage of these arrangements. If so, that is a matter of regret. Clubs will be eligible for compensation for prohibited handguns and accessories under the terms of the Government compensation scheme, which we will lay before your Lordships' House. As I have already said, it will be a complete departure from precedent and one which we could not support, for the taxpayer to be asked to meet losses of this kind which were attributed to the prohibition of handguns. Perhaps I may say as an aside at this point to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that I have not detected in anything which has been said here or in another place by the official Labour Party Front Bench that they would have been more generous or generous at all, beyond what has been agreed in terms of compensation in this Bill or in any other Bill. For the record, that is my retort to the point made by the noble Lord. I am aware of the great strength of feeling on the subject of compensation for business losses which will result from the implementation of the Bill. Firearms dealers who surrender prohibited handguns and specified ancillary equipment will be able to apply for compensation for them under the terms of the Government's compensation scheme on the same basis as private owners if they owned them, or were contracted to acquire them as at 16th October last. Amendment No. 40 would go further than this. It would have the Government pay compensation to dealers not simply for losses of property but also for business losses which were attributed to the prohibition on higher-calibre handguns. I regret to tell my noble friend that the Government cannot accede to that proposition. The Government have not been, and cannot be, liable for business which may be lost by companies when they introduce regulation in the interests of public safety. It is one of the overriding duties of the Government to protect the safety of the public. Thomas Hamilton's terrible crime made it inevitable that there would be further changes in the way in which guns were controlled in this country. Lord Cullen in his very thorough report made that abundantly clear.I am obliged to my noble friend for giving way. If these guns are to be withdrawn for reasons of public safety, surely it would be only fair to withdraw fire extinguishers and other objects like that.
4.45 p.m.
Everything is a matter of balance. Noble Lords will have different views about what constitutes public safety and when the Government should intervene, but in responding to this particular incident there are many different views as to where the line should be drawn in terms of public safety. For what it is worth, the Government have drawn a line which is well known, and that is the subject of our debate today.
Strong recommendations were made about the control of hand-guns. But Lord Cullen said—and the Government entirely respect his stance—that the question of whether handguns would be available was one for Parliament and not for a judge to decide. The Government have taken a view on this fundamental question and they have been supported in another place. It would be a very significant inhibiting factor if on those occasions when the Government were obliged to legislate in the interests of public safety they were obliged to pay for business losses which were thought likely to result from it. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has made clear in another place, there have been many occasions when public safety legislation has been introduced which affects businesses—for example, in the fields of transport, medicines, chemicals or pollution, and compensation for business loss has not been paid. If the practice of many, many years was to be changed, such an onerous requirement on the Government of the day would seriously inhibit the passing of safety legislation. We intend to pay fair compensation to dealers for lost stock. But, in declining to compensate also for business loss, the Government are following the precedent of many years. Much as we regret the difficulties which many firearms dealers may face—I do not take issue with my noble friends on the examples that have been given—I believe that this is the right course for the Government to take, and I urge noble Lords to reject the amendment. Finally, I turn to the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I do not believe that the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 add to the present arrangements under which we propose to compensate the owners of small calibre pistols who choose to surrender them to the police rather than join a licensed pistol club. We fully intend that these people shall receive fair payment for their guns based on market value as at 16th October last, the date of the Government's Statement to the House on Lord Cullen's Report. We do not know how many of the small calibre pistol owners will choose to surrender their guns. We intend that the payments they receive should be ex gratia rather than being made under the terms of the statutory compensation scheme envisaged by Clause 11 of the Bill. But I can assure the House that they will be treated as favourably as people who surrender their prohibited higher calibre guns. Perhaps I may deal with one or two particular points that have been made. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to a matter that was not included in his correspondence. I take this opportunity to thank him very much for the way in which he has shared some of his concerns because it facilitates debate on these matters. I refer to the issue in Lithgow v. United Kingdom which was dealt with before the European Court of Human Rights. The Government consider that their proposals meet the requirements of the European convention in relation to the expropriation of property. The court held that a "fair balance" had to be struck when property was expropriated. The Government propose to pay compensation at market value. We believe that that meets the requirement for a fair balance. As I understand it, this case was not about business losses. My noble friend Lord Kimball posed a question about guns for gun clubs being held on secure dealers' premises. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that that is the subject of Amendment No. 42. For that reason, I believe that it is wrong to deal with it while discussing this group of amendments. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the distinction between owners and dealers. The use of the word "dealer" carries no implication that business losses would be paid. The Firearms Act distinguishes between firearm certificate holders and dealers in many aspects of the law. I believe that it would mislead the Committee if I said that compensation would be paid only to gun owners. I urge the Committee to accept the two government amendments, although I appreciate that not all noble Lords agree with them. But it must be for other noble Lords to consider whether any of the amendments in this group are pressed.Before my noble friend sits down, can she give the Committee a broad idea of the total amount of compensation that is likely to be payable under the Government's proposals and how much more compensation would have to be paid under the proposals put forward by my noble friends?
The ballpark figure that the Government have in mind at the moment is £150 million. As to the latter sum, I cannot hazard a guess other than that it will be very considerable. No quantification has been made of the degree to which businesses will lose out as a result of these changes. Implicit in this amendment are people who have put up their houses as collateral, taken out loans or leases and will suffer loss of rent. It is almost impossible to quantify other than to say that it will be a very considerable sum.
In her speech the Minister referred to the comments of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. Both she and my noble friend are aware that there is a free vote on all of these issues. But I do not believe that I should let the moment pass without making it clear that at least as far as I am concerned my noble friend Lord Stoddart speaks for himself and not necessarily for others in his and my party. My advice to my noble friends, based on my personal assessment of the issues, is that when the government amendments are moved they should support them, and if there are any amendments that seek to extend compensation they should oppose them and join the Government in doing so.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her absolute assurance that compensation to the owners of .22 pistols who will have to surrender them will be at market value, even though for whatever reason the Government appear determined that this should remain on an ex gratia basis. As I understand it, however, no compensation will be payable for the accessories for these .22 pistols on the ground that there will still be a market for them. Does the noble Baroness agree that if most .22 pistol clubs must close because they cannot afford the extremely expensive security precautions that they will be obliged to incur, the value of these accessories will plummet?
I begin by declaring an indirect professional interest. I was counsel in the European case which was referred to by the Minister. In that case my clients were in the business of cattle head de-boning; that is, the removal and processing of meat from the heads of cattle. That is a case pending before the European Commission of Human Rights. As a result of the Government's measures to prevent the spread of BSE, my clients complained that they had been deprived of their right to property and livelihood by the destruction of their business in breach of Article 1 of the first protocol to the convention.
I was also the unsuccessful counsel in the Lithgow case who sought to challenge Labour's nationalisation proposals as not amounting to fair compensation. One found oneself against a Conservative Government which had promised to compensate when in opposition but which when in government—as one comes to expect of all parties when the executive gains power—behaved exactly as the Government before them. As a result, they succeeded in diluting the necessary English principles of compensation so that many Members of the Committee, especially on the Benches opposite, will find themselves in great difficulty today since, as I have explained, their only hope, I suspect, will be that European law will come to the rescue of difficulties about the British constitution. I shall speak directly to the problems, based on my experience and expressing my view. On Second Reading, the Minister explained, as she has today, that the Government are unwilling to pay compensation for anything except guns and accessories, as distinct from the business losses sustained by those who suffer directly from the government legislation. What has been said, and said repeatedly, is, first, that there is no precedent for paying claims for business losses which occur as a result of direct government legislation. I shall try to persuade the Committee that that is a mistaken view. What is said is that where the effect of government legislation is to deprive people or businesses of property or the use of their property, it is right that taxpayers collectively should pay those property owners, and only those property owners, for the value of their property. It is said that that obligation arises under the European Convention on Human Rights, but somehow it is different from paying compensation for business losses. I am merely summarising the Minister's speech on Second Reading. On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank raised what he described as the awkward question of compensation for loss of business, expressing his belief that public expenditure considerations should not be allowed to override what is fair and just to those who will inevitably be the victims of the legislation. My noble friend doubts whether we have yet got the extent and incidence of compensation right. I share his doubts, and I should like briefly to explain why. First, there is the question of principle. Where the direct and inevitable effect of legislation is to deprive someone of the right to engage in what has previously been his lawful business and carry on what has previously been his lawful livelihood, the question is whether it is right in principle that the victim should be denied any compensation by the state, or should he be compensated, if not at full market value—I think not at full market value—then at any rate fairly, so that that individual does not have to bear an excessive individual burden. That is the question. We pride ourselves in this country on the fact that ever since Magna Carta both common law and statute law give effective protection to the enjoyment of one's property, including the right to be fairly compensated for loss of livelihood or business where it is destroyed by coercive, legislative, or administrative measures. That basic principle is well preserved; for example, by our planning legislation in relation to the effect of planning blight on the enjoyment of one's property. It has always been well preserved by nationalisation legislation, where businesses are blighted or destroyed and compensation is payable. I am dealing with principle, but as a matter of principle I can see no rational basis whatever for distinguishing between compensation for the deprivation of the right to own a firearm and compensation for the deprivation of the right to carry on business in selling firearms. For the dealer, the business is a much more valuable property right than is his current stock. In principle, the loss of business by dealers resulting directly from the banning of handguns should be compensated. Secondly, there is the question of European law. I find it ironical and enjoyable that the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Pearson of Rannoch, will have to rely upon European law to deal with this problem.Will the noble Lord give way? That of course depends upon what this place decides.
Of course, that is true. In this area, unlike European Community law, we have complete sovereign powers. If we do not use the powers in the way that the noble Lord wishes, then the only recourse will be to alien European judges in Strasbourg. It is well established in the case law of the European convention, contrary to the advice given to the Minister, as I understand the position, that the concept of possessions protected by Article 1 of the first protocol includes the economic interest concerned with the running of a licensed business, and that the withdrawal, for example, of a licence constitutes a measure of control of the use of property which is protected by Article 1 of the protocol.
One of the cases that lays that down is Tre Traktörer, the Swedish case decided in 1989. It is also clear that the deprivation of income from the use of an owner's property comes within Article 1 of the protocol. The European convention gives states a wide margin of appreciation in these matters, and the Committee is enjoying it today. We can decide, in a very wide margin of appreciation, what is a fair balance, but, in the end, under the convention—thank heavens!—in the absence of a written constitution or a Bill of Rights, the European Court of Human Rights has to determine, in its words:The court has held repeatedly—again I quote from Lithgow:"whether a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental freedoms".
in this case, on people whose businesses are destroyed by the Bill. In my view, the absence from the Bill of the provision for compensation of any kind for disruption of business and livelihood is, to say the least, likely to raise powerful arguments of breaches of Article 1 of the convention's first protocol. That is the second point—if we do not do something about this then I suspect that the matter will have to go to the European court, which will be deeply regrettable. Although I make my living to some extent from cases in Europe, I am not satisfied by the fact that there are not effective remedies in Parliament and our own courts. The third point is the question of precedent. The Government's position is that there are no precedents in favour of compensating in this kind of case. It is not correct to assert that there is no precedent for paying claims for business losses as a result of government legislation. I would add to the examples given by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for example, that nationalisation legislation has always provided for compensation for business losses resulting directly from the legislation. That occurred most recently in the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, where the businesses concerned were valued at vesting date as a means of calculating losses and assessing compensation. Another more recent example—I do not suggest that Parliament always does its job properly—arose in relation to the BSE affair where, as I understand it—I shall be corrected if I am mistaken—payments amounting to £30 million are to be made to slaughterhouses which continue to slaughter beef. Those payments are based on the throughput for 1995 to 1996; that is, as a calculation to enable fair compensation to be paid for the loss of the business caused by the effects of the ban. Another precedent, which one cannot disregard and which is directly relevant, is the firearms legislation in Australia. As several noble Lords have pointed out, the Australian Government's guidelines provide that firearms dealers and importers are entitled to apply for compensation for any loss in the value of their businesses caused by these prohibitions. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, quoted all the principles and therefore I do not need to repeat them. All the laws enacted in the states of Australia during the past six months provide for loss of business of dealers who sell, repair or import the prohibited firearms. The loss is valued as the difference between the value of the business prior to the new legislation and after the legislation, as assessed by a certified valuer and subject to independent audit. I believe that the Bill should provide some compensation for loss of business. Parliament is making people in the business of selling and distributing guns forgo their livelihood for the safety and well being of society as a whole. We cannot in fairness expect them to bear an unreasonable and excessive individual burden for the losses suffered by them in what we as legislators perceive as the general interest of the community. However, lest I am thought to be a fanatic in defence of the right to property, perhaps I may say that, although I support the principle on which Amendment No. 40 is based, it is, in my view, too generous in requiring full compensation at market value. That is not the standard of compensation required under the convention in such a case. What is required is fair but not full compensation. Moreover, as the business has declined since the Dunblane massacre, it would be inequitable for any compensation scheme to fail to take account of that decline in business. There I join forces with the noble Baroness the Minister in the way in which she approaches the relevant date. Amendment No. 40 treats 1st January 1996 as the relevant valuation date. That seems to be much too generous to dealers and unfair to the general body of taxpayers. It is more generous than the Australian compensation scheme and I see no good reason for that. Perhaps I may sum up. I very much hope that the Government will accept the principle of fair but not full compensation and bring a scheme back to the House which meets the justice of the situation."Compensation terms are material to the assessment whether the contested legislation represents a fair balance between the various interests at stake, and notably whether it does not impose a disproportionate burden on the applicants",
5 p.m.
It has been a very interesting debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I have never received so many letters on any other subject. I am grateful to the Minister for what she said, although I remain at least 80 per cent. unconvinced by it and I am sorry to record that.
I have great concerns as to how, in another place, a money resolution is put forward in terms which cover two heads of payment but the Government seek to limit public expenditure exposure to the first one only. That matter needs clarification. We are dealing with an issue which has an effect of substantial finality to people who have no other option. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, referred to the fact and degree of the Government's liability to meet cost and to the absence of time to adjust. He said, "No product, no customer, no fault of their own". I agree with all those points. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to justice and fairness and I support those sentiments too. The price of haste and lack of due consideration is full compensation, as I said. As I keep telling my clients in my professional capacity, "It is either your time or your money and you hope that it is not too much of both". I was particularly pleased to note the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, because he dealt with the legal aspects upon which I am entirely unqualified to comment. I was not sure that I understood the difference between fair but not full compensation. I question whether in this Bill we have the right balance, given that at the date when the Minister suggests the Government should fix values for compensation purposes there was no market. How can one have a compensation scheme based on full or fair values if there is no market? However, I was heartened by the account of the discussions that are taking place in order to try to overcome that and I can hope only that they produce a satisfactory decision. Obviously, it is up to Parliament to decide compensation, not government. The ban is not peripheral; it is fundamental. It is not tinkering at the edges of an industry; it is going to the core of it. That is the difference. I noted what was said by the noble Baroness in connection with the Labour Party and I noted what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had to say. It is clear that public-sector costs are weighing more heavily in the balance in the Government's position than matters of fairness and justice. I find that deeply regrettable. I do not intend to press my amendments. I cannot speak for other noble Lords, but if the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, seeks to move his amendment I should be inclined to walk into the Lobby with him. Mine are simply probing amendments, but I must make it clear that I do not intend to let go on this issue. I do not believe that we have the balance right and almost certainly I shall return to the matter at a later stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 37:
Divide Clause 11 into two clauses, the first (Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms and ammunition) to consist of subsections (1) to (3) and the second (Payments in respect of ancillary equipment) to consist of subsections (4) to (9).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 38:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OF COMPENSATION SCHEMES
(" .—(1) Before making a compensation scheme the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of it before Parliament.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not make the scheme unless the draft has been approved by resolution of each House.
(3) This section applies to any alteration to the scheme as it applies to a compensation scheme.
(4) In this section "compensation scheme" means a scheme under section (Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms and ammunition) or (Payments in respect of ancillary equipment) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
COMPENSATION FOR CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996 were operating a target shooting club or association which as a result of the provisions of this Act will be unable to continue to operate.
(2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide payments in respect of loss incurred by persons who have responsibility for any debt, mortgage, lease or other liability in connection with the club or association.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
5.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 158; Not-Contents, 135.
Division No. 1
| |
CONTENTS
| |
| Addington, L. | Craig of Radley, L. |
| Annaly, L. | Cranbrook, E. |
| Attlee, E. | Crawshaw, L. |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | Cross, V. |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Dacre of Glanton, L. |
| Biddulph, L. | Davidson, V. |
| Blease, L. | De Saumarez, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Denbigh, E. |
| Brain, L. | Denham, L. |
| Bridgeman, V. | Derwent, L. |
| Brookes, L. | Dilhorne, V. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L. |
| Bruntisfield, L. | Downshire, M. |
| Burton, L. | Dundonald, E. |
| Calverley, L. | Ellenborough, L. |
| Carlisle, E. | Erne, E. |
| Carnock, L. | Erroll, E. |
| Carr of Hadley, L. | Exmouth, V. |
| Chalfont, L. | Feversham, L. |
| Charteris of Amisfield, L. | Gage, V. |
| Clancarty, E. | Gainsborough, E. |
| Clanwilliam, E. | Geraint, L. |
| Clark of Kempston, L. | Gisborough, L. |
| Clifford of Chudleigh, L. | Glenarthur, L. |
| Coleridge, L. | Grey, E. |
| Congleton, L. | Grimston of Westbury, L. |
| Cornwallis, L. | Haddington, E. |
| Cottesloe, L. | Hamilton of Dalzell, L. |
| Harding of Petherton, L. | Palmer, L. |
| Harris of Greenwich, L. | Park of Monmouth, B. |
| Harris of High Cross, L. | Pearson of Rannoch, L. |
| Haslam, L. | Peel, E. |
| Hemphill, L. | Plummer of St, Marylebone, L. |
| Hertford, M. | Quinton, L. |
| Holderness, L. | Raglan, L. |
| HolmPatrick, L. | Reay, L. |
| Hooson, L. | Redesdale, L. |
| Hothfield, L. | Rennell, L. |
| Howie of Troon, L. | Renwick, L. |
| Hylton, L. | Richardson, L. |
| Hylton-Foster, B. | Rochester, L. |
| Ilchester, E. | Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. |
| Inchcape, E. | Rotherwick, L. |
| Inchyra, L. | Russell, E. |
| Kilbracken, L. | Sainsbury, L. |
| Kimball, L. [Teller.] | St. Davids, V. |
| Kinloss, Ly. | Saint Oswald, L. |
| Kinnoull, E. | Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. |
| Kintore, E. | Sandwich, E. |
| Kirkwood, L. | Savile, L. |
| Knutsford, V. | Shannon, E. |
| Lane of Horsell, L. | Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.] |
| Lester of Herne Hill, L. | Simon, V. |
| Liverpool, E. | Skelmersdale, L. |
| Long, V. | Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L. |
| Lucas of Chilworth, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Lytton, E. | Stewartby, L. |
| Mallalieu, B. | Stodart of Leaston, L. |
| Mancroft, L. | Stoddart of Swindon, L. |
| Manton, L. | Strafford, E. |
| Mar and Kellie, E. | Strathcarron, L. |
| Marsh, L. | Swansea, L. |
| Massereene and Ferrard, V. | Taverne, L. |
| Mersey, V. | Teviot, L. |
| Meston, L. | Thomas of Walliswood, B. |
| Methuen, L. | Thurlow, L. |
| Milverton, L. | Thurso, V. |
| Monson, L. | Tollemache, L. |
| Montagu of Beaulieu, L. | Tope, L. |
| Monteagle of Brandon, L. | Tordoff, L. |
| Moran, L. | Vernon, L. |
| Mottistone, L. | Weatherill, L. |
| Mountgarret, V. | Williams of Crosby, B. |
| Mowbray and Stourton, L. | Willoughby de Broke, L. |
| Nelson, E. | Winchilsea and Nottingham, E. |
| Newall, L. | Wrenbury, L. |
| Norfolk, D. | Wyatt of Weeford, L. |
| Northesk, E. | Yarborough, E. |
| Oliver of Aylmerton, L. | Zouche of Haryngworth, L. |
NOT-CONTENTS
| |
| Aberdare, L. | Brigstocke, B. |
| Abinger, L. | Byford, B. |
| Acton, L. | Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. |
| Addison, V. | Carnegy of Lour, B. |
| Ailsa, M. | Carter, L. |
| Alexander of Tunis, E. | Castle of Blackburn, B. |
| Allenby of Megiddo, V. | Chalker of Wallasey, B. |
| Anelay of St. Johns, B. | Chelmsford, V. |
| Archer of Sandwell, L. | Chesham, L. [Teller.] |
| Ashley of Stoke, L. | Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. |
| Astor of Hever, L. | Clinton-Davis, L. |
| Balfour, E. | Courtown, E. |
| Banbury of Southam, L. | Cox, B. |
| Barnett, L. | Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.] |
| Beloff, L. | Cuckney, L. |
| Belstead, L. | Cumberlege, B. |
| Berkeley, L. | David, B. |
| Birdwood, L. | Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. |
| Blackstone, B. | Denton of Wakefield, B. |
| Blatch, B. | Donoughue, L. |
| Bolton, L. | Dormand of Easington, L. |
| Brentford, V. | Dubs, L. |
| Dundee, E. | Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.] |
| Eatwell, L. | |
| Eccles of Moulton, B. | Mackay of Drumadoon, L. |
| Elles, B. | Marlesford, L. |
| Elliott of Morpeth, L. | Mason of Barnsley, L. |
| Elton, L. | Merlyn-Rees, L. |
| Farrington of Ribbleton, B. | Merrivale, L. |
| Feldman, L. | Miller of Hendon, B. |
| Ferrers, E. | Mishcon, L. |
| Flather, B. | Morris of Castle Morris, L. |
| Fraser of Carmyllie, L. | Mountevans, L. |
| Gilmour of Craigmillar, L. | Murton of Lindisfarne, L. |
| Goschen, V. | Nathan, L. |
| Gould of Potternewton, B. | Nickson, L. |
| Graham of Edmonton, L. | O'Cathain, B. |
| Gray of Contin, L. | Orr-Ewing, L. |
| Gregson, L. | Paul, L. |
| Halsbury, E. | Peston, L. |
| Harmar-Nicholls, L. | Pike, B. |
| Harris of Peckham, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. |
| Haskel, L. | Prentice, L. |
| Hayman, B. | Prys-Davies, L. |
| Henley, L. | Ramsay of Cartvale, B. |
| Hilton of Eggardon, B. | Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. |
| Hollis of Heigham, B. | Renton, L. |
| Hood, V. | Richard, L. |
| Hooper, B. | Rogers of Riverside, L. |
| Howe, E. | Seccombe, B. |
| Hughes, L. | Sewel, L. |
| Inglewood, L. | Shaw of Northstead, L. |
| Jay of Paddington, B. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Jeger, B. | Strathclyde, L.[Teller.] |
| Jenkins of Putney, L. | Sudeley, L. |
| Johnston of Rockport, L. | Taylor of Blackburn, L |
| Judd, L. | Taylor of Gryfe, L. |
| Lauderdale, E. | Taylor of Warwick, L. |
| Leigh, L. | Thomas of Gwydir, L. |
| Lindsay, E. | Trumpington, B. |
| Lucas, L. | Turner of Camden, B. |
| Luke, L. | Ullswater, V. |
| Lyell, L. | White, B. |
| McCarthy, L. | Wilcox, B. |
| McColl of Dulwich, L. | Williams of Elvel, L. |
| McConnell, L. | Williams of Mostyn, L. |
| Mclntosh of Haringey, L. | Winston, L. |
| Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. | Wynford, L. |
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.17 p.m.
moved Amendment No. 40:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
PAYMENTS FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS
("—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who suffer any loss in the value of a business owned or operated by them on 16th October 1996 which is directly attributable to the prohibition introduced by section 1 above.
(2) Any scheme made by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (1) shall provide for payments to be made on the basis of the difference in value of the business on 1st January 1996 and on the date of the passing of this Act calculated on the prescribed standard by a qualified person.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
"prescribed standard" means calculation of the capitalisation of the estimated future profits which will be foregone by a business as a consequence of the prohibition introduced by section 1 based upon an economic loss analysis of the audited financial statements of the business for the three financial years before the passing of this Act; and
"qualified person" means a person eligible for appointment as a company auditor in accordance with section 25 of the Companies Act 1989.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to move this amendment. It can be tidied up at a later stage with regard to whether it should be full compensation or fair compensation. I commend the amendment to the House.
5.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 147.
Division No. 2
| |
CONTENTS
| |
| Allenby of Megiddo, V. | Howie of Troon, L. |
| Annaly, L. | Ilchester, E. |
| Attlee, E. | Inchcape, E. |
| Barber of Tewkesbury, L. | Inchyra, L. |
| Beaumont of Whitley, L. | Kintore, E. |
| Belhaven and Stenton, L. | Kirkwood, L. |
| Biddulph, L. | Knutsford, V. |
| Blease, L. | Liverpool, E. |
| Boardman, L. | Lucas of Chilworth, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Lytton, E. |
| Brain, L. | McNair, L. |
| Bridgeman, V. | Mallalieu, B. |
| Brookes, L. | Mancroft, L. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Manton, L. |
| Bruntisfield, L. | Marsh, L. |
| Burton, L. | Masham of Ilton, B. |
| Carlisle, E. | Massereene and Ferrard, V. |
| Carnock, L. | Monson, L. |
| Chalfont, L. | Montagu of Beaulieu, L. |
| Charteris of Amisfield, L. | Monteagle of Brandon, L. |
| Clancarty, E. | Moran, L. |
| Clanwilliam, E. | Mottistone, L. |
| Clifford of Chudleigh, L. | Mountgarret, V. |
| Congleton, L. | Nelson, E. |
| Cornwallis, L. | Newall, L. |
| Cottesloe, L. | Norfolk, D. |
| Craig of Radley, L. | Northesk, E. |
| Crawshaw, L. | Oliver of Aylmerton, L. |
| Cross, V. | Palmer, L. |
| Dacre of Glanton, L. | Pearson of Rannoch, L. |
| Davidson, V. | Peel, E. [Teller.] |
| De Saumarez, L. | Plummer of St. Marylebone, L. |
| Denbigh, E. | Quinton, L. |
| Denham, L. | Raglan, L. |
| Derwent, L. | Reay, L. |
| Dilhorne, V. | Rennell, L. |
| Downshire, M. | Richardson, L. |
| Dundonald, E. | St. Davids, V. |
| Erroll, E. | St. John of Bletso, L. |
| Exmouth, V. | Saint Oswald, L. |
| Feversham, L. | Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly. |
| Gainsborough, E. | Sandwich, E. |
| Geddes, L. | Savile, L. |
| Geraint, L. | Shannon, E. |
| Gisborough, L. [Teller.] | Shrewsbury, E. |
| Glenarthur, L. | Simon, V. |
| Haddington, E. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Hamilton of Dalzell, L. | Stewartby, L. |
| Harding of Petherton, L. | Stodart of Leaston, L. |
| Harris of High Cross, L. | Stoddart of Swindon, L. |
| Hertford, M. | Strafford, E. |
| Holderness, L. | Strathcarron, L. |
| HolmPatrick, L. | Swansea, L. |
| Hooson, L. | Taverne, L. |
| Hothfield, L. | Thurlow, L. |
| Thurso, V. | Wrenbury, L. |
| Vernon, L. | Wyatt of Weeford, L. |
| Weatherill, L. | Wynford, L. |
| Wharton, B. | Yarborough, E. |
| Winchilsea and Nottingham, E. | Zouche of Haryngworth, L. |
NOT-CONTENTS
| |
| Aberdare, L. | Harris of Peckham, L. |
| Abinger, L. | Haskel, L. |
| Acton, L. | Hay man, B. |
| Addison, V. | Hemphill, L. |
| Ailsa, M. | Henley, L. |
| Alexander of Tunis, E. | Hilton of Eggardon, B. |
| Anelay of St. Johns, B. | Hollis of Heigham, B. |
| Archer of Sandwell, L. | Hooper, B. |
| Ashbourne, L. | Howe, E. |
| Ashley of Stoke, L. | Hughes, L. |
| Astor of Hever, L. | Inglewood, L. |
| Balfour, E. | Jay of Paddington, B. |
| Banbury of Southam, L. | Jenkins of Putney, L. |
| Barnett, L. | Johnston of Rockport, L. |
| Beloff, L. | Judd, L. |
| Belstead, L. | Kimball, L. |
| Birdwood, L. | Lindsay, E. |
| Blackstone, B. | Lockwood, B. |
| Blatch, B. | Long, V. |
| Bolton, L. | Longford, E. |
| Bowness, L. | Lovell-Davis, L. |
| Brentford, V. | Lucas, L. |
| Brigstocke, B. | Luke, L. |
| Byford, B. | Lyell, L. |
| Caldecote, V. | McColl of Dulwich, L. |
| Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. | McConnell, L. |
| Carnegy of Lour, B. | McIntosh of Haringey, L. |
| Carter, L. | Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. |
| Castle of Blackburn, B. | Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.] |
| Chalker of Wallasey, B. | |
| Chelmsford, V. | Mackay of Drumadoon, L. |
| Chesham, L. [Teller.] | Marlesford, L. |
| Clark of Kempston, L. | Mason of Barnsley, L. |
| Cledwyn of Penrhos, L. | Merlyn-Rees, L. |
| Clinton-Davis, L. | Merrivale, L. |
| Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. | Miller of Hendon, B. |
| Coleridge, L. | Milverton, L. |
| Courtown, E. | Mishcon, L. |
| Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.] | Montrose, D. |
| Cuckney, L. | Morris of Castle Morris, L. |
| Cumberlege, B. | Mountevans, L. |
| David, B. | Mowbray and Stourton, L. |
| Dean of Beswick, L. | Murton of Lindisfarne, L. |
| Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. | Nathan, L. |
| Demon of Wakefield, B. | Nickson, L. |
| Donoughue, L. | Nicol, B. |
| Dormand of Easington, L. | O'Cathain, B. |
| Dubs, L. | Orr-Ewing, L. |
| Dundee, E. | Park of Monmouth, B. |
| Eatwell, L. | Peston, L. |
| Eccles of Moulton, B. | Platt of Writtle, B. |
| Ellenborough, L. | Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. |
| Elliott of Morpeth, L. | Prys-Davies, L. |
| Elton, L. | Ramsay of Cartvale, B. |
| Erne, E. | Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L. |
| Farrington of Ribbleton, B. | Renton, L. |
| Feldman, L. | Richard, L. |
| Ferrers, E. | Rotherwick, L. |
| Flather, B. | Seccombe, B. |
| Fraser of Carmyllie, L. | Sewel, L. |
| Gilmour of Craigmillar, L. | Shaw of Northstead, L. |
| Glenamara, L. | Skelmersdale, L. |
| Goschen, V. | Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L. |
| Gould of Potternewton, B. | Strabolgi, L. |
| Graham of Edmonton, L. | Strathclyde, L. [Teller.] |
| Gray of Contin, L. | Sudeley, L. |
| Gregson, L. | Taylor of Blackburn, L. |
| Harmar-Nicholls, L. | Taylor of Gryfe, L. |
| Taylor of Warwick, L. | White, B. |
| Thomas of Gwydir, L. | Wilcox, B. |
| Tollemache, L. | Williams of Mostyn, L. |
| Trumpington, B. | Winston, L. |
| Turner of Camden, B. | Wise, L. |
| Ullswater, V. | Young, B. |
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.27 p.m.
moved Amendment No. 41:
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
EXEMPTION FROM SURRENDER OK FIREARM WHERE EXPORT LICENCE APPLICATION MADE
("—(1) A holder of a firearm certificate authorising possession of a firearm which will become, or has become, unlawful by virtue of section 1 above shall not be required to surrender that firearm in accordance with section 10 above if that person has made application to the Department of Trade and Industry in the prescribed form for an export licence for that firearm not later than fourteen days before the date announced by the Secretary of State as the final date for the surrender of that category of firearm.
(2) The holder of the firearm certificate shall be required to surrender the firearm to the police—
(3) A person who surrenders a firearm to a chief officer of police under subsection (2) above shall be entitled to the same payment under section 11 above as if he had surrendered the firearm in accordance with the arrangements made by the Secretary of State under section 10 above.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the proposed new clause is to enable those who have guns, which will become unlawful if the Bill is passed, to make arrangements to sell them abroad without being unduly hindered by the tight time-scale of surrender which is currently envisaged. Subsection (1) of the clause requires the owner to apply for an export licence at least 14 days before the final date for surrender of the gun under normal arrangements. So he has to find by that time a person, club or dealer to whom he can export the gun. Once he had applied for an export licence the owner would not be required to surrender it within the short time-scale, given that export licences may take some time to be granted.
Subsection (2) sets the time limit for disposal of the gun after the owner is advised of the outcome of the export licence application. If it is turned down, he has seven days to surrender it to the police. On the other hand, if it is granted he has eight weeks to make the necessary arrangements to get the gun out of the country. If it is not exported within the time limit, it has to be surrendered to the police.
Subsection (3) makes it clear that if the gun has to be surrendered to the police because an export licence is not granted, or because the owner cannot get it exported within the time limit, the owner is entitled to the same compensation as is due to everyone else. The amendment enables gun owners to pass their possessions on at a fair price to other persons who can legally hold them in their own countries. It could also enable some historic guns, which are not regarded as very important in Britain, to be returned to countries where they are of significance.
From the Government's viewpoint, any gun sold overseas reduces their liability—or, strictly speaking, that of the taxpayer—for compensation. It also reduces the workload on the police in administering the surrender arrangements. Incidentally, the Australian scheme does allow gun owners to export if they so wish. I beg to move.
My Lords, I moved amendments at an earlier stage of the Committee with the directly opposite intention to the amendment now proposed. I was concerned that there should not be an increase in the international arms trade as a result of the legislation. However, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, seems to be concerned to ensure that there will be an increase in that trade. I think that is deplorable. Of course it is true that licences are required for the export of arms of this kind. It is quite right that they should be because these arms can be used not only in domestic civil homicide—if that is the right way to describe it—but also in disturbed or disordered countries as weapons of war or of civil war. We should discourage this kind of increase in the international arms trade which would be encouraged by the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that the Government and the Committee will resist it.
5.30 p.m.
I understand that people who have already applied for export licences are not receiving them at the moment because the authorities have stopped processing them. That must be wrong. The law is not being complied with as they have every right to obtain a licence at the present time. The issuing of those licences should not be deferred.
I have some slight misgivings about what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. It seems to me that handguns are relatively easy to obtain in Europe, of which we are part. Among other things, Europe provides for the free movement of goods, services and people within its overall borders. We cannot disinvent what already exists in terms of things which we in this country might decide are unsatisfactory but which are commonplace, in common use and are commonly accepted in other countries. While I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might wish this country to make a gesture in the direction of the arms trade—I abhor that trade—there are much larger issues to consider such as matters we have heard about recently; namely, landmines and other things of that sort. Those issues need to be tackled, not the private ownership of handguns which have no large-scale application for the purposes of anti-personnel activities. In general, I support this amendment. So long as we have free trade and so long as these items are legally owned in other countries, I do not see how we can possibly stand in the way of that.
The noble Lord's amendment would open the possibility of a large number of higher calibre handguns remaining in circulation for some time after the prohibition came into effect. I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment is necessary to meet the concern which he has raised.
The Government recognise that some of those who currently possess higher calibre handguns may want to sell them to someone in another country where such handguns will remain lawful, rather than surrender their weapons to the police and receive compensation under the scheme which will be made under Clause 11. For that reason it is not necessary for the Government to become involved in the matter which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have just discussed. As I say, it is recognised that some owners will wish to export their guns to countries where the guns will remain lawful. However, those who wish to do so will need to obtain an export licence from the Department of Trade and Industry. Obtaining such a licence takes a little time because the application must be checked for accuracy and omissions, and checks may be made if necessary to determine that the intended recipient of the firearm in another country has whatever authorities are required in that country to receive and possess the firearms. Checks may also be made to make sure that there is no other reason why it would not be in the public interest for the firearm to be exported to the intended destination. I understand that in normal circumstances the Department of Trade and Industry processes such applications within 20 working days of receipt of a completed application. My noble friend Lord Burton suggests that there may be a problem at the moment. I undertake to check that matter with the department. The Government have not yet determined the precise arrangements for the surrender of higher calibre handguns to the police, including how long the surrender period should last. We are currently discussing with the police what period will be necessary, but it is likely that we will allow a period of two or perhaps three months. Such a period would in normal circumstances allow plenty of time for anyone who wished to export his firearm. I recognise, however, that there may be a significant increase in firearms export applications during the relevant period. We are therefore considering with the Department of Trade and Industry what arrangements might be made if there were to be a substantial increase. We will want to make sure that there are no unnecessary delays in the processing of applications. We will also want to avoid the situation where a valid application for an export licence is still under consideration when the prohibition comes into effect. I agree with the noble Lord that people should not inadvertently be denied the opportunity lawfully to export their firearms. I do not believe, however, that the amendment is the right answer to that potential problem. It would have the effect that those who had made applications for export licences did not have to surrender their firearms. They would remain in possession of their higher calibre handguns after the prohibition came into effect, provided they had lodged an application. This inevitably leaves open the possibility that some people may seek deliberately to thwart the effect of the prohibition. If large numbers of applications were made shortly before the prohibition came into effect, the department might take some time to process them. That is a problem which must be faced. That might mean that significant numbers of higher calibre handguns would remain in circulation for a substantial period beyond that which was intended by the prohibition. The Government believe that would create an unacceptable loophole in the introduction of the prohibition. It is important that all those firearms which will be prohibited are out of circulation as soon as possible. We are considering whether the arrangements for the surrender and compensation scheme under Clauses 10 and 11 should allow for the possibility that those who wish to export their firearms should be allowed to surrender their weapons to the police during the normal surrender period until such time as the application is determined. If the application is granted, they would then be permitted to export the handgun. If, on the other hand, the application is refused, the owner would be able to receive compensation under the scheme as if he had surrendered it in the normal way like many others. We are not at present convinced that such arrangements will be necessary but we are considering whether there may be a case for them. I am happy to give an undertaking to the Committee to consider the issue in detail with the Department of Trade and Industry, and if we conclude that it is necessary to make provision for the surrender and compensation arrangements under Clauses 10 and 11 along the lines I have outlined, that will be done. I hope that will meet the noble Lord's concern without leaving open the possibility of these guns remaining in circulation longer than the prohibition would normally allow. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lytton for his support. He put the case well. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, chilled our blood with talk of the international arms trade as if we were talking about Exocet missiles, or even Kalashnikovs such as are used in civil wars. We are not talking about those things; we are talking about ordinary revolvers and pistols, .32, .38, .45, such as were freely obtainable by anyone in this country up until 1920, and with almost no difficulty until 1946. Most countries do not have the hang-ups—as I think I said on an earlier occasion—about pistols that we have in this country at the moment. If people in those countries want to buy the guns and their governments are happy that they should acquire them, why should they not do so?
I listened with great interest to what the Minister said. He has been helpful. The Government are thinking carefully about the matter and about possible problems that may arise. I shall read the Minister's comments thoroughly. I may have to return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill but I hope that will not be necessary. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Purpose of Part 77]:
moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 7, line 24, at end insert ("and such premises may include the premises of a registered firearms dealer for the purpose of such storage").
The noble Earl said: This is principally a probing amendment to attempt to clarify the situation regarding the use of dealers' premises to store pistols. When a similar amendment was debated in another place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary stated that the amendment was unnecessary since the definition in Clause 12 of "licensed premises" does not prevent a registered firearms dealer's premises being specified in a pistol club's licence as the place where small calibre pistols may be stored. He went on to say that the key requirement would be that it met the levels of security necessary to ensure that guns could not be stolen or removed illicitly from the premises. The majority of dealers would have such levels of security to satisfy the local chief of police.
During her winding up speech at Second Reading, the Minister qualified the statement by saying that guns could only be stored at dealers' premises,
"where a dealer runs a shooting range".—[Official Report, 16/12/96; col. 1381.]
My noble friend continued:
"If the gun would have to leave the dealers' premises in order to reach the gun club, that would not be acceptable".—[Official Report, 16/12/96; col. 1382.]
While the Home Secretary's initial statement would allow pistol clubs to use dealers' premises to store their pistols, my noble friend's reply would effectively prevent the majority of gun dealers from doing so as most do not have ranges on their premises. I hope that the amendment offers my noble friend an opportunity to clarify this important point. I beg to move.
I support the amendment. At Second Reading I addressed the issue of small gun clubs which have difficulty in finding premises. That is the reason they are threatened with closure. Therefore, if gun shop premises could be used for storage it would be most helpful. Other premises might be able to be used. I am not sure whether that is precluded by the Bill.
Amendment No. 42 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. For the convenience of the Committee it may be sensible for me to limit my remarks at present to Amendment No. 42 as no noble Lord has spoken to Amendments Nos. 45 or 46.
Amendment No. 42 in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel deals with the definition of "licensed premises" in Clause 12. That definition does not prevent a registered firearms dealer's premises being specified in a pistol club's licence as the place where small calibre pistols may be stored. As my noble friend Lady Blatch sought to make clear previously, that depends on the precise circumstances of the registered dealer's premises and the club premises. It is impossible to say in advance whether a specific set of premises will qualify as a club, and for guns to be stored there. That requires to be determined once the facts are known. It all depends on the individual circumstances. On the basis that as presently drafted Clause 12 does not preclude it, the Government remain of the view that the amendment is unnecessary and may be counterproductive. On that basis, which I hope I have made clear, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.I thank my noble friend for that reply. One or two items are still a little unclear from his answer. However, I wish to consider the matter, and perhaps return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to. Clause 13 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—
No PISTOL CLUB TO USE TARGETS WITH HUMAN RESEMBLANCE
("No club shall allow the use on any of its club premises of targets made to bear any resemblance to a human form.").
The noble Earl said: Before moving the amendment, perhaps I may say this. I believe that there is a substantial popular moral movement in this country which wishes to see the end of handguns in their entirety. However, the purpose of Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 is to ensure that the residual pistol shooting sport allowed in the Bill never approaches the accusation of "practising killing people". I recognise that that may be somewhat over the top and unfair. However, at Second Reading I said that I believed that handguns had only a lethal or quasi-lethal use. The adoption of the two amendments would provide an antidote to my argument about there being only a lethal or quasi-lethal use of handguns. It would confirm that bull's-eye style target shooting is a sport in itself and hence is not practising to kill people.
It is wholly appropriate that the Armed Forces and the police should train themselves to reduce the enemy to incapability of response. The activity of military shooting must be seen as a wholly separate activity. The Armed Forces and police must practise the accurate use of their weapons under as realistic conditions as possible; and they must build up skills in weapon handling, change of firing position and tactical movements.
It is not the role in any way of the private civilian handgun owner or user to train himself in that respect. If private handgun owners and their sport are to be tolerated in our society, they must be able to demonstrate that there is no confusion whatsoever in their minds that they have a military or anti-human purpose in their hobby or sport. In short, they must not look like soldiers or give the impression of practising to shoot humans. I believe that the amendments send out a strong message to all pistol shooting enthusiasts about the suspect nature of their activity and the moral constraints that are placed upon them. I beg to move.
Perhaps I may remind the Committee that I have previously declared an interest in this matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, raises an extremely important point. I, too, have some difficulty with what is called combat shooting but I do not know much about it. Great emphasis has been laid on the problem by the Minister and her right honourable friend. Why has it suddenly appeared as a problem? What studies have been undertaken? The Minister has yet to reply to the questions that I posed at Second Reading. I understand that the Firearms Consultative Committee has studied the matter in passing but has not published any findings. Having said that, I have grave misgivings about competitions where among the skills being tested are the ability to reload, change or select fire positions, or to make ready and fire quickly. I repeat that I do not know the answer; it is a matter that the FCC needs to look into. There is also the slightly different problem addressed at Second Reading by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. We currently provide effective personal protection services but only overseas, not within the United Kingdom. I believe that the training used to take place at a "club". Perhaps reputable organisations in this field will be able to obtain a Section 5 authorisation in due course. The noble Earl's second amendment addresses the same problem and is useful as an illustration of the matters to be debated. However, it is flawed because of the difficulties of definition. Some styles of military clothing are fashionable. The provision is unnecessary and denies shooters a suitable supply of good quality clothing. Apart from that, the proposal is quite good. There is one more problem. I should not be able to attend a shooting meeting wearing my TA uniform, even on MoD land. I am grateful to the noble Earl for tabling these amendments. I look forward to the comments of other noble Lords and to the Minister's reply.In our consideration of the legislation in principle I feel that most of us who were taught to shoot, in order to kill vermin, pheasants and so on, were so very strictly trained that we never, ever pointed a gun at anybody, even if it was unloaded. Today, that same training is not being given to people. I raised this matter at Second Reading. I am not sure that the drafting of these amendments is in any way acceptable to the Government. However, there needs to be a clear distinction. On the whole, I should be much happier if the position taken by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, could be made clear on the face of the Bill. It would give tremendous encouragement to sportsmen in this country.
As Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are grouped with this amendment, I intend to speak to Amendment No. 45.
If my noble friend will forgive my interrupting him, we are discussing Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 form a pair of amendments that will be discussed when debate on this amendment is completed.
I have mixed feelings about Amendment No. 43, but Amendment No. 44 goes way over the top and should be resisted, partly for the reason given by my noble friend Lord Attlee, partly because of problems of definition and partly because a matter of so trivial a nature is unsuited to statute law. I do not know whether they still exist in the south of England, but certainly in the north institutions called army surplus shops still exist in great numbers. The clothes sold there are cheap and hard-wearing; they do not show the dirt easily and are comfortable. They are, for instance, worn frequently by beaters on shoots. Would such clothes be banned? Would forage caps, for instance, worn by some people for obvious reasons, be banned? I have a cotton safari jacket which I wear whenever I visit tropical countries. It is cut in a military style. Would that be banned? One has only to raise such questions to see how nonsensical Amendment No. 44 is.
I suggest that Amendment No. 44 is a somewhat illiberal proposal.
Amendment No. 44 is clearly a non-starter by any test. However, according to my paper, Amendment No. 43 relates only to pistol clubs. Does the noble Earl intend it to apply also to rifle clubs?
Perhaps I may reply to those points. I take the point about the proposal sounding illiberal. I am happy to say that I should like to see the ban on shooting at human style targets cover all forms of firearm.
It is obvious from the contributions of all noble Lords who spoke on these two amendments that the issues that lie behind them give rise to a difference of view. That serves to illustrate my main point; namely, if there is a case for regulation of the targets used at pistol clubs and of the clothing used by those who attend such clubs, it is better that that is not done on the face of the Bill but that it is prescribed in regulations, as set out in Clause 22, upon which the Government will take the advice of the Firearms Consultative Committee before the regulations are laid.
The Government firmly believe that such restrictions, if appropriate, should be dealt with by regulations, which may be amended if necessary in the light of experience. I hope that, given the assurance that the Government will examine the issue further before finalising the necessary regulations, the noble Earl will find it possible to withdraw both amendments.Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he agree that Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are simply not workable in any event as they do not contain the necessary consequential sanction which is available under Clause 22 of the Bill?
I am obliged to the noble Lord for his assistance. There are a number of sound technical and legal objections to the amendments. I happily adopt his support on this matter. The better way is to leave it to regulations if such restriction is appropriate.
I am impressed by the co-operation between the Labour and Conservative Parties. Perhaps it will continue.
I agree with Members of the Committee that Amendment No. 44 is capable of being described as trivial. However, Amendment No. 43 attracted some degree of sympathy. It is important to make it quite clear—this is a moral rather than a legislative issue—that there is a substantial difference between military and civil shooting. That was one of the reasons I was very keen to table the amendment. In response to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, I believe it is important that people are taught how to shoot. If animals are to be shot, people should have practice in shooting at animal targets. For example, there is a need in Scotland for a cull of 100, 000 red deer. Clearly there is a need for people who are not practised in shooting live red deer to shoot at red deer targets. I am in favour of the use of animal style targets, merely not human ones. I am heartened by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate about such provisions appearing in regulations. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Criteria for grant of licence]:
moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 8, line 40, at end insert ("and section 42 (3) of this Act shall not apply in respect of this Part of this Act until such guidance has been published").
The noble Lord said: this is a probing amendment. It seeks clarification on the proposed security requirements for clubs.
At the moment, members of gun clubs face uncertainty about the future of their clubs. Many will have considerable sums invested in premises which might be forced to close under the terms of the Bill. That uncertainty should be addressed by the Government so that gun club members can make decisions regarding their investments.
The Government's response to Lord Cullen's report, published on 16th October 1996, contained an indication of the arrangements that clubs might be expected to implement as a result of the Bill. These included:
"reinforced walls to ensure that thieves could not break into a club building; safes in which guns and ammunition would have to be stored; strong perimeter fences; burglar alarms linked directly to the police; access control, including metal detectors, to prevent guns being illicitly removed".
The Government conceded that, "Very few, if any, existing gun clubs will meet these security requirements". The Government said that, after consultation with the police, the arrangements would be published in guidance.
This delay does not help those who currently have investments tied up in club premises. There is no apparent reason for withholding such information, which would go a long way to ease the anxieties of those whose assets are at risk and enable those clubs that can meet the strict security standards to make the necessary improvements quickly. I beg to move.
I support my noble friend in his amendment. It is very difficult for the clubs if they do not know what they will have to do. They do not know whether they will be able to stay open or whether they will have to close. They must be given the information as soon as the Government can provide it, which I hope will not be long delayed.
6 p.m.
I fully accept that there must be a measure of uncertainty on the part of pistol clubs as to what the future holds for them. But the import of Amendment No. 45, which my noble friend Lord Swansea has spoken to, is that it would place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State not to bring into force the provisions for licensing pistol clubs until the criteria for the grant of such a licence have been published.
The Government fully accept that such criteria should be published and made familiar to the members and office bearers of gun clubs before they are put in the position of having to apply for licences. However, I do not believe that this kind of common sense administrative matter requires statutory regulation. I can assure your Lordships that the criteria and guidance for licensed pistol clubs are under active consideration by officials and Ministers. We hope that a first draft of the criteria for the clubs and the security standards required will soon be placed in the Library of the House. I hope that that undertaking serves to answer the probing amendment, as my noble friend Lord Swansea described it, and that the amendment will not be pressed.I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. As I said before, this is simply a probing amendment. I hope that clubs will take account of what he said and wait for the guidance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 8, line 40, at end insert—
("(3) A member of a licensed pistol club approved by the Secretary of State may, without holding a firearm certificate, have in his possession a firearm and ammunition when engaged as a member of the club in, or in connection with, target shooting.").
The noble Lord said: Clubs depend on a regular intake of new members. Those new members may or may not have previous experience of shooting; they would like to have a go. The Bill proposes that all members of a club should be in possession of a firearm certificate. One cannot expect a prospective member to have a firearm certificate. He probably will not have any firearms himself, and he may or may not wish to carry on shooting after he has had a go. The amendment allows for that situation. I believe I am right in saying that the 1968 Firearms Act caters for the contingency by allowing newcomers to go to a club and have a go on the range under close supervision following which they may or may not stay with the game. I beg to move.
I support the amendment. Pistol shooting is, after all, an Olympic sport. At the moment there are members who can compete. Unless something like the provision contained in this amendment is included in the Bill, there can be no question but that in a few years' time some old people will be shooting but not a single young person. The sport will disappear. It is essential that this amendment or something like it should be accepted in order to allow new entrants to the sport. I am certain that if somebody aged 18 goes to a club and wants to start shooting he will not obtain a firearm certificate just because he thinks he would like to start pistol shooting.
The noble Lord raises an extremely important point. For many shooters there is no need to own their own handgun or rifle; they can use a club weapon. If we encouraged ownership of club weapons and discouraged personal ownership, that would go a long way to reducing the ownership of rifles and handguns. I have no hesitation in supporting the noble Lord's amendment.
I am in some difficulty here. The Committee will notice that Amendment No. 46 is identical to Amendment No. 47 in my name except that Amendment No. 46 appears in Clause 15 while mine appears in Clause 20, which I am advised by experts is the clause where it should appear. I had understood that on those grounds the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, was not going to move Amendment No. 46. As he has moved it, it seems only sensible that I should speak to the identical Amendment No. 47 and spare the Government having to reply twice.
This matter is very important in respect of new or probationary club members. At the present time any member of a club may use a pistol. However, if special permits are required, new members will not be able to fire a pistol on even one single occasion without a licence. In addition, it is unclear whether existing members who have licences will be able to use another member's gun when theirs is out of commission or to try other pistols. The need for either Amendment No. 46 or Amendment No. 47 is increased because of the arrangements proposed in Clause 8 which make transport so difficult. Visiting shooters may prefer to borrow a pistol when they arrive for a competition rather than have to obtain a special police permit. The amendment follows the precedent of the current law which has been in operation for rifle clubs since 1920 and which was continued in the 1968 Act. It will enable a newcomer to be introduced to a .22 pistol before he or she obtains a firearm certificate. After all, people want first to try out a pistol and see whether they enjoy shooting and are any good at it. It is quite different from rifle shooting. They may decide, after trying it only once or twice, that they do not want to do it and give up the whole idea. As my noble friend Lord Attlee said, it is much better from a public safety point of view for there to be club pistols for people to use rather than a greater number of individually owned ones. I would have thought that the Government very much agreed with that point. In Standing Committee in another place on 20th November last, the Minister, Miss Ann Widdecombe, tried to justify the Government's position "on grounds of public safety". How on earth can public safety be jeopardised by someone trying out a .22 pistol under the close, expert supervision of an experienced club official when someone of any age can fire a .22 rifle at a ping-pong ball bouncing on a jet of water at a fun fair? I rest my case.Amendment No. 46 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea and Amendment No. 47, which I am happy to speak to as well, at the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, both permit members of licensed pistol clubs approved by the Secretary of State who are not firearm certificate holders to possess and use any firearm or ammunition at such a club. They allow a person to join a club and shoot with pistols indefinitely without ever being vetted by the police as to their suitability. The Government believe that that is not acceptable. The Government have made it clear that no one should be permitted to possess or fire a pistol without holding an individual firearm certificate in their own right. That means that everyone will have been checked thoroughly by the police before being allowed to come into possession of a pistol. The Government accept that to some extent that may discourage people from taking up pistol shooting. However, we do not believe that this is an area where public safety should be compromised. We believe that we have a considerable measure of support in that position.
Those who wish to take up pistol shooting—a number of noble Lords have suggested that the demand exists—will be able, before committing themselves to the process of obtaining a firearm certificate, to gain some experience of shooting with low-powered air pistols. We believe that that is a possible way of bringing younger people into the sport, if that is what they wish to do. On that basis, I invite the Committee to reject both amendments if they are pressed to a vote.The Minister suggests that a prospective shooter should acquire a firearm certificate. Once he acquires a firearm certificate, will he not then be encouraged to go the next step and buy his own pistol? On the other hand, if he did not need a certificate at all but could only use a pistol in the gun club, he would not be encouraged to go and buy another weapon, and that would keep the number of weapons in circulation down.
I do not accept that the acquisition of a firearm certificate necessarily encourages a person to purchase a pistol for his ownership and use. That is a personal matter for the individual concerned. For the reasons I have given, the Government believe that it is important to have the highest standard of safety and control over those who fire pistols. We believe that the only way in which that can be achieved is by ensuring that anyone who seeks to use a pistol has a firearm certificate. The inevitable consequence of either of the amendments is to frustrate that intention.
I am somewhat appalled by that answer. First, because the Minister mentioned air guns and secondly, because he mentioned the firearm certificate.
All sports have to be taken up at an early age. One cannot take up any sport at 30 or so and expect to be good at it. All sports should be taken up when people are young and able to learn. So people go into this sport at the age of 18 or so. But how can one possibly expect an 18 year-old to buy a licence for £150? I may be wrong but that is how I understand Clause 14. That is out of all proportion to what a young person would be earning. The Minister said that people could play around with air rifles. If he were to read my local press he would find out exactly what they do with air rifles. They wait until Dolly is leaning over and when she is facing south, they shoot her in the northside. They shoot animals and all sorts of things. Every single waymarking sign is peppered with air rifle shot. The Minister seems to suggest that young people should be encouraged to take up air pistols, of all things. I cannot think of anything worse. If youngsters want to have an air pistol, it would be far better to have them under control in a club where they have no possibility of taking that pistol anywhere other than onto a firing point—certainly not take it off a firing point. To invite them to go around the countryside shooting with air pistols! I cannot think of anything worse.I wholly understand the Government's wish that people should not indefinitely be able to fire pistols in clubs without a licence. I fully accept that and would happily agree with it. But the Government seem to be opposed to people trying it out even once or twice and I wonder whether that is not wholly unreasonable.
The Minister spoke about public safety. Can he explain how possibly public safety could be endangered by someone trying out a pistol at a range, under the close supervision of an experienced official in a club? That same person could fire a .22 rifle anywhere without anybody's supervision.6.15 p.m.
Let me raise one other point at this stage. Clause 36 of the Bill introduces a new Section 15 to the 1988 Act. At page 20 of the Bill, subsection (2) of the clause states that:
In this particular case, perhaps there could be some confusion in the legislation between a rifle club and a pistol club. As I understand the legislation, if someone belongs to a rifle club, he does not need to have a firearm certificate to fire the rifle in the club. On the other hand, if he wishes to fire a pistol in the club, he requires a firearm certificate. I wonder whether the Government would look at this matter again. I believe that people should be encouraged to learn how to shoot properly but not necessarily go to the extent of having a firearm certificate purely to use a pistol."A club may be approved as a rifle or miniature rifle club by the Secretary of State under section 15 of the 1988 Act and also licensed under this Act as a pistol club".
At the outset, I should make clear that nothing I said earlier should be construed as suggesting that either I or the Government encourage people to play around with air rifles or air pistols. I sought to indicate that the use of low powered air pistols, no doubt under the supervision of gun club members, could be a way of training young people in the use of such weapons, so that they learn how to use them and find out whether they are interested in the sport.
Youngsters go around the countryside with air rifles and nobody is training them at all. You can find them anywhere in the countryside.
I am well aware of that. But I seek to address the concern raised by my noble friend of how gun clubs might encourage younger people into the clubs. I venture to suggest that making it possible for them to use air pistols under supervision and training might be a way for them to acquire some practical experience. It will not only teach them the importance of safety, which my noble friend Lord Balfour has mentioned on more than one occasion, but will enable them to find out whether it is a sport in which they are interested. I believe that my noble friend Lord Balfour is correct in his reference to what happens at rifle clubs. If he and I are right, it is another means by which knowledge and experience can be gained before the young person needs to move on and acquire a firearm certificate.
I do not demur from the position that the requirement to have a firearm certificate before a pistol can be used will serve to discourage some young people from coming into the sport. I do not deny that at all. Equally, I hope the Committee will recognise that the Government have gone some way toward preserving the sport and in particular the Olympic competitions and the vast majority of the Commonwealth Games competitions and toward providing an incentive for people to remain in the sport, if they so wish. A balance has to be struck. If either of the amendments were carried, it would be possible for people to come into gun clubs, learn how to use pistols and use them indefinitely without any check whatsoever by the police as to their suitability to have such experience. They would acquire the expertise and the experience and what they did thereafter would, as I said, be subject to no vetting by the police at all. That is why the Government remain resolutely opposed to the amendments and invite the Committee to vote against them, if either of them are pressed. I should mention one other small matter on a point of detail. I understand that the cost of a firearm certificate would not be £ 150—that is the figure mentioned in Clause 14(5). That is the fee for the licence for a club and not for the firearm certificate itself.Before the Minister sits down, can he say whether club pistols will be allowed which will be able to be used by anybody with a valid firearm certificate?
My understanding is that that is the position. That reinforces the point that I sought to make earlier; namely, that the fact that one has a firearm certificate does not require one to own a pistol as well.
We have had a good run for our money on this amendment. My object in moving it was to cater for the person—a young chap, perhaps—who is not a member of a rifle club and wants to have a go at the sport. He may have an older friend who is a member of a club and he may have said to him: "I would not mind having a go myself, so his friend may have said: "Come along to the club one evening and we will let you have a go and you can see how you like the game". Of course, he would have his go under strict supervision, and among the first things he would be taught would be the first rules of safety. That is quite essential in the handling of any firearm. Under the eye of an experienced instructor he would have instruction in the safe handling of the weapon before having a go at targets.
In any event, there seems to be a certain amount of confusion in the mind of the Government over this. I may well return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Licence conditions]:
moved Amendment No. 46A:
Page 9, line 10, leave out ("imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or").
The noble Earl said: The amendment seeks to remove the imprisonment penalty for offences against Clause 16. The problem is that the law and the rules and regulations that go with it are acquiring a Byzantine complexity. The Minister will point out the protection provided by subsection (3), but it is not a defence against ignorance; it is only a defence against accidental commission of the offence. One cannot take all reasonable steps against the commission of an offence if one is in ignorance of it in the first place.
The result of subsection (4) as drafted, coupled with all the other responsibilities in terms of security and administration, is likely to result in no suitable people agreeing to be club officials and particularly key holders. As a result, the officials selected may not be the best available, with the attendant risks of offences being committed. I beg to move.
If the Government's view is that this amendment is inappropriate, I support their view. This goes to the heart of the control of clubs. It is fatuous to impose conditions on a licence—and those conditions are only imposed on the persons responsible for the management of a licensed pistol club, with all the possible public dangers that do not need to be spelt out—and it is useless to have licence conditions imposed upon those who manage licensed pistol clubs if the only sanction against not obeying the licence conditions is a fine.
I would suggest that the Government have pitched this correctly. They have limited the punishment to the magistrates' court—that is summary conviction—and they have put the imprisonment at the maximum single term imposable by the magistrates at six months. That is a maximum, not an automatic penalty. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, indicated, there is the saving defence in subsection (3). If somebody is going to propose himself or herself to manage a licensed pistol club without familiarising his or her mind with the details of the licensing conditions, I suggest that such a person is not fit to manage such a club.I may be wrong, but I believe that the Bill will introduce 16 new criminal offences or increased penalties for existing offences. Certainly, if there are not 16 offences, there are a great many penalty clauses. Who would be a club official when, for a simple omission, perhaps when he is off sick, he would be liable for a very heavy fine or six months' imprisonment? It may be that the poor wife of a shooter, who does not even shoot herself, would find herself in this position. I suggest that no one in their right mind would take on the task of administering a club with these penalties in the Bill. As a result of that alone, it is doubtful whether any club will survive.
Unfortunately, we must support the penalties, because I also cannot see any point in having regulation unless there is some penalty for non-compliance. I should have thought that on the whole magistrates and the police are sensible enough to take a reasonable view as to whether or not an offence is deliberate. Where there has been deliberate evasion of the regulations there has to be a penalty.
In rising to oppose the amendment of the noble Earl, I welcome the support I received from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough.
If the public are to be assured about the safety of the pistol clubs licensed under the new regime, which the Government propose in this legislation, it would be essential that those responsible for their operation pay the closest attention to the conditions that may be specified on their licences. For that reason it would be quite wrong, and would send quite the wrong message, if we were to agree to reduce the penalty for committing the offence of breaching the licence conditions. Of course, what the Bill sets out is the maximum penalty, which one imagines would only be imposed for the most extreme breach of the licence conditions. The law relating to firearms is currently complex and it will become more complex once this Bill becomes law. But it will be a necessary part of the management of gun clubs that those responsible for the management are aware of the law and the implications of the law. In the debates on this Bill the House has been assured on a number of occasions that those interested in the sport of shooting are responsible members of society. I am happy to accept that assurance. That leads me to express a measure of surprise that they do not welcome the sanction remaining as it is, because it will mean that if an individual manager fails to live up to the high standards which everyone in society would wish him to follow and does so wilfully, he should be properly punished. Nothing we have heard in the debates on this Bill suggests that it will be impossible for the conditions to be understood and followed. If they are followed, there is no reason to worry about the penalty. On the other hand, if we weaken the penalty, it will suggest that this House does not say clearly to those involved in the sport that the licence conditions are important. For those reasons I hope it will be possible for this amendment to be withdrawn.The Committee will be pleased to hear that I will not push this amendment very far. My major concern is the complexity of the legislation. I accept fully the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the Minister regarding the desirability of having penalties.
I believe that to find people willing to be club secretaries and club officials will be quite difficult. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Exemptions from section 1 of the 1968 Act for officers etc. of licensed pistol clubs]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 24 agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 48:
Before Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
NATIONAL FIREARMS COMPUTER DATABASE
("—(1) There shall be established a National Firearms Computer Database (NFCD) to—
(2) The NFCD shall be operated in accordance with the principles of ISO 9000.").
The noble Earl said: This small group of amendments concerns the desirability of having a computer system or a database to record details of holders of firearms certificates, shotgun certificates, dealers, clubs, ranges, etc.
I originally put down the amendment, since when the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has put down an amendment in his name. I believe that his amendment is slightly better than mine, so perhaps we may listen to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, as he puts his amendment.
6.30 p.m.
In rising to speak to my amendment, I must say that in my opinion the Home Office must bear and accept some share of the blame for the tragedy of Dunblane. I say that for the simple reason that the Home Office has failed—indeed, I would claim has refused—to introduce a licensing regime which has a reasonable chance of ensuring that a Thomas Hamilton could not obtain or retain a licence for a lethal firearm, whether a pistol, a rifle or a shotgun. However much the Committee may be divided on the merits of the Bill, we are all clearly united in our horror at Dunblane and in our determination to ensure that there should not be another one. Yet there is nothing in the Bill which does anything to make less likely that there could not be another Dunblane using a rifle or shotgun; in other words, some firearm that is not covered by the Bill.
My amendment seeks to introduce a simple computerised register nationally of all those who hold a licence for a firearm of any kind, whether a pistol that is in one of the remaining categories allowed, a rifle or a shotgun. Long before Dunblane, as some noble Lords will know, I concerned myself with the adequacy of the present arrangements. Indeed, I was pressing the Government between the months of November 1995 and February 1996—the Dunblane tragedy was in March 1996—to do something about this for precisely the reason that the present system of each police force having its own system of licensing with no linkage between them was so wholly unacceptable. That system is quite inexcusable and quite unnecessary. The technology for doing this is simple and extremely cheap. Indeed, I have made the simple calculation that for the number of people who have a licence for all these weapons, the information could probably be contained in about one gigabyte of information, which a modern home desktop computer has in its hard storage. Even if the figure were 10 times that, it would be an immaterial factor. The technology for this has not only been in existence but has been in use for decades. The vehicle and driver licensing system at Swansea was set up in 1973. That system enables the police to check instantly in real time on the driver of any vehicle. Yet there has been no suggestion that the Home Office could consider the suggestions that have been made for the introduction of such a scheme for firearms. If the Government are as unwilling to consider my suggestion as they have been up to now, I shall feel bound to ask the Committee to support me in a vote on this issue.Although I wish to support my noble friend's amendment I cannot share the criticism that he has expressed of the Home Office in this matter. I know from my own experience over the past 51 years in East Anglia—partly as an MP and partly when practising as a barrister—that it is almost impossible to get a licence for the private possession of a handgun unless one is a member of a gun club or has some very special reason for wanting it.
Under the present law, which has been the law for a great many years, the licence to hold a firearm can be refused by the magistrates on the advice of the police. Licences have always been refused to convicted criminals. I cannot go along with my noble friend on the reason he gives for his excellent amendment, but there is a strong case to be made for there to be a record held centrally and available locally in order to ensure that so far as possible the further firearms provisions to be made by the Bill are enforceable. Firearms law has always been difficult to enforce. We know that from some of the tragedies that have occurred. However, it will be made a little easier to enforce—easier for the police and easier for authority generally—if we have a proper system of the kind proposed in the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. Until I saw his amendment, I was rather attracted by the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. However, it does not go quite as far as the amendment proposed by my noble friend, and therefore, on balance, I prefer that of my noble friend.I wish to add my support to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I see two advantages in the system that he proposes. First, there would be one single address to which people might send complaints about the conduct of firearms users where it has not been satisfactory. Secondly, it deals with the problem of people relocating and yet another police force having to start again to process someone's application. I hope that other Members of the Committee will see it in the same way.
I find myself looking at the amendment of my noble friend as a half-way house between what we shall discuss under Amendment No. 77—a full firearms control board. It is a very good half-way house. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Burton does not agree. However, we must not discuss Amendment No. 77 at this stage.
What we have achieved through many police forces is the civilianisation of firearms officers. My noble friend Lord Renton happens to live in one of the best counties for the administration of the Firearms Act. Cambridgeshire is an example to every other county in England. We have civilian firearms officers who know what they are talking about. They deal with the problem and feed it in to the police station. They know and live within the shooting community. Lincolnshire is following the same example. If we are to extend the system of civilian firearms officers to all other police forces, we need my noble friend's amendment to back up that system. The amendment has great merit.The proposal for a national database is the subject of Amendments Nos. 48 and 66. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for providing me last Thursday with some background to his Amendment No. 66. My noble friend has indeed discussed this matter with me. However, I should say to him that in the first instance I do not think it is right to require this kind of database by means of primary legislation. These matters are better dealt with administratively.
Secondly, we are already discussing with the Association of Chief Police Officers a system called PHOENIX, a computer based system, which will be available to firearms licensing departments throughout the United Kingdom. PHOENIX will contain details of certificate holders and firearms dealers and will also contain information on persons who have had certificates revoked or are otherwise considered to be unfit to possess a firearm. The system will provide on-line access, as my noble friend Lord Marlesford suggests, to all police forces and other national police computer agencies and contain criminal record details. We are also considering with the Association of Chief Police Officers whether PHOENIX would be able to hold details of individual weapons, too. But we do not currently plan to have the national insurance numbers of gun licence holders put into the system. I know that that is something about which my noble friend feels very strongly. He will know that I have much sympathy with the point he makes. We do not believe that there is a particular need for that at this moment since the existing arrangements for the issue of firearm and shotgun certificates already allow the police to make very thorough checks of applicants' identities. Details of approved clubs are kept centrally by the Home and Scottish Offices, and individual forces, as my noble friend Lord Kimball has said, also keep local records. Perhaps I may interject a personal note here. Local information is very useful in the situation we are talking about. To dovetail that with the national network for cross-country inter-communication is so important. The police forces also provide statistical returns to the Home and Scottish Offices on firearms licensing. These are published annually in statistical bulletins, which can be found in the Library of the House. I know that that is not the point that my noble friend is making. He is talking about a network of ownership, personal information, criminal conviction certificates and so forth. I say to my noble friend that there is a partial read-across on unique numbers to the identity card debate. He will know that we are giving thought to the possibility of using a unique number. In the meantime we believe that using the PHOENIX system with the police would meet in large measure the objectives of this amendment.Those who were involved in the Police Bill yesterday will know that I moved amendments which expressed doubt about the availability of the PHOENIX database to which the Minister has referred because doubts have been expressed as to whether it would be available in time to meet the needs of the Criminal Records Agency, which is another potential user of the same service.
I have received unequivocal assurances from the Minister. I believe she said that not only would it be up and running, but that it is up and running. I do not believe that anyone can go further than that. I have sympathy with the objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in his amendment. I believe that control by a central database, provided that there are precautions in compliance with the Data Protection Act and other measures which may be necessary for the protection of individual privacy, is a good thing. But having listened to the Minister and what she said about the PHOENIX database and the undesirability of having the specification of a database on the face of the Bill, I believe that the noble Lord would be wise not to press this amendment to a Division.The purpose of the amendment is to increase security. The database does not remove power or information from local police; it merely increases the availability of the information. Nearly all police forces have computers, but at the moment a great many of them are incompatible one with another. That means that there are quite a number of problems in trying to obtain information outside a constabulary area. It is very important that there should be one central base, as for vehicle licensing, which can be dialled directly so that the police can have access to the system and find exactly the information required and, what is more, that it can be done at any hour of the day or night. At the moment the computers are available only when the firearms officer, who is very often a civilian who works normal office hours, is on duty. Accordingly, if something crops up during the night there is probably no one available to answer even the request on the local computer, whereas with a central computer there would be a 24-hour service.
I have listened carefully to what the noble Baroness has said and also to what the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, said. I would like to pay tribute to what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said. It goes absolutely to the heart of Lord Cullen's Report. As I said earlier in dealing with Amendment No. 33, he identified a system failure. The way to deal with that is to tighten up the management procedures. To do that one needs to have national consistency and consistent input. We are talking about the upgrading of the management of the licensing system. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has put the matter extremely eloquently.
This amendment sets no more than the most basic minimum criteria that anyone could possibly think of for some form of on-line, dial-up system. If the PHOENIX system, to which the noble Baroness referred, does not meet that, it is not up to scratch. In that case this amendment is an extremely valuable addition on the face of the Bill. The situation is that if the amendment does no good it will do no harm. In any event, we must be satisfied, in dealing with the matter in this House, that we have good quality, consistent management via a database which can be accessed. It seems to me that the noble Lord's amendment does no more than state the obvious and the absolute minimum criteria.6.45 p.m.
Before withdrawing my amendment I would like to make one observation. I am sure that many Members of the Committee are aware that the Metropolitan Police has an extremely good computer system at New Scotland Yard, which is just a short distance from us. Even the Metropolitan Police cannot tell, when it attends a domestic incident, whether at that address there are any firearms or shotguns. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I fear that it is yet another attempt by the Home Office to say, "Don't interfere on our patch". If the new system were to meet my criteria, well and good. I am not saying that it should not go ahead. Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee one example. If someone were to be convicted of a crime which would disqualify him from being issued with any certificate for a firearm—a shotgun, pistol or rifle—and if that crime were committed outside the area in which the convicted person had already been granted a licence, there is no machinery whatever, unless it is a very serious and notorious crime, whereby the police force in the area which had granted the licence would be able to revoke it. It simply would not know about the case.
I am proposing something which is very simple, very modest and very easy to carry out. It is essential that it is done. I do not have enough confidence to leave the matter to Home Office assertions that it is dealing with it because it has been saying that for a long time. I would very much like to test the opinion of the Committee.I wonder whether my noble friend heard the Minister say that she was in negotiation with the chief officers of police with a view to establishing just the kind of system that he has in mind?
I did hear that and I was delighted to do so. I hope that, if the amendment is carried, that will be an additional spur for them to do so. However, I do not accept that it is not appropriate for the Bill.
I do not wish to discourage my noble friend from pressing the amendment, but I would rather he did not. He cannot press it at this point. It is Amendment No. 66 which was grouped with the previous amendment. Therefore, my noble friend will have to be patient and press it in the appropriate chronological order.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 50 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Expanding ammunition etc.: supplementary]:
moved Amendment No. 50A:
Page 12, line 15, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
The noble Earl said: I can understand the need to ban the sale of expanding ammunition, with certain exceptions for humane killing reasons. That will have the effect of reducing its availability and thus, if there is a further disaster, there is less likelihood of expanding ammunition being used. The problem is that Clause 26 removes the previous exemption for collectors. It also includes ammunition that is inert, as even the actual bullets themselves are caught. As no handguns larger than .22 calibre will remain in private hands one asks what a ban on collectors will achieve. It should be remembered that if in future illegal ammunition is obtained non-expanding projectiles can easily be converted into expanding projectiles by means of a hacksaw, a pair of pliers, a lathe or even a humble electric drill. It is even possible to reload a cartridge with a bullet that is put in back to front. My amendment will replace the exemption of collectors and enable them to retain expanding ammunition under Section 5A by a collector's clause on their firearm certificate. Of course, there would be a limit placed on the number of each type or calibre as agreed between the collector and the police. I beg to move.
Amendment No. 52 in my name is part of this group of amendments. The purpose is to clarify the wording of Clause 26 which leaves open to doubt the position of agricultural tenants who, depending on the terms of their tenancy, are normally responsible for pest control on their holdings and have statutory rights to control hares and rabbits under the Ground Game Act. I hope that my noble friend will agree that those fanners should continue to use expanding ammunition in appropriate cases and where authorised by their firearm certificates. To achieve this, I believe that it is necessary to amend the clause to confirm that the concept of estate management covering tenant farmers is that contained in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. The amendment does not in any way disturb the balance of interest between landlord and tenant but merely ensures that farm tenants will not be inadvertently restricted in future from lawful access to ammunition required for safe and humane wildlife control.
It was as recently as 1992, when the United Kingdom came into line with European law, that the Government put forward various amendments. They have now changed the position. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is right. If subsections (2) and (3) were removed it would avoid all the complications of cartridge exhibitions. Some people have very valuable collections of cartridges. It is ridiculous that an empty cartridge in a glass case will no longer be legal because it has a soft-nosed bullet.
I apologise for arriving late in the Chamber. I speak to Amendment No. 51 which is to do with practising with expanding ammunition. Several attempts have been made to cover the point that people who use expanding ammunition legitimately in the humane killing of animals need to ensure a high degree of accuracy to avoid pain to the animal and achieve a quick destruction. The Government have suggested that the words "in connection with" cover the circumstances in which the shooter needs to zero his pistol or practise with or test the ammunition. The wording is acceptable for zeroing; it is doubtful, however, whether it covers practice in shooting at inanimate objects in order to achieve the necessary standards of accuracy. The amendment attempts to provide for such circumstances. For instance, when stalking it may be necessary to dispatch an injured animal which is on the move as quickly as possible. The shooter needs to be able to practise at the discipline known as running deer. All shooters of such quarry need to be aware of the main areas to aim for, with allowances being made for distance, wind speed, trajectory and so forth, in order to afford the quickest and cleanest dispatch of the quarry. I believe that the amendment strengthens the purpose of the clause and makes the effects more efficient in practice.
Once one has a gun properly tuned in—I am referring to a .22 or .243 rifle—it pays every time to use expanding ammunition. One is then much more likely to kill and not wound an animal. The trouble with a solid-nosed bullet is that it can make a neat round hole through whatever one is aiming at. The poor creature then crawls away and dies in a hole or in the bushes. On humane grounds I hope that there will be no restriction on the use of both types of ammunition. One uses solid ammunition to home in on the right position of the target and then hollow-nosed ammunition to go out and kill an animal. It is important that both forms of ammunition are available to farmers, landowners, gamekeepers and so on.
I am grateful to all my noble friends and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for raising these important points which are the subject of Amendments Nos. 50A, 51 and 52.1 have considerable sympathy with Amendment No. 50A, tabled by the noble Earl. The effect of the amendment, as he has explained, would be to allow collectors of expanding ammunition to continue their collections without the need for the Secretary of State's authority. A government amendment was successfully tabled in another place which would have had the effect of preventing collectors of ammunition from keeping expanding ammunition in their collections. We have since received representations from some collectors who have pointed out that typically only one or two rounds of a wide variety of ammunition types are held in a collection and that to require those to be surrendered would undermine the integrity of the sets that may have been built up over a number of years, at some considerable cost to the individual collectors themselves. We are sympathetic to the representations we have received and, if the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment, I undertake to introduce an amendment to this effect at Report.
I believe that the amendment to Clause 26, tabled in the name of my noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Peel, is unnecessary. The present wording of the subsection which deals with a certificate or permit condition in relation to expanding ammunition uses the words "in connection with". That is the wording used elsewhere in the firearms legislation to cover related matters. The Bill has been carefully drafted to cover not only the actual use but also the preparatory stages that may have to be followed to ensure that the certificate holder is able to shoot the animal humanely. That includes allowing the certificate holder to zero or adjust the gun sights, as well as general testing and practice. If we refer to those matters expressly here we could cast doubt on the wording elsewhere in the legislation. If it helps to ease my noble friends' concerns, this is a point which we can include in guidance to the police. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for raising the possible effect of Clause 26 of the Bill on agricultural tenants. I understand his concerns that the term "management of an estate" should apply to those agricultural holdings which are managed by tenants. However, the clause as currently drafted will already include the kinds of holdings and tenancy arrangements to which my noble friend refers. The present term "management of an estate" is sufficiently broad to include all manner of legal forms of occupation and management of land. To state on the face of the Bill that certain arrangements are included may imply that other arrangements are excluded. When issuing guidance to the police on the application of the clause we will ensure that this point is properly addressed. I therefore ask all my noble friends not to pursue their amendments.I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, will carefully study the case law on Pepper v. Hart. On the basis that the noble Baroness intends to table a better amendment in her own name, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert ("or for practice or testing related thereto").
The noble Earl said: I, too, thank my noble friend the Minister for going some way towards satisfying my concerns on this matter, and I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert—
("(7) In subsection (8) (interpretation) after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
"(c) in this section "management of any estate" includes the management of any agricultural holding within the meaning of section 1 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and section 38 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995."").
The noble Lord said: I, too, thank my noble friend for that reassuring statement with which I am entirely happy.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 30 agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 53:
Before Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
ADAPTED SHOT GUNS: REQUIREMENT FOR FIREARM CERTIFICATE
("In section 1 of the 1968 Act (requirement for a firearm certificate), subsection (3A) shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 70, 84, 85 and 90.
These amendments were originally in two groups. My first amendment undoes an amendment made in another place to require only one referee for a shotgun certificate. The next amendment goes further in that it removes shotguns from Section 1 of the 1968 Act. It is surprising that before 1967 no certificate was needed for a shotgun.
My motivation for putting down the amendments is that shotguns are not treated as powerful weapons, which defies all logic. For a long time a sawn-off shotgun was the preferred weapon of criminals, although I understand that machine pistols are more popular with sophisticated drug gangs even though they are Section 5 weapons.
When one compares the size of a 12-bore shotgun cartridge with a .22 or even a 9mm round, the latter two appear to be puny. Even more important is the fact that a shotgun cartridge can carry a variety of shot or even a solid slug. I covered that point in greater detail during the first day in Committee.
If handguns were not available to Hamilton, he might well have had a shotgun which he could have illegally modified to be concealable. The result would not be much different. It would not help the Committee for me to describe the differences. It is important to recognise that shotguns have a legitimate and widespread use in the countryside for sport and for controlling vermin.
There are considerable foreign exchange earnings from overseas visitors. In addition, there is a great deal of employment associated with field sports, which must not be jeopardised. No doubt many Members of the Committee, including the Minister, will tell me that the Bill is about handguns or victimising the legal owners of them. I should like to think that it is about increasing public safety and protecting the shooting community from having another madman within its midst.
My amendment will increase public safety and make the Bill much simpler and easier to understand. I expect some resistance to the amendments but I shall be interested to hear what the Committee feels about them. I beg to move.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Earl in what he says about shotguns and the requirement for a firearm certificate for such weapons. Shotguns are not firearms. They are used for completely separate purposes and disciplines. It is a matter that we have discussed at the FCC which disagrees completely with the noble Earl on this issue. We believe that the present laws regarding shotguns are adequate and are working well. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Perhaps I may add a few words. I hope that the Government will not unite shotgun and firearm certificates. They are completely different. That is the impression I gained from the amendment. The two certificates should be kept totally apart and treated differently.
I have to say to my noble friends and the noble Earl that the Government believe that the existing controls on shotguns are in most respects adequate. Most semi-automatic or pump action short barrelled shotguns are prohibited, and shotguns which are capable of firing three or more shots without reloading are subject to control by firearm certificates in the same way as a rifle.
The Committee will know that there are many perfectly legitimate reasons, especially in the countryside, why people should have ordinary shotguns. Very many people own them—over 700, 000 in Great Britain as a whole. People who wish to have them must first obtain a shotgun certificate from the police and satisfy them that they will keep and use the gun securely. Police can refuse to issue a certificate if they believe that the applicant has no good reason for having a shotgun. Lord Cullen's Inquiry did not address shotguns, which have always been subject to a separate system of controls. He was very clear in his report that he saw shotguns as a very different from other kinds of firearms, which agrees with both my noble friends who have spoken on this matter. He said at paragraph 7.16:Shotguns could be purchased and owned without any formalities until the early 1960s, whereas handguns have been subject to very tight restrictions since the early 1900s and rifles since the 1920s. The regime for shotguns was tightened in 1988, but there remains a clear distinction in the certification regimes. Nevertheless, the Government are taking the opportunity in the Bill to rationalise and strengthen the controls on the sale, transfer and disposal of shotguns. Aside from that, the Government believe that the present controls are adequate and I hope that the noble Earl will not press the amendment."The considerations relating to the possession and use of shotguns are concerned with very different areas of activity from those relating to handguns. I am not persuaded that it is justifiable to approach all these types in essentially the same manner. That is quite apart from the fact that I do not think that the availability of shotguns is a matter which has a tenable connection with the circumstances with which this Inquiry is concerned".
It seems that I am not receiving a great deal of support for or interest in the amendment. I am a little disappointed that we did not look at it closer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved,.]
Clause 31 [Applications for certificates and referees]:
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 14, line 39, at end insert ("or has most recently resided or is reasonably expected to reside in the future, ").
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos, 61 and 63. Amendments Nos. 56 and 61 seek to address a problem relating to UK citizens who are not currently resident in the UK. Obvious examples are service personnel and overseas expatriate workers who bring considerable foreign exchange into the country.
Under Sections 26A and 26B of the 1968 Act, as amended by Clause 31 of the Bill, applications for certificates have to be lodged with the chief officer of police for the area in which the applicant resides. If a serviceman is living overseas, he will not be able to make a valid application until he moves back into the UK. That will create a range of unnecessary difficulties which my amendment seeks to address.
Amendment No. 63 seeks to have a European firearms pass and firearm or shotgun certificate combined. An EU driving licence is issued by the DVLA and covers the whole of the EU. I appreciate that there may be difficulties with the amendment, but I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the cross-border movement of guns with European firearms passes. I beg to move.
It is possible for a person domiciled in, say, Dundee to obtain a firearm certificate which allows him to take his weapons anywhere in the country. Normally, one must declare where one intends to use a firearm; in other words, on whose land. My firearm certificate does not allow me to use my gun outside the footage of my estate, which is my home.
However, it is possible for a person to obtain a "roving" firearm certificate, if I may put it that way, in order to go stalking, say, in the Highlands. He may be able to obtain such a certificate from the police in the area in which he is domiciled. If he moves to another area he should, through his chief officer of police, link up with the police of that area in order to have his certificate transferred. That is a different matter, but it is the law as I understand it. I hope that if I am wrong I shall be corrected.I believe that the noble Earl has not quite understood the purpose of my amendment. It addresses the problem of people who are resident overseas.
Unlike Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55, this is a moderate amendment and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
Amendments Nos. 56 and 61 would allow a person living abroad to apply for a certificate before returning to this country. If the police were obliged to consider applications in such cases they would have little chance of meeting the applicant in person and no chance of inspecting his home conditions or security if he had not yet acquired the domestic premises in which he intended to reside.
The applicant would also be free to choose between applying to the last local police force from which he had obtained a licence and any number of police forces for other areas where he might reasonably be intending to live. In some cases, that could lead to a duplication of effort on the part of the police force and a measure of confusion. The Government are aware that in a small number of cases the requirement for residence in order to apply for a certificate has caused problems, in particular with servicemen returning from abroad. The Firearms Consultative Committee considered the issue and its conclusions are set out in its seventh annual report, a copy of which is in the Library of your Lordships' House. The committee concluded that it was not necessary to amend the law but that chief officers should continue to treat cases sympathetically and as quickly as possible when servicemen return. That seems entirely sensible. Amendment No. 63 relates to European firearms passes. Such a document is given force by the European weapons directive, which was agreed by member states. In order to be incorporated in a firearm or shotgun certificate, the exact form of the EFP would have to be reproduced on the certificate, making it a very unwieldy document. Furthermore, when a shooter wishes to visit another member state he must send his EFP to the authorities in that country to have it endorsed before he travels. If the EFP were to become part of the firearm or shotgun certificate the shooter would have to send the certificate as well. While his EFP and his certificate were out of the country he would have difficulty proving his legal ownership of any firearms or ammunition in his possession and he certainly would not be able to purchase any ammunition for use. In those circumstances it appears to the Government that Amendment No. 63 is not particularly sensible and I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.I am grateful to the Minister, although I am not entirely convinced about the situation as regards overseas workers. Sometimes it is necessary for them to return to the UK at very short notice. It would make sense for them to have an appropriate certificate in place just in case. However, I accept some of the difficulties to which the noble and learned Lord referred. I wish to be able to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 61 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 15, line 33, at end insert—
("Duties of chief officers of police under sections 26A and 26B.
26C. The chief officer of police shall carry out his duties under sections 26A and 26B above in accordance with the principles of ISO 9000.".").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 62 I realise that I am having to sing for my dinner. In his report Lord Cullen makes it clear that the Central Scotland Police failed in that they issued certificates to a man who was patently unsuitable. Lord Cullen also illustrated in paragraph 6.59 that senior officers did not understand the law. The paperwork, the forms and so forth that they were using were not kept up to date. The RL3A form was referred to in the report as unimpressive—I have a copy here—and did not ask as many specific questions as the one recommended by the Home Office in 1969.
It has been suggested to me that my amendment is a polite way of saying that the police will have to do the job properly. I say nothing about that. However, the Central Scotland Police will not have been the only sleepy provincial police force without an up-to-date procedure. Even worse, police policy around the country varies even between similar areas and we shall be addressing that point in a later amendment.
My amendment refers to ISO 9000, which is similar to BS5750 and is a total quality management system (TQM). The Government have rightly encouraged the development of TQM in industry and commerce and are pursuing it with even greater vigour in the forces. It is not a system of unnecessary bureaucracy but more a means of getting things right first time.
As we are tragically aware, we cannot afford to make mistakes when issuing certificates. The mistake in question will cost an absolute minimum of £150 million and probably a great deal more. It is perhaps worth having a look at what is involved, as many Members of the Committee may not be familiar with TQM.
The first requirement is to understand who your customer is, what his requirement is and then to delight him. That is a peculiar concept if you are running a prison service, but when you think a little you realise that the customer is the general public. Similarly, when determining a firearms application, the question is important. In fact, there may be more than one customer; the applicant and the public. You are then required to have a laid down procedure to ensure that the processes are always carried out in the same way in order to deliver a consistent and measurable performance. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to that earlier. It is then important to measure performance indicators such as time to process applications, the number of appeals, whether successful or not, customer satisfaction and the cost of operations to name but a few.
Having measured the performance, the procedure and processes must be reviewed in order that any room for improvement can be identified. An example of that in firearms administration would be if it were realised that the firearms inquiry officer on the ground did not have all the background information to the case. Another would be if the chief officer actually signing the certificate did not have all the available information in front of him when there were any contra-indications to signing. Both those problems were identified in Lord Cullen's report and an organisation running an ISO 9000 system would not easily make those mistakes.
It is important to understand that my amendment does not mean that the police will have to have an ISO 9000, although I accept that the best way in which to comply with the clause would be to have one as it involves continuous validation. I beg to move.
I wish to make only a very small point which I perhaps should have made on earlier amendments. ISO 9000 is not a permanent classification. It has already changed and is now 9001. It is quite unsuitable to put it into legislation.
I agree with the noble Lord on that point. In fact, we used to be working to B 5750. That is a valid criticism and I am sure that the Minister will not hesitate to draw my attention to it.
It is vital that the police should have proper procedures as regards the issuing of certificates. It is quite clear that such procedures did not exist in central Scotland, as the noble Earl has just said. Indeed, I have before me a note from the Clyde Valley Pistol Club which says that Hamilton was not even a member of the club for his 4-bore pistol when he applied for it. Not only is it that he was quite unfit to have that pistol, but he was not even a member of the club. If the minimum investigation had taken place, that would have come to light.
I believe that it is accepted on all sides of the Committee that it is important for police officers to have in place policy statements and quality checks to govern their firearms licensing systems. There can be little doubt that after chief officers have read the Cullen Report, that that concern will have been reinforced. I am quite sure that throughout the country, every effort will have been made to go over the systems which are in place.
This is a matter on which the Government consult with the police force regularly through meetings with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Neither the police nor the Government believe that it would be appropriate to put on the face of the Bill reference to a particular standard. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, observed, ISO 9000 is to some extent a moving target, if I may use that expression in the context of the debate. Indeed, the noble Earl himself said that he is merely looking to embody the principle of ISO 9000 rather than the detail of it. I suggest that it would be a serious mistake to put on the face of the Bill reference to a particular document which is bound to change. That is not in any sense to minimise the importance of having good management standards, and I hope that with that assurance, the amendment will be withdrawn.The Minister has attempted to reassure us that after the disaster at Dunblane, the administration of firearms will be conducted differently. I imagine that after Hungerford, Ministers said exactly the same thing. I am rather disturbed because we seem to have made rather similar mistakes. I accept the comment made by the noble and learned Lord that it is not appropriate to put such a provision on the face of the Bill and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
I beg to move that the House now resume and in moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at twenty five minutes past eight.
I rise because we are always willing to be accommodating in these matters but our principal spokesman for the next business is not yet in the Chamber. Perhaps we could continue to deal with this legislation for another five minutes.
I withdraw the Motion which my noble friend sought to move.
moved Amendment No. 65:
Before Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
POSSESSION OF AIR WEAPONS BY MINORS
("In section 22(4) of the 1968 Act (possession of air weapons by minors), for "fourteen" there is substituted "eighteen".").
The noble Earl said: This amendment and Amendment No. 72, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, are both aimed at the better control of air guns in our society. That is briefly touched on in the Cullen Report at paragraph 9.118 and may also have been supported indirectly by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough.
I am grateful to the Minister for drawing my attention earlier today to the briefing from the Firearms Consultative Committee. Those briefing notes were placed in the Library following consideration in another place of the issue of raising the age for air gun use.
I believe that the age of 14 is unnecessarily young for involvement with air guns and, indeed, other weapons; and I believe that 18 represents an age of increasing maturity and residual suitability. That is an argument based on a moral premise that the best way in which to stem the rise of a gun culture is to separate it off and to restrict it to adult society alone.
In their search of adulthood, young people have many other aspects of living in a community to master. Weapon use is the least of those and can be restricted safely to a threshold on the early years of adulthood.
In Amendment No. 72, which is the more significant of the two amendments, I see every advantage in there being a register of all air guns with their location and ownership recorded and updated. I see no advantage in not doing so and every advantage in knowing at least to where one may complain about the misuse of an air gun. Those air guns are not toys. It is possible to have a fatal accident with an air gun and it is possible to blind someone, not to mention the potential harassment of birds and animals.
I have no problem with real hunting for food or for a cull but I am far less happy when the killing of animals is for vicarious pleasure. I hope that the Committee will see the merit of knowing where every air gun is located and so support the amendment. I beg to move.
I am concerned about this amendment partly for the reason that in Section 22(3) of the Firearms Act 1968, it states that a person aged 15 may use a shotgun provided he is accompanied by an adult who is over the age of 21.
While I have some sympathy with the proposal put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that 14 is too young, it might achieve something if he left the age at 14 but provided that for the first two years of possessing the air gun the person ought to be accompanied by somebody over the age of 21. In respect of the other amendment, it should read Section 1 (3)(b) not 1 (3)(6). As I see the position, if I am correct, subsection (b) will read:That would leave out the words "specially dangerous". I am not very happy about that, particularly as subsection (3)(b) applies the rules made by the Secretary of State in respect of the "register of transactions" for firearms dealers in Section 40 of the 1968 Act. However, I believe that air guns are fairly well protected under Clause 38 of the Bill."an air weapon (that is to say, an air rifle, air gun or air pistol, not of a type declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of this Act".
7.30 p.m.
I rise briefly to add my support to that already expressed for the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on Amendment No. 72, which is also tabled in my name. I happen to agree with the noble Earl that some revision of the age limit for air weapons (to which Amendment No. 65 refers) is also desirable. However, as far as concerns Amendment No. 72, the noble Earl has correctly described it as making it possible for the Secretary of State to require a register of air weapons. I believe that that is a desirable aim.
It is absolutely essential that youngsters, even those younger than 14, should be able to shoot air guns. However, it is equally essential that they should only be allowed to do so if they are accompanied by a person of a proper age. There is no doubting the fact that there is a positive air gun menace in the countryside with everything being shot at on occasions. But to have a register would, I believe, prove to be a phenomenal task. I am not even sure whether air guns are numbered, and there must be hundreds and thousands of them in the country. Surely it would be an impossible task to try to keep track of them.
On Amendment No. 65, I agree with other Members of the Committee that raising the age limit to 18 goes rather too far. There might be a case for 15 or 16, but better still might be the proposals put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, that 14 or 15 year-olds with air guns should be accompanied by an older person.
As regards Amendment No. 72, again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. The bureaucracy implied by the amendment would be enormous. There is much misuse of guns. The point is that it is illegal anyway for the most part. The difficulty is catching the people concerned, and I do not believe that licensing would make any difference. Therefore, I believe that the noble Earl should think again about the matter.I support my noble friend Lord Gisborough in his remarks because the prime objective is to teach the safe handling of air weapons. From there, one can progress to any other type of firearm. It is essential that the safe handling of air guns, or air rifles, should be taught at the earliest age possible. The youngster should be allowed to have his air rifle as long as he is accompanied by a responsible adult.
I must declare a non-pecuniary interest in supporting my noble friend's amendment. The air gun menace to which the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, referred is not confined to the countryside; indeed, Brent is hardly that. However, one day my wife was standing beside the backdoor of our home when something with a loud thwack hit the wall within an inch of her head. We subsequently found an air gun pellet which had ricocheted into the house and come to rest under the radiator. I do not feel very happy about such situations. I agree with my noble friend that 14 is not always the most responsible age in a person's life. One way or another, I should like to see greater control on such potentially dangerous weapons.
Bearing in mind the well-known cruelty to cats, cattle and so on, I believe that the problem that we are now experiencing is lack of supervision. The actual age of someone using an air rifle—or even a shotgun or a firearm—is not the problem; it is the lack of supervision.
The Government are well aware of public concern over the misuse of air weapons by young people. Indeed, as Members of the Committee have already said, the matter was raised in another place. Following that debate, the issue of air weapons and young people was placed before the Firearms Consultative Committee, which was asked to look at the issues involved. I understand that the matter was discussed at a meeting earlier this month and a paper in that respect has been prepared and placed in the Library of the House.
The Firearms Consultative Committee concluded that it would be a mistake to change the current arrangements which have been carefully formulated over a period of time without a clear plan and identification of any major weaknesses. I commend that paper to Members of the Committee who are interested in the topic. I hope that it will reassure them that Amendment No. 65 is unnecessary.Before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, I should point out to him that I read the paper to which he referred because it was commended to us by the Minister. However, is the Firearms Consultative Committee (which is chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury) a truly independent body? Who does it represent and who are its members?
I am unable, off the top of my head, to give the noble Lord details of every member of the committee. However, I believe that the membership is well known in the sense that details of it have previously been published. If the noble Lord wishes to be informed as to the detail of every member, I should be happy to arrange for him to receive such information.
That is not what I am concerned about; I am concerned to know whether the committee is impartial. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has been active in promoting amendments to the Bill, which is entirely his privilege. My question is whether the FCC is a government organisation. I should also like to know in what way it is impartial and in what way the evidence which the noble and learned Lord has adduced can be treated as being impartial evidence on the issue.
Is the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, aware that there are two senior police officers on the committee and, indeed, a representative of the Home Office?
That is what I was asking about.
I believe that it has been made clear in the past but I am happy to make the position clear again. The FCC is a body which is independent of government. It has represented among its membership a number of interests which range from my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, who is the chairman, to chief constables, lawyers involved in the prosecution of criminal offences, those with a particular interest in the gun trade and in shooting as a sport, civil servants, the Keeper of Exhibits at the Imperial War Museum, and others. Because it is an independent body, those who are members of it are entitled to their independent views.
As a Member of this Chamber, it is entirely a matter for my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury what role he chooses to play in our debates. The Government are not bound to accept the advice that they receive; but they are perfectly entitled to take account of it. I suggest to the noble Lord that the paper to which I referred, which is to be found in the Library, supports the position which the Government seek to adopt in relation to Amendment No. 65; namely, that there is no justification for changing the law in the manner suggested. I turn now to Amendment No. 72 which is also tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey. The rules governing the types of air weapon which require a firearm certificate have been the same for many years. The Firearms Act 1968 states that an air weapon requires a firearm certificate if it is of a type which the Secretary of State has declared in rules to be "specially dangerous". Those rules currently take the form of the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules of 1969. Their effect is that an air weapon will require a firearm certificate if it has a kinetic energy—that is, the force with which the pellet comes out of the gun—in excess of 12 foot pounds, or in the case of an air pistol a kinetic energy in excess of six foot pounds. An air weapon which has a kinetic energy of less than these limits does not require a firearm certificate. The effect of the rules is that more powerful air guns require a licence; less powerful ones do not. It has, I suggest, been correctly accepted for many years that that is the only sensible approach that should be taken on this issue. It would be possible to bring all air weapons under licensing control. It is of course accepted that there are tragic accidents from time to time involving air guns which are not currently required to be held on a certificate. However, the Government's own amendment on air pistols will ensure that the more powerful weapons will become prohibited, while those which fire pellets of up to 5.5mm will be treated in the same way as small calibre pistols, will have to be held under a firearm certificate and be kept and used in licensed pistol clubs. To make other low powered air weapons subject to certification would be—as I think my noble friend Lord Gisborough observed—a mammoth task involving a substantial number of low calibre pistols. On the basis of the advice the Government have received from the Firearms Consultative Committee, it is not considered that that is justified. It is, however, important to bear in mind that, while less powerful air weapons do not require a certificate, there are nevertheless extensive restrictions in law on their purchase, possession and use. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would allow the Secretary of State to distinguish between those air weapons which require a certificate and those which do not by reference to some criterion other than their degree of danger or their power. For the reasons that I hope I have successfully put across, the Government consider that that would be the wrong approach. In our view the degree of danger of an air weapon is the best way of distinguishing between those air weapons which require to be held under a certificate and those which do not, and the power is the best way of determining the degree of danger. I hope therefore that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will also be persuaded not to insist on his amendment.The dinner hour is safe; I shall not press this amendment. I think we have established that there is a considerable free-for-all as regards air guns at the present moment. No one has said that there is not. I certainly believe that there needs to be greater control. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
7.43 p.m.
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blatch, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Police Bill be postponed until after the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill. If the House agrees to this Motion, the effect would be to allow us to take the social security Bill in the dinner break and to complete the Firearms (Amendment) Bill before proceeding with the Police Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Police Bill be postponed until after the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill.—(The Earl of Courtown.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
Social Security (Recovery Of Benefits) Bill Hl
7.44 p.m.
My Lords, I have it on command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)On Question, Bill read a third time.
Clause 8 [Reduction of compensation payment]:
moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert—
("() Where the total amount of recoverable benefit shown on the certificate exceeds a limit prescribed by regulations, a person who makes an offer of a compensation payment (whether by payment into court or otherwise) shall state whether that compensation payment has been calculated in accordance with this section and, if so, the amount allowed in the offer for each head of compensation listed in column 1 of Schedule 2 and the amount of each recoverable benefit which has been deducted from each of those heads of compensation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 2 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. As anyone who has attended these debates will know, since the beginning of the consideration of the Bill in this House—at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report—we have sought to advance the cause of the amendment that I now move. It is substantially the same as the amendment which will subsequently be proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, except that we have modified our amendment because we refer to the situation where recoverable benefit exceeds a certain sum, as specified in the amendment. That sum will be specified by regulation and therefore it can be specified by the Government. Consequently, any argument they may have had about the bureaucracy involved in dealing with small claims falls as the matter can be regulated by the Government.
We have referred to our central issue many times; namely, that the terms of the compensation should be available to the victim in the form of an offer which contains not merely the gross sum but also a specification of the elements listed in column 1 of Schedule 2. Further, there should be specified the sums liable for recovery under these heads. In other words what we want, and what we have talked about, is full disclosure by law at the onset of the negotiations. As I said, we hope that the modification we propose tonight will persuade the Minister how moderate and reasonable we are in that we refer only to the situation where recoverable benefit exceeds a certain sum which can be specified by regulation.
We have said many times why we want this measure but it is worth explaining it yet again. There are three reasons. First, this kind of formulation in law for full disclosure is justified in terms of equity and natural justice. The victim is entitled to know everything that is known to the compensator. The victim is entitled to have what has been called the cards on the table. The victim should not be asked to settle in ignorance and subsequently have to complain that he settled in ignorance. In equity and in natural justice the victim is entitled to full disclosure.
Secondly, the people who advise us have stressed that only in that way can we avoid the possibility of what I suppose one must call skulduggery; namely, the fear that without this knowledge the compensator may be tempted to exploit his position and that he may allow full recoupment against a global offer when the law clearly implies that that should not take place. To avoid that possibility there must be full disclosure.
Thirdly, as we have said all along in sharp contrast to what the Minister has said, we believe that this measure will facilitate a quick out-of-court settlement. We believe that the ordinary person will want to know all the facts—what they are entitled to and what will be snatched back by the Government. We have heard many analogies made. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to a lecture. When one buys a house or deals with the Inland Revenue one wants to know the facts and the details, although one never gets them. One wants to have all the facts that are available to the other party made available to oneself. If one has that information, one must make the best of it.
What have the Government said in answer to what seems to us a reasonable, sensible plea? What has been said by their representatives, the representatives of the insurance industry? Three types of reply have been advanced. If I may be allowed to distort the analogy of the touchstone, we have had the reply protective, the reply superior and the reply realistic. The reply protective says that we are playing the solicitor's game. It was, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, who said that we were opening a can of worms; that all we will do is to delay the settlement and "work up" the clients; and that the poor client, the poor victim, will go further into benefit and therefore into debt while his or her solicitor plays the game and opens the can of worms.
My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, in order to protect the good name of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, my speech was referred to in Hansard under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. It was not the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, who said those words.
My Lords, if I am not wrong, but Hansard is, I apologise on behalf of Hansard. That was the argument raised. Whoever's idea it was in the first instance, we cannot understand it. We cannot square the assertion with the victim's constant desire for the quantum. We are told that the victim wants the quantum. If that is all he or she cares about, he will see through the solicitor opening the can of worms. He will say, "Don't keep mucking about with the can of worms. I want the quantum." The picture of the victim painted by the noble Earl does not square with the picture of the naive victim playing the solicitor's game. We cannot understand that argument in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Having been given all that information—it will not be extensive; there are only a few heads in the schedule—a client may be led by the nose by the solicitor into wanting the information and holding up the process. But if that is what he wants, he is entitled to act in that way. If the client is obstinate, as the noble Earl views it, the only way to settle the matter is to give him the information. Let him have the quantum. When we stress this point in debate the Minister falls back on the reply superior. The reply superior is often accompanied by a nod, a wink and the tapping of the nose. We are told that these obstinate people could find out the information anyway. If they read the rules, or had good solicitors who read the rules and regulations, they could work out for themselves what deductions there would be in the broad quantum. If I have it right, and Hansard has not let me down, that is what I believe the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said at col. 992 in Committee. We were told subsequently that one can ask the CRU on the telephone and it will give all kinds of details which it would not normally make available. We were told that one can negotiate for a net amount. One can have an understanding that if the amount has to be adjusted subsequently that will be all right. We were told that in all sorts of ways one could get round the issue by operation of the old boy net, by nodding, winking and tapping one's nose, and that therefore the provision is not necessary. I find that argument even less impressive because the information so obtained is less than 100 per cent, reliable. The information depends on good will, upon whom one finds on the phone, and how he or she feels that day. It depends upon one's opponents telling one something and the good will of third parties. We do not believe that that is sufficient. We want full disclosure; we want it by law; we want it by right. I do not find such an argument conclusive. If we press the argument, the Minister and his allies fall back on what I call the reply realistic. We are told that there may be something in what we say but that we are just creating a bureaucratic maze; that in the real world the Government know, their friends in the insurance industry having told them, that third parties come to these agreements, and have done so by the thousand, based upon ignorance; that people like ignorance and are used to ignorance; that they really do not want to know; and that if we give them this information we shall only make trouble because they will insist on their day in court and that they are better off ignorant. The answer is that the Government cannot conceivably know that. That is the system we have at present; there is no other system. The poor plaintiff, the poor victim, has to proceed by ignorance. We do not know what they would do if they were offered the option of knowledge. Knowledge may be power. That may be why it is not so popular. But that is why I beg to move the amendment.My Lords, I am happy to confirm the recollection of the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam. I am happy to see in the Chamber not only the noble Earl but also the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford. That is what is called belt and braces—otherwise known as insurance.
In speaking to Amendment No. 2, I am extremely happy to support Amendment No. 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. Ministers are familiar—some would say over familiar—with the concept of the wrecking amendment. As I see it, this is a saving amendment. I have said from Second Reading onwards that I strongly support the principle of the Bill and want to see it working. It is my opinion, and my judgment as far as I can form it, that without the amendment the Bill simply cannot operate. I argue here simply in terms of practicalities and of the real world. The amendment deals only with out-of-court settlements. When people obtain an out-of-court settlement, they should know under which heads they receive the damages. They should know under which heads they are able to recoup. Unless they know that, they simply cannot know how much they are receiving. It is like getting paid a sum and not knowing whether it is gross or net. It is a material point. The Minister seems to think that it is possible to exclude the effect of recoupment from the operation of settlements. When we considered the Bill on Report, he said:I simply do not understand the Minister's position. I do not understand how he imagines that a change of this magnitude can come into operation without affecting the progress of settlements any more than I understand how he thinks that it cannot affect the progress of the Bill if we debate it in the dinner hour rather than at three o'clock in the afternoon. If one changes the circumstances one changes what happens. It is not in issue—I hope that the Minister will not detain us arguing the point—that we want settlements to take place out of court wherever possible. It is not in issue that we do not want cases to drag on, building up a greater amount of benefit to be recouped. That is common ground between all parties. The point at issue is which way this desirable effect is to be obtained. But arguments about which way are not always without heat. As anyone knows who has seen a married couple arguing over a map in a car, that sort of argument can become very heated indeed. However, I hope that this one will not. The Minister attempted to argue that the difficulty arises entirely because we are listening to different sets of advisers. It is true; we are. My advisers are telling me what I thought before they advised me—what indeed I have thought ever since we went through this business in 1989.1 believe I am the only surviving veteran of the battles on the 1989 Bill. That said, it ought to be possible for advisers on both sides to reach an "out-of-court" settlement in Parliament as it is in the law. So I hope that this will not be the end of dialogue. The question is: how do we set about it? The case that is argued by the Association of British Insurers, and by the Minister, is that if a breakdown of heads is needed in regard to a damages settlement, that is just one more matter about which the parties may argue. So far as it goes, that point is true: it is one more matter about which the parties may need to argue, and may therefore take a little time. It seems sensible to concede that at the outset. However, let us consider the alternative; namely, that the claimant simply does not know what he will receive unless he goes to court and has the whole thing out in public. In those circumstances, I simply cannot see that it is in the interest of the claimant, or that of his solicitor, to settle the case at all. It takes two to settle, as Ministers in both Houses learn every day. If it is never in the interest of the claimant to settle, I do not see how the insurer can get a quick settlement. If there are to be quick settlements, then the Minister's case must be one of two: either the claimants will settle against their own interest, or the superior power will in practice prevail. I find the one unimaginable and the other unacceptable. I am rather interested to know which of those the Minister means. If the ABI loses this argument, it is not very much more work to disclose the figure, which must form part of its own calculations; it cannot make the calculations without it. So disclosure will not be particularly difficult. The claimant may object, but if there is a desire to settle, as I believe there often is, it should not be beyond the wit of man to find in the lawyers' equivalent of the Prince's Chamber some way of reaching agreement. This is the point at which there is a tendency to say that "it is very difficult". It is an old argument. In a lighter moment over Christmas I happened to read some remarkable things that have been said in this House and elsewhere. Some included the great difficulties foreseen in this Chamber in the 1920s in relation to the introduction of a scheme of compulsory motor insurance. The late Lord Ullswater, who I understand was the great grandfather of the present Viscount, said:"The effect of either of the amendments would be to allow benefit recovery to affect the settlement process to an unacceptable degree".—[Official Report, 14/1/97; col. 134.]
At the end of that series of debates the Minister commented:"I can understand a proposal that no motor should be insured against third party risk. That, I think, is an arguable case, because then every person driving would take special care not to inflict damage to life or limb … but I can also understand the frame of mind of a man who … says, 'Well, I am insured against all risks; it does not matter,' and he will go ahead for all he is worth and as likely as not will cause an accident".
That Minister overrated the difficulties. I believe that the present Minister does the same."To carry out a general scheme of insurance would involve great difficulties. I do not believe it will be possible to come to an agreement with the insurance companies".
8 p.m.
My Lords, I am not sure whether I am regarded as the belt or the braces. However, I do not think that the entire insurance industry (all two of us!) is particularly arguing for the insurance industry. In terms of the various points made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I should like to try a fourth and, I hope, factual reply. The amendments proposed are damaging for all parties, certainly in terms of time, whatever that is worth. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for agreeing that point.
It seems quite clear that the one area of compensation which is not ring-fenced, and against which the Government can recover benefits, is loss of earnings. That must be agreed all round. Even this morning I received a copy of the TUC's booklet, Robbing the Victims—no excuse for delay. The answer is exactly the same; namely, that the Bill will mean,So we now know that clawback can be operated against loss of earnings. Loss of earnings is finite. At the time a claim is agreed, the actual loss of earnings that has been incurred will be known. It is finite; there is no problem with it. In terms of what is being said on the other side of the House, it is a head of damages and the finite amount is known. If the amount that has been paid out in benefits to the claimant is below that—and, after all, the amount paid out is known—that is the end of the matter. Everybody knows exactly where they stand. If the amount is above it—there may perhaps be some part of the total claim that includes a potential future loss of earnings after the date of settlement of a claim—then it seems very clear that Clause 6(1) of the Bill is invoked and the compensator pays the excess. My representation is that the insurance industry has given in all round and has agreed all these points. If the compensator pays the excess, there is no need to identify the other heads of claim. The only reason why it seems to me to make sense for all parties not to spend time on it is precisely that it does waste time. Time is money, and lawyers will receive more money."special damages (awarded to injury victims for loss, such as loss of income or the costs of future care)".
My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. I must catch a train at half past eight as I have an important engagement in the country tomorrow morning and this is my last opportunity to get there. My point is simply that the solicitor is the person involved in this activity who knows exactly what is going on and can explain quite clearly to the claimant exactly which item represents what. If the solicitor cannot do that, it will certainly be extremely difficult for anyone else to do so.
My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he agree that some solicitors are more solicitous than others?
My Lords, indeed. With that, I hope that the House will give me leave to withdraw.
My Lords, we have returned to a topic that we discussed at length both in Committee and on Report. I am afraid that, as I indicated towards the end of the Report stage, there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between the Government and noble Lords opposite on this matter, although, I am happy to say, not on the rest of the Bill.
The disagreement may in part stem from a muddying of two distinct issues. The first is whether offers of compensation need to be broken down into their constituent parts. The second is whether offers of compensation will be made gross or net of benefit recovery under the reformed scheme. Some noble Lords seem to be under a misapprehension that the former is necessary because, as they believe, offers of compensation will be made gross. Indeed, I thought the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, went even further in his remarks. He seemed to think that it would require "nods and winks" to find out what the recoverable benefits were. I cannot understand that at all. The victim receives a copy of the certificate of total benefits. That seems to have little to do with the statement of reduction. Clause 4 makes matters perfectly clear in relation to the certificate of recoverable benefits. I hope that that misunderstanding has been laid to rest. The noble Earl suggested today, and previously, that until a person knows what sum he or she is being offered, and what heads it comes under, the calculation as to how much will be received simply cannot be made. I believe that was the substance of his remarks. However, that is not the case if the sum you are offered is already net of compensation recovery and the offer made to you is the amount of money you will receive. That is what the organisation representing those who will make the offer, the Association of British Insurers, assures us will be the case. That point has been made three times now by my noble friend Lord Chelmsford and was made again this evening. Noble Lords opposite seem to be sceptical about that; but they have not explained what the advantages would be to insurers of making a gross offer of compensation and refusing to explain its value to the victim. It has been suggested that victims will refuse to settle on the basis of a gross offer whose value is unknown to them. Quite so. It would indeed be foolish to accept an offer whose value was unclear. There is no suggestion that victims could be forced to accept an offer where the benefit recovery position was unknown. It will usually be known because of the certificate which will have been asked for and copied. If that has not happened, it would be unwise of the victim to accept a gross settlement; he will look for a net one. I believe that is common sense. I think it is unlikely that under the reformed scheme insurers will wish to delay settlements. They will have the responsibility to repay benefits and the benefit bill will continue to accumulate up to the point of settlement; the clock will keep on ticking. Why would they bother to make an offer which was not clear and which therefore prevented assessment of its net value? Why should they attempt to make the whole thing a bit of a mystery? The insurer will be equally keen to know the cost of the offer to himself when he makes it. He cannot do that without identifying the amount he will have to pay the victim in addition to the amount he will have to repay to the compensation recovery unit. I cannot for the life of me understand what advantage there would be to the insurers in making an offer where the total bill was unclear. That would seem a very imprudent way for an insurer to conduct himself. If there is a misunderstanding here, it may well surround the question of gross or net. As I have said, the evidence we have and the experience of how this works—and logic tells me how it will work—show that the insurers will offer net. They will know what the recoverable benefits are and what the total cost will be to them and will say to whoever it is, "We are prepared to offer £X thousand to you in your pocket". If they say "£X thousand" and leave it a mystery as to whether that is in his pocket or whether recoverable benefit has to be taken off, I would have thought that that would delay settlement. It is unrealistic to think that the matter will proceed in that way. I think it is net and clear and that that will expedite settlement in the interests of everybody. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, emphasised again that:I think I probably agree with him. I cannot understand, in that case, how he thinks it fair for insurers to be required to give the victims full information about the way in which they have calculated an offer but not the other way round when it comes to the way in which the victim has calculated what he believes the offer ought to be. That sounds very much like one party having more and fuller information than the other. Both sides have full knowledge of the benefits bill (from the certificate of total benefits) and of the offer that is on the table. I have suggested that both sides will clearly understand whether it is net or gross. What each side does not know is the calculation that has been made to arrive at that. But, as I have made clear in earlier debates on this issue, I do not believe that settlement will be dependent on this information any more than it is now. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, suggested that it was,"It is not right … if one of the parties to a dispute … has more access to information … than the other party".
and that,"not right that the victim should not have access to the information if they want it"
I would have thought that people were just interested in the total amount of money that they were going to get and not so much in how it was broken down. However, that is the advice which the noble Lord has received from an organisation representing victims' solicitors, and I understand that. If that is the case, perhaps he could ask how it is that they manage to advise their clients in cases where no benefit is involved. There is no requirement in such cases—"victims' solicitors need to know the breakdown so that they can advise their clients what to do".
8.15 p.m.
My Lords, the noble Lord is putting words into my mouth. I am answering his case. He is the one who said—and if we had Hansard here we could show it—over and over again that all people want is the quantum. That is his argument, not my argument.
My Lords, I am just reinforcing that argument. I think that people want to know what they will receive net, and that is what I think will happen. Frankly, I do not understand the noble Lord's intervention at all. He seems to be agreeing with me.
My Lords, it would materially assist the House if the Minister could explain how the victims will know how much they will receive when they do not know into what heads it is broken down.
My Lords, they know how much they will receive because they will be offered it: they will be offered £X thousand and, when the solicitor says, "Does that include the recovery of benefit?", the compensator will say, "No, it does not; I will deal with the recovery of benefit myself; I will pick that up. Your client will get £X thousand". Perhaps I am just too stupid to understand this argument, but it seems to me a perfectly understandable position.
My Lords, I understand that the Minister believes that settlements will work this way. Can he tell us why he believes it?
My Lords, I believe it because that is the way many of them have worked to date. That is the advice that we are given by the Association of British Insurers, who operate this system, and that is how they see the system operating currently, where 90 per cent, of the claims are settled out of court. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has underlined that point. That is the evidence on which I base my view. It is also a common sense point of view. That is actually what somebody will be interested in.
I was raising the question of those cases in which no benefit is involved. It seems to me that there is no requirement in the kinds of cases we are talking about for the insurer to break down the offer he has made. I think the Opposition accept that the usual practice at present is to make an offer of a global sum by way of settlement of the claim. How do solicitors tell whether or not these claims are fair and reasonable? The solicitor in such a case will know little, if anything, about the calculation which underlies the offer made by the compensator. Yet the noble Lord has been told that this information is vital for a solicitor to advise a client as to whether to accept an offer of compensation. Frankly, I do not believe that at all. If that is the case, the implication is that, once a solicitor is presented with a claim where benefits are an additional factor, his knowledge, experience and judgment will desert him and the claim will have to be stalled. That cannot be right. The victim's advisers will make their own estimate of the value of the claim and assess any offer in the light of that estimate in the normal way. It has been suggested that it would be easier for the negotiating parties to agree on several figures making up a total offer of compensation than on a single figure. I have to say that that seems very unlikely. Even in the mildly adversarial climate—let alone a major adversarial climate—in which negotiations are conducted, that is more likely to lead to greater scope for argument, with cases progressing to court, and I do not think that anybody wants that. Amendment No. 1 would limit the requirement to provide a statement of reduction in compensation to cases where recoverable benefits exceeded a limit to be prescribed by regulation. I am always flattered when I am encouraged to take regulation-making powers. This is an interesting variation on the Opposition's theme. It seems that they are offering us an implicit acknowledgment that statements of reduction would mean an onerous and bureaucratic task for the compensator and therefore they want it de minimis. Of course, the amendment would still mean that a statement of reduction in compensation would be required in a high-value case. I am advised that high-value cases are the ones that tend to include a claim for compensation under a multiplicity of different heads. Unsurprisingly, they also tend to be fought the hardest and are the category of case most likely to end in a court hearing. If there were a requirement to spell out the heads of compensation in such cases, there would be even less chance of reaching an informal settlement. I am therefore unattracted by this aspect of Amendment No. 1. Under the reformed benefit recovery scheme, the liability to repay benefits is separate and distinct from the liability to pay compensation. I have tried to make the distinction between net and gross and I will try this different way: separate and distinct. Although the compensator is required to apply for a certificate of recoverable benefits, he does not have to have received it before making a compensation payment. That frees the negotiating parties to agree an early settlement, without unnecessary interference from the department. Under the first amendment the compensator might discover, after offering or even paying an award, that the amount on the certificate of recoverable benefits exceeded the limit. He would then have to back-calculate, using the net amount he had paid to the victim and the amounts of various recoverable benefits, what compensation would have been payable under each head before reduction. He would have to do this despite the fact that the victim had already received compensation and irrespective of the fact that the gross figures could be calculated in several different ways. In short, the compensator would be obliged to pursue a pointless paper-chase and incur additional administrative expense to invent a breakdown by heads of damage which would be of no interest to the victim, who had already settled. In summary, a number of arguments have been made in support of these amendments. None has convinced me. None has convinced me that it would improve the Bill in any way. In some ways there is a degree of opportunism from certain people who would like to go down that route, cloaked in an argument about legal principle. I think that the argument is essentially bogus. The Bill is not about making life easier for personal injury lawyers or indeed making it more lucrative. It is in fact about trying to ensure that as many settlements as possible are entered into out of court as quickly as possible for the benefit of the victim; and, overall, of course, that in the kind of cases that we are discussing the victim knows exactly, as will the compensator, what the recovery for benefit will be and what sum of money he will receive. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible way to think that the legislation will work. I hope, if the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, put their amendments to your Lordships, that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.My Lords, I thought that the Minister was giving me the reply bland; but towards the end, I thought that he was giving me the reply rude. I shall not go over the argument again. When the Bill goes to another place, it will read what we have said and will see what we have tried to suggest and the Minister will not accept. We are saying that there will be disputes. There will be disputes on the example taken by the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, from the opposite Benches. There will be disputes about loss of earnings, the rate of pay and whether the pay increases should be admitted. There will be arguments about all aspects of pay and what should be allowed. There will be disputes about the other heads: care and mobility. Unless the victim has all the facts and has them as a legal entitlement, he cannot be certain that he is getting a fair crack of the whip.
The issue is how much of the settlement will be offset by the insurer's demands set against each head. The victim wants to know what they are. He wants to know, and has no way of knowing or of ensuring that they are fair, that there is not overload and that the insurer is not loading unreasonably the kind of excess that the compensator should pay and not the victim. There is no way that that can be done unless there is 100 per cent. disclosure. I give way to the noble Viscount.My Lords, the noble Lord is very kind. It should not be forgotten that the insurance industry has already agreed to a whole host of provisions in this Bill which—it depends whose estimate is taken—will cost them between £50 million and £70 million a year. It has already been agreed that that will be absorbed by the insurance industry. I slightly object to the suggestion that the insurance industry is trying to load things against the claimant.
My Lords, one cannot possibly know. I do not say that the noble Viscount's company would do this or that everybody or anybody would do it. I simply say that unless this amendment is carried—or an amendment like this amendment is carried in another place—justice, fairness and equity cannot be seen to be done. In that context, I am afraid that I shall have to divide the House.
8.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 101.
Division No. 3
| |
CONTENTS
| |
| Addington, L. | Harris of Greenwich, L. |
| Blease, L. | Hollis of Heigham, B. |
| Calverley, L. | Judd, L. |
| Carlisle, E. | McCarthy, L. |
| Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L. | McIntosh of Haringey, L. |
| Carter, L. | Mar and Kellie, E. |
| Clancarty, E. | Monkswell, L. |
| Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. | Morris of Castle Monis, L. [Teller.] |
| Dean of Beswick, L. | |
| Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. | |
| Desai, L. | Nicol, B. |
| Dormand of Easington, L. | Russell, E. [Teller.] |
| Dubs, L. | Sefton of Garston, L. |
| Farrington of Ribbleton, B. | Stoddart of Swindon, L. |
| Graham of Edmonton, L. | Taylor of Blackburn, L. |
| Grantchester, L. | Williams of Crosby, B. |
NOT-CONTENTS
| |
| Addison, V. | Hayhoe, L. |
| Allenby of Megiddo, V. | Hemphill, L. |
| Anelay of St. Johns, B. | Henley, L. |
| Annaly, L. | HolmPatrick, L. |
| Balfour, E. | Hooper, B. |
| Beloff, L. | Howe, E. |
| Belstead, L. | Inchcape, E. |
| Biddulph, L. | Kimball, L. |
| Blaker, L. | Leigh, L. |
| Blatch, B. | Lindsay, E. |
| Boardman, L. | Long, V. |
| Bowness, L. | Lucas, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Lucas of Chilworth, L. |
| Bridgeman, V. | Luke, L. |
| Brougham and Vaux, L. | Lyell, L. |
| Burton L, | McColl of Dulwich, L. |
| Byford B. | Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. |
| Cadman, L. | Mackay of Drumadoon, L. |
| Caithness, E. | Mackintosh of Halifax, V. |
| Carnegy of Lour, B. | Marlesford, L. |
| Carnock, L. | Miller of Hendon, B. |
| Chadlington, L. | Monteagle of Brandon, L. |
| Chalker of Wallasey, B. | Montrose, D. |
| Chelmsford, V. | Mottistone, L. |
| Chesham, L. [Teller.] | Nickson, L. |
| Northesk, E. | |
| Courtown, E. | O'Cathain, B. |
| Craigmyle, L. | Onslow, E |
| Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.] | Oxfuird, V. |
| Cumberlege, B. | Palmer, L. |
| Dacre of Glanton, L. | Park of Monmouth, B. |
| De Ramsey, L. | Pearson of Rannoch, L. |
| Dean of Harptree, L. | Peel, E. |
| Demon of Wakefield, B. | Rankeillour L |
| Downshire, M. | Rennell, L. |
| Dundonald, E. | Renton, L. |
| Ellenborough, L. | Rotherwick, L. |
| Elliott of Morpeth, L. | Seccombe, B. |
| Elton, L. | Shaw of Northstead, L. |
| Fraser of Carmyllie, L. | Skelmersdale, L. |
| Gage, V. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Gardner of Parkes, B. | Stodart of Leaston, L. |
| Gisborough, L. | Strathclyde, L. [Teller.] |
| Goschen, V. | Thomas of Gwydir, L. |
| Greenway, L. | Tollemache, L. |
| Grimston of Westbury, L. | Torrington, V. |
| Hacking, L. | Trumpington, B. |
| Haddington, E. | Wilcox, B. |
| Hamilton of Dalzell, L. | Willoughby de Broke, L. |
| Harlech, L. | Wynford, L. |
| Harmsworth, L. | Young, B. |
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.31 p.m.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
An amendment (privilege) made.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Before we complete the passage of this Bill, I should like to place on record my gratitude for the valuable contributions made by your Lordships and for the support that this Bill has received. As I have already noted and as other noble Lords have said, it is refreshing to deal with a Bill where all sides of the House can achieve consensus in so many areas, despite the Division we have just had. Indeed, at the Second Reading, as your Lordships may recall, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, commented on the hat trick of welcome which the Bill received from all sides of the Chamber. Of course, we have not managed to agree on every point. Matters have arisen on which we have strong differences of opinion. However, I do not believe that these differences ought to be allowed to obscure our agreement. I am particularly grateful for the contributions made by those who perhaps I may describe as the regulars on this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, agreed with me on more occasions than either of us probably thought was good for our reputations. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, as always, brought to these matters her practical experience; and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was characteristically assiduous and punchy. These amendments, I hope, have enabled us to clarify several important points. My noble friends Lord Chelmsford and Lord Clanwilliam made valuable interventions from the perspective of the insurance industry. I am grateful for their assistance, as it has been vital for us to appreciate what actually happens on the ground in what is a fairly specialist area. Finally, in relation to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, once again I have been struck by his grasp of the detail of what is a highly technical, involved subject. I am grateful to him for the contribution he has made, and as usual he has kept me on my toes with regard to the regulation-making powers. I was not entirely sure whether his suggestion that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was clothed in the robes of Cambyses, the King of Persia, was flattering or not, so I did some checking and I discovered that King Cambyses had what might be described as a pretty bad press—and deservedly so. Occasionally, we at social security feel that we get a bad press, but we do not deserve it. I have to say to the noble Earl that he is being very unkind to my right honourable friend. As far as the law is concerned, which really was his point, King Cambyses managed to get the judges to say that he could break the law of incest and marry his sister, so it was not quite the same as the point that the noble Earl was making. Leaving that aside, I wish to thank those organisations and individuals who responded so positively to our consultation process. I pay particular tribute to the Law Society, the Association of British Insurers, the Clydeside Action on Asbestos and, of course, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, who have followed our deliberations with exemplary thoroughness. Finally, I must not overlook the important part played by the TUC in seeking to find common ground between those consulted on the shape of the proposed scheme. As my noble friend Lord Chelmsford pointed out, all of us received a letter today urging us, if I may shorten what the letter said, to get on with the job here. It is gratifying to be involved in a Bill which has received such a broad measure of support across the Floor of the House and outside. This is such a Bill. There are one or two areas where real disagreement remains. Those issues will have to be discussed again in the other place. We are all agreed that this benefit recovery scheme should achieve two very valuable objectives. It will enable victims to retain their damages for pain and suffering; it will also protect the taxpayer from the phenomenon known as double compensation. As such, I am confident that the Bill will be widely welcomed and will prove to be very useful for all the parties concerned in what sometimes are very difficult and painful decisions. I commend the Bill to the House. Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)My Lords, as the House will have noted, we went out on a high note, which was defeat, but if that has added to the good humour of the Minister on which we have come to rely, then it has its positive virtues.
We are delighted to join with the Minister in sending the Bill on its way to the Commons. It is a good Bill. It has been improved at the edges by amendments from all round the House and clarified by the Minister's unfailing assiduous attention to the questions put to him on amendments at other points in the Bill. It means, as the Minister said, that rightly and belatedly payments to victims for compensation for their injury, pain, distress and additional costs will now be ring-fenced from the recovery of benefits. Justice will be done, and that is highly desirable. Like others, I wish to thank in particular my own noble friends, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, for his wit and style and effectiveness, my noble friend Baroness Turner for her expertise, on which we all rely. I should also like to thank our advisers, in particular Mr. Dismore, from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, and the TUC. As the Minister has said, we wish this Bill all speed in the Commons.My Lords, I really must reassure the Minister and make my apologies to the Secretary of State for careless use of language. It was not the Secretary of State I was comparing to Cambyses, the King of Persia, it was his clause. I am free to reproach a clause within the limits of free speech in Parliament as much as I like.
I agree of course with all the praise of this Bill that has been uttered. I wish it well. I hope it passes speedily through another place and reaches the statute book before other events intervene. It does put right what I thought was a very bad mistake that was made on the very first Bill on which I ever spoke from the Front Bench. I said then that I thought this could not last. I am delighted to have been proved right. I should like to join in the thanks to all the others who have been involved in the Bill, to the noble Viscount, Lord Chelmsford, and to the noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, who have brought a great deal of interest to our deliberations and given us a much more all-round discussion than we could have had otherwise. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. We first spoke on the same side in a debate 42 years ago, I believe. We are still doing it, I am glad to say and I expect us to keep it up, for the time being anyway. I extend thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. She and I have been through many battles together. This is one more. We have done a few good things in this, although, as always, we can tell stories about the fish that got away. I should like to thank our advisers from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, Andrew Dismore and Rachel Oliver, who have been extremely helpful, thorough and patient and able to explain very technical matters in very clear language. But most of all I should like to thank the Minister for his exemplary patience, endurance, and wit and for his ability to come back on anything. He is known to certain people on his own Back Benches, so good is his defence, after the memorable Australian stonewaller, "Slasher Mackay". I was talking recently to my dentist. I discovered that he used to play grade cricket in Sydney. He used to bowl at Slasher Mackay. I asked him what was the way to get Slasher Mackay out. My dentist replied, after some thought, "hand grenades!". I have no remedy so drastic available to me so the Minister survives yet another Division. If I have sharpened his wits, he has sharpened mine. I have thought of yet more ways of placing spin, but always his bat seems to be there. I shall keep at it. I have enjoyed our exchanges and I look forward to the next one.On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Firearms (Amendment) Bill
8.41 p.m.
House again in Committee.
had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 66:
Before Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
REGISTER OF HOLDERS OF SHOT GUN AND FIREARM CERTIFICATES
("—(1) There shall be established a central register of all persons to whom a shot gun or firearm certificate has been issued.
(2) The register shall—
(3) The Secretary of State may direct that those persons who apply for a shot gun or firearm certificate before they are eligible to be issued with a National Insurance number shall be issued with such a number for the purposes of subsection (2).").
The noble Lord said: I shall not move the amendment but I wish to give notice that I shall retable it at Report.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 34 [Power of search with warrant]:
moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 17, line 42, leave out ("a") and insert ("an immediate").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 68. Yesterday this House voted overwhelmingly for civil liberties. This evening, albeit in a very much more minor way, it has the chance to do the same, although I hope and trust that no Division will be needed.
I ask the Committee to consider how draconian and sweeping the powers given by Clause 34 are. It gives a constable or a civilian officer the right to enter someone's house at any time—at four o'clock in the morning, if they choose—if necessary by force, and to search the premises and every person found there—the householder, his wife, his sons, his daughters, his aged parents, and anyone who happens to be staying at the time—and to seize not only firearms, which most Members of the Committee would consider reasonable enough, but imitation firearms, any firearm certificate or even shotgun certificate, and any other document authorising the possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, sale or transfer of any firearms or ammunition. Such draconian powers can no doubt be justified where the danger is immediate, but not, I submit, where the danger is long-term. I beg to move.
There is a difference between what is proposed in the Bill and the civil liberties we debated yesterday. There we were concerned with the fact that the police had power to authorise themselves to engage in intrusive surveillance of people's homes. Here, it is, as with most search warrants, a warrant signed by a justice of the peace or the equivalent in Scotland. I am not saying that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is wrong, but it is not quite the same kind of issue about civil liberties.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his contribution, which has made the first point I seek to make. It is not that the police, at their own hand, can act. They require a duly applied for and granted warrant, as both Clause 46(1) and (2) make clear.
The noble Lord's amendments would seek to restrict such warrants to a situation where there is reason to suspect an immediate danger. I believe that this would be too limited a provision. There may be occasions where, by obtaining a warrant and removing firearms, the police are able to prevent an incident from occurring. If the police had to demonstrate to the justice of the peace or the sheriff that the danger is immediate they might be unable to do so and thus be unable to prevent a tragedy occurring. It is very difficult to define what is an immediate as opposed to a non immediate danger. It is a question of semantics, of which the Committee would do well to steer clear. The individual's interests will be perfectly well safeguarded. The police will have to give sufficient information on oath to the justice of the peace or sheriff to convince him that a warrant is justified. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 67.First, the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, is entirely correct. The wrong that I am seeking to right is not at all in the same league as the wrong that was righted yesterday. I never pretended that it was. Nevertheless, I still submit that it is unjustifiable to give the police or civilian officers the power to raid people's houses at three or four o'clock in the morning and search infant children for imitation weapons unless the danger happens to be immediate.
I acknowledge the Minister's contention that there are grey areas here. I suppose that if the law is applied with a light hand, so to speak, and the kind of situation I have described where people are raided in the small hours of the morning happens only where it is genuinely justified, one could perhaps accept the Bill as it is. On the assumption—I hope my optimism is justified—that the law will not be applied in a heavy-handed manner, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause—
SPOT CHECKS FOR STORAGE OF LICENSED FIREARMS
("The chief officer of police for the area in which the holder of a firearm certificate resides may authorise random spot checks to take place as to the satisfaction of the conditions of storage contained in the certificate.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment has the merits of ensuring that licensed weapons of all types are kept in the secure storage cabinets that the owners have to provide. This secure storage is an integral part of the weapon licensing system. The acceptance of the amendment would render all firearms holders liable to impromptu visits by the police for the inspection of their weapon storage arrangements. These spot checks would not require warrants as they would be no more than unannounced visits, with the normal courtesies observed.
The amendment was suggested to me on the grounds that some weapon owners, especially in the countryside, keep their weapons to hand and in their living quarters and not in the approved cabinets. The risk of accident thereby increases. The current arrangements for visiting by appointment clearly lead only to a guarantee that the weapons are being stored properly for the duration of the planned visit. The acceptance of this amendment will create a climate in which weapon owners and their storage arrangements were liable to inspection at any time thereby improving the prospects for domestic and public safety. I beg to move.
Without the assistance on this occasion of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I oppose this amendment. I consider that it would represent a quite unwarranted extension of police powers to enter a person's home without achieving any significant addition to public safety. If all that is intended is that the police should turn up unannounced at a house and ask permission to carry out a check, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so, but the amendment carries with it the implication that, irrespective of consent, a random check should be carried out. That is why the amendment, as tabled, is objectionable.
If the police have reason to suspect that a certificate holder may be breaching the conditions for secure storage which are part of his licence—for example, if they receive reports from neighbours or visitors that guns are being left lying around in the house—there is power to act under Section 46 of the Firearms Act 1968, which was discussed with the last amendment. As I have indicated, this amendment would entitle the officers to act without warrant. In our view it is unjustified, and in those circumstances I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.On hearing the noble and learned Lord's response to that, I agree with him that the amendment is more unpleasant than I had intended it to be. In that case, I am extremely keen to withdraw it. There is a requirement to meet the needs that I mentioned earlier. We need some device to make certain that weapons are stored in the correct cabinets. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Approved rifle clubs]:
moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 19, line 28, leave out ("in, or").
The noble Baroness said: The amendments tabled in my name are Amendments No. 71, 86, 89, 91, 93 and 94. They are grouped with Amendment No. 89 which will be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Balfour.
These are technical amendments which bring existing references in the Firearms Act 1968 and the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 into line with the equivalent terms in this Bill. The existing legislation uses the term, "in, or in connection with" when speaking of certain activities. The effect of the amendment is to replace that with the simpler term
"in connection with"
when speaking of certain activities. The effect of the amendment is to replace that with the simpler term "in connection with" which already occurs in Clauses 3, 4 and 26.
The others are minor amendments which change the corresponding references in the previous legislation. There are no policy implications from these amendments and I hope that the Committee will accept them. I beg to move.
As my amendment is grouped with these amendments, I believe it appropriate to speak to it now. On page 1 of the Bill, Clause 1(3), in their wisdom the Government propose that for the word "rifle" there shall be substituted the words "rifled gun". Therefore, I am suggesting to the Committee that in the interpretation section, Section 57, that for the word "rifle" we substitute the words,
I shall move that amendment when we come to it."'rifled gun' includes "carbine'".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Clause 37 agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 73:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
MUSEUMS ELIGIBLE FOR A MUSEUMS FIREARM LICENCE
("In the Schedule to the 1988 Act (firearms and ammunition in museums to which the Schedule applies)—
"(2) This Schedule also applies to any museum or similar institution in Great Britain which is of a description specified in an order made for the purposes of this sub-paragraph by the Secretary of State and whose collection includes or is to include firearms.
(3) An order under sub-paragraph (2) above may specify any description of museum or similar institution which appears to the Secretary of State to have as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the preservation for the public benefit of a collection of historical, artistic or scientific interest.
(4) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.").
The noble Baroness said: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave a commitment to table an amendment on museums during the debate at Second Reading in another place on 12th November (at col. 186 of Hansard). The new clause in my name will extend the scope of the power to grant a museum firearms licence under the Schedule to the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. Museum firearms licences are currently only issued to museums which satisfy certain criteria and are maintained wholly or mainly out of money provided by Parliament or by a local authority.
The new clause will give my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the power to designate other museums and institutions which satisfy the same criteria but are not funded out of money provided by Parliament or by a local authority. In practice this is likely to be by reference to such bodies if they are currently registered with the Museums and Galleries Commission. It will mean that it will be possible for these museums, which include many regimental museums, to apply for a museum firearms licence allowing them to continue to keep handguns in their collections after these become generally prohibited, without the need for a separate authority from the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
In Clause 17 of the Bill, the duration of a licence for clubs is now six years. In the Schedule to the 1988 Act, paragraph 5, the period is stated as five years. I wonder whether between now and Report stage my noble friend the Minister will consider that it should be changed to six years.
I can give my noble friend an assurance that I shall think about that between now and Report stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 74:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
("At the end of section 8(1) of the 1968 Act (authorised dealing in firearms) there is added "in any part of the United Kingdom, whether or not on specified premises".").
The noble Earl said: Section 8 of the Firearms Act 1968 kindly provides that,
"A person carrying on the business of a firearms dealer and registered as such under this Act, or a [servant] of such a person may, without holding a certificate, have in his possession, or purchase or acquire, a firearm or ammunition in the ordinary course of that business".
In the ordinary course of business a firearms dealer will be in possession of firearms at his place of business and must also be in possession of them when transporting them; for example, to or from a client, when having repaired a firearm or otherwise testing it and so on. At all times the relevant conditions relating to security apply and this provision, which has existed since 1920, has caused no known difficulties of enforcement or security. If a dealer establishes a new place of business he must notify the police under Section 37 of the 1968 Act.
However, a conviction was obtained in R v. Evans when a dealer agreed the sale of a firearm to a client and delivered it to him at Bisley during a shooting competition. It was held by the Crown Court that since Bisley was not the dealer's registered place of business he was unlawfully in possession of a firearm. The situation created by that case has raised a great deal of uncertainty among the trade and those who have to administer the Act. Extensive correspondence between representatives of the gun trade and the Home Office over a period of years has failed to resolve this uncertainty about the meaning of Section 8. This amendment is designed to make the situation clear and to permit proper transactions in the ordinary course of a dealer's business subject to the very extensive restrictions which already exist. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
I find this amendment rather complicated. Although I have great sympathy for what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Peel, the 1968 Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. Had my noble friend used the words "any part of Great Britain", I would have been happy to support the amendment. However, I do not believe that I can support it if it applies to the United Kingdom because of the extant clause in the 1968 Act.
I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Peel. The amendment clears up a genuine mistake which has resulted in considerable unhappiness. More and more people will want to purchase firearms and take them to a range to try them out. That was exactly what happened in the unfortunate case involving Bisley. Of course, Bisley was the property of the National Rifle Association and it was not the dealer's property. But there is every reason to agree that within a 72-hour period a firearms dealer should be empowered to take a weapon to a place where the purchaser can try it out.
Having glanced through Section 8, I am surprised that there is a problem. However, I accept that a problem exists. Another problem may occur. If the holder of a firearms certificate dies, his wife or children may want to call in a gunsmith or firearms dealer to take away the weapon for safe keeping. Presumably he will fall foul of the provisions of Section 8 as currently proposed. The amendment of the noble Earl will also cover that. I believe that the amendment is very helpful, and I support it.
The practical difficulties that lie behind Amendment No. 74 arise not only out of the case to which my noble friends have referred but another case which has come to the attention of the Government. The Government fully accept that there is a problem that requires to be addressed. It may assist if I remind the Committee that Section 3 of the Firearms Act 1968 requires that a firearms dealer must be registered with the police. Reference has already been made to Section 8 of the Act under the terms of which a firearms dealer who has been registered may possess firearms and ammunition without holding a police firearms certificate that would usually be needed for them as long as he has them in the ordinary course of his business.
The next sections to which I refer are the important ones. Sections 33 and 37 of the 1968 Act require every registered dealer to ensure that all of his places of business are also registered with the police. As the case referred to in the discussion makes clear, a dealer may quite legitimately want to convey a firearm from one place to another. While the Government have sympathy with the reasons that lie behind the present amendment, they believe that it would pose two major difficulties. The first is that in the amendment reference is made to "specified premises". For the technical reason I have referred to, these should be registered premises under Sections 33 and 37. Secondly—and perhaps more importantly—the amendment would contradict the requirement that all places of business be registered with the police. What is required here—which both the amendment and the current legislation lack—is a full definition of the place of business that should be registered with the police. The criminal case of which I am aware involved a dealer storing firearms in a barn which was not registered with the police. That makes it clear that it is wrong to assume that the places that should be registered are only those at which a dealer carries on business, in the sense of dealing with members of the public. Other premises may be required to be covered as well. That is one aspect of the practical problem that a change in the law will require to address. I assure the Committee that, in the light of this amendment and the cases to which reference has been made, the Government will give further thought to this matter. I hope that it will prove possible to table a suitably comprehensive amendment at a later stage of the proceedings on this Bill. If that does not prove possible, legislation in a separate Bill will be brought forward as soon as that can be done. There has been some discussion with the Gun Trade Association. I undertake that such discussions will continue not only with that association but others with a legitimate interest, including of course the police. I hope that, having recognised the problem, it is possible for my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for having acknowledged the existence of this difficulty. Both he and I have identified this as a matter which causes great difficulty in the trade. My noble friend has said that he will go away and think about it, for which I am grateful. On the grounds that we will come back to it and sort it out at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
moved Amendment No. 75:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
FIREARMS APPEALS TRIBUNAL
("—(1) The Secretary of State shall make rules for the establishment of a Firearms Appeals Tribunal to consider appeals from persons aggrieved by the decision of a chief officer of police under powers granted to him by the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1996.
(2) Evidence submitted to the Tribunal may at the discretion of the Tribunal be in writing only.
(3) The Secretary of State shall consult the Firearms Consultative Committee in choosing the membership of the Tribunal.
(4) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) above, the Secretary of State shall make rules governing the membership of the Tribunal and the conduct of its proceedings.
(5) The right of appeal created by section 44(1) of the 1968 Act is not affected by this section.
(6) In the event of an appeal under section 44(1) of the 1968 Act, the decision of the Tribunal shall be conclusive evidence of the facts which it contains and the Court shall be entitled to take account of the Tribunal's finding in making its own decision.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 75. The effect of the amendment is to establish a firearms appeals tribunal. I believe this to be a very important amendment. It is a recommendation of the FCC which is supported by the vast majority of people connected with the shooting community.
At present on the revocation of a certificate or licence, or the refusal of a chief officer of police to grant such an authority, the aggrieved party's only recourse to appeal is through the courts. It is time-consuming, slow and prohibitively expensive. If established, such an appeals tribunal would take a further look at the reasons for the revocation or refusal in an independent light. The information would be considered on a confidential basis. The tribunal would then further advise the chief officer of police of its recommendations. Those would not be binding upon the chief officer. Notwithstanding that, both the appellant and the chief officer of police would still have final recourse to the courts.
Such a tribunal would provide a much cheaper option for the majority of appellants. It would save greatly on court time and therefore cost to Her Majesty's Government, the police and the appellant. At present, the latter may have to drop his or her appeal for financial reasons.
I believe that the establishment of such an appeals tribunal would provide a much more reasonable and fair system than exists at present and would improve the principles of natural justice in this context. I commend the amendment to the Committee and hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Such a tribunal was one of the main recommendations of the third report of the Firearms Consultative Committee. It is particularly appropriate that we should consider it now, bearing in mind that one of the worst aspects of the whole Dunblane tragedy was the argument put forward by the Central Scotland Police that it was cheaper to grant Hamilton a renewal of his certificate than to face Hamilton's appeal to the sheriff court. That is a serious situation.
The tribunal that the FCC in its third annual report had in mind was a tribunal in line with the Employment Protection Act—something that was simple, practical and prompt. I hope that we shall receive a sympathetic reply to this amendment.I, too, support the amendment. I do so for three reasons: one on cost, one on efficiency, and one on fairness. One of the most important parts of the amendment is the fact that the tribunal's decision would not be binding on either party. So it would not impinge on the existing procedure of going to the courts if either party wished to do so. I appreciate that that would always remain an essential part of the proceedings, particularly from the point of view of the police. I understand that point.
Such a tribunal would surely reduce the number of cases that end up in court. It is very much in line with the present trend. There are other examples where such tribunals are now in operation. I believe that it is the Government's policy to try to encourage them. I found it disturbing to read that Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary reported that some police forces impose arbitrary requirements on applicants with,I find that worrying. The appeals system must be fair. Seeking redress through the courts can be a daunting and expensive procedure, particularly for the applicant. I have no doubt that such a tribunal would help ease the process. I am sure that it would lead to a greater degree of consistency. Everyone who knows anything on the subject feels that that is something that the present system lacks. It would overcome a major criticism that exists at the moment. Finally, the very fact that the FCC is so much in favour of it, and has been recommending it for so long, is a good reason why we should accept the amendment."some bordering on the discriminatory without justification".
I strongly support the amendment. It is, as I see it, a most important aspect of improving the licensing procedure for firearms. I was especially struck by the comments made by my noble friend Lord Kimball because when I was speaking earlier to my Amendment No. 66 for a central computer system for licensing I was somewhat critical of the Home Office. That criticism was, in effect, echoed by my noble friend Lord Kimball when he pointed out that that recommendation had been made a considerable time ago and never implemented and that, as a result of reading Cullen, in the Dunblane case it was possibly because of the uncertain and unsatisfactory procedures for appeal that there was an inhibition in denying that wholly unsuitable man a certificate for the firearms with which he later slaughtered those people.
I must strongly support what has been put forward. I see it as an essential component of ensuring a much tougher, more accurate and fairer licensing system for firearms.I support the amendment on the basis that it will not merely make it easier for the police initially to refuse an application; it will improve applicants' confidence that their licensing application will be treated fairly. They will be more confident that their licences will not be refused arbitrarily. The amendment should be accepted.
I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised this subject which relates to appeals in the area of firearm certificates. Lord Cullen recommended in his report that,
As they did with others, the Government accepted that recommendation and we are currently consulting on what should be done about appeals under the Firearms Act. Following preliminary discussions the Government had with interested parties the Home Secretary wrote to the Lord Chief Justice in England. The Minister of State for Scotland has written in similar terms to the Lord President of the Court of Session about a consultation paper. That consultation paper has also been circulated to the Bar Council, the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society, the Law Society in Scotland, all sheriffs principal, the Sheriffs' Association, the Temporary Sheriffs' Association, the British Shooting Sports Council, the Firearms Consultative Committee and various police staff associations. A copy of the paper has been placed in the Library of the House. That consultation paper requests comments by 23rd January. One of the questions which the paper addresses and seeks comments upon is whether a tribunal would be a suitable substitute to a right of appeal to the courts. The amendment raises a different but not unconnected question of whether a tribunal should be a supplement to the appeal procedures. I believe that until we have the results of the consultation exercise it would be a mistake to reach a concluded view as to the correct way forward in relation to appeals and as to the role which a tribunal may have to play in the area. Clearly, the views which all Members of the Committee have expressed in connection with the amendment are cogent arguments in support of having a tribunal as a supplement to the appeals procedure. However, there may be arguments against such a course of action which other consultees will wish to advance. I assure the Committee that the Government regard this as a matter of importance because a concluded view must be reached by government and by Parliament before the Bill becomes law. Accordingly, once the consultation period ends on 23rd January, a view will be formed and that will be announced to the House when the Bill reaches its Report stage. I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will withdraw the amendment and await the result of a consultation exercise."consideration should be given to the reform of the scope for appeal against decisions of the chief officer of police by restricting it to enumerated grounds which do not trench on the exercise of his discretion".
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for explaining the matter further. I believe that there is a problem. The proposal was brought forward after very serious thought in the third report of the Firearms Consultative Committee, which is the independent advisory body which, with a panel of experts, advises the Home Secretary. This matter has been running for a long time.
I am not satisfied that the body is a substitute for the courts. It is a stand-alone body which gives an extra fillip to people who cannot afford to go to the courts. I honestly believe that the Government should look very carefully at the proposal. I am sorry, but I must be difficult and I wish to press the amendment.9.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 75) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 72.
Division No. 4
| |
CONTENTS
| |
| Allenby of Megiddo, V. | Kimball, L. [Teller.] |
| Annaly, L. | Lucas of Chilworth, L. |
| Attlee, E. | Marlesford, L. |
| Balfour, E. | Masham of Ilton, B. |
| Biddulph, L. | Monson, L. |
| Brabazon of Tara, L. | Monteagle of Brandon, L. |
| Brain, L. | Montrose, D. |
| Burton, L. | Nickson, L. |
| Clancarty, E. | Northesk, E. |
| Clifford of Chudleigh, L. | Onslow, E. |
| Cocks of Hartcliffe, L. | Palmer, L. |
| Congleton, L. | Pearson of Rannoch, L. |
| Craig of Radley, L. | Peel, E. |
| Cross, V. | Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.] |
| Dacre of Glanton, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. |
| Dundonald, E. | Stoddart of Swindon, L. |
| Feversham, L. | Swansea, L. |
| Gisborough, L. | Tollemache, L. |
| Hamilton of Dalzell, L. | Wharton, B. |
| HolmPatrick, L. | Willoughby de Broke, L. |
| Hylton, L. | Wynford, L. |
NOT-CONTENTS
| |
| Addington, L. | Hayhoe, L. |
| Addison, V. | Hemphill, L. |
| Anelay of St. Jonas, B. | Henley, L. |
| Belstead, L. | Hollis of Heigham, B. |
| Blaker, L. | Hooper, B. |
| Blatch, B. | Howe, E. |
| Bowness, L. | Inchcape, E. |
| Byford, B. | Judd, L. |
| Caithness, E. | Kilbracken, L. |
| Calverley, L. | Long, V. |
| Carlisle, E. | Lucas, L. |
| Carnock, L. | Luke, L. |
| Carter, L. | Lyell, L. |
| Chadlington, L. | McCarthy, L. |
| Chalker of Wallasey, B. | McColl of Dulwich, L. |
| Chesham, L. [Teller.] | McIntosh of Haringey, L. |
| Courtown, E. | Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L. |
| Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.] | Mackay of Drumadoon, L. |
| Cumberlege, B. | Mackintosh of Halifax, V. |
| De Ramsey, L. | Mar and Kellie, E. |
| Dean of Beswick, L. | Miller of Hendon, B. |
| Dean of Harptree, L. | Morris of Castle Morris, L. |
| Denton of Wakefield, B. | O'Cathain, B. |
| Downshire, M. | Park of Monmouth, B. |
| Dubs, L. | Renton, L. |
| Ellenborough, L. | Rotherwick, L. |
| Elliott of Morpeth, L. | Seccombe, B. |
| Farrington of Ribbleton, B. | Shaw of Northstead, L. |
| Ferrers, E. | Skelmersdale, L. |
| Fraser of Carmyllie, L. | Stodart of Leaston, L. |
| Goschen, V. | Strathclyde, L. [Teller.] |
| Grantchester, L. | Torrington, V. |
| Hacking, L. | Trumpington, B. |
| Harmar-Nicholls, L. | Wilcox, B. |
| Harris of Greenwich, L. | Williams of Crosby, B. |
| Harris of Peckham, L. | Young, B. |
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.24 p.m.
moved Amendment No. 76:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
FORM OF REGISTER OF TRANSACTIONS OF FIREARMS DEALERS
(" The register of transactions required by section 40 of the 1968 Act to be kept by persons registered as a firearms dealer may be kept by electronic means on a computer or otherwise and the power under section 53 of the 1968 Act for the Secretary of State to make rules prescribing the form of registers to be kept under this section shall be extended to allow the prescribing of the form and manner in which such electronic records shall be maintained.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is very simple and very easy, and I am sure that the Government would very much like to support it. In the 1968 Act dealers were enabled to keep their register of firearms and transactions only in longhand. Coming up to the millennium, that seems rather ridiculous when we all use computers. Again, that is a recommendation of the FCC which was accepted by the Government and returned from the Home Secretary with an undertaking that at the first opportunity for primary legislation, that would be dealt with. This is the first opportunity for primary legislation. I believe that the Government ought to stand by their word of the past and accept my amendment. I beg to move.
I understand that my noble friend will not be moving Amendment No. 79 which is grouped with this amendment. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue of the computerisation of firearms dealers' registers in Amendment No. 76. I know that that is an issue on which the Firearms Consultative Committee has made recommendations in the past. We have long recognised the need in principle to bring the law in line with new technology. In the early part of last year we were consulting the police on the matter, but we naturally put the matter to one side when the Dunblane tragedy occurred. We have no difficulty with the principle of the amendment and, of course, the precise implementation is important. The accuracy and security of dealers' registers are key safeguards in preventing guns being sold on to the criminal market.
I hope that my noble friend is sitting comfortably. I will endeavour to come back on Report, either with proposals as to how computerisation might be achieved by changes in the firearms rules and, if that is not possible, with an amendment to the Bill. I trust that my noble friend will accept that assurance.That was the most wonderful statement that I have heard tonight. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
ESTABLISHMENT OF FIREARMS CONTROL BOARD
("—(1) The Secretary of State may by order establish a Firearms Control Board.
(2) The Firearms Control Board shall have responsibility for advising the chief officer of police on the grant, renewal or revocation of any certificate under Part II of the 1968 Act in respect of a person residing in his area.
(3) The chief officer of police shall satisfy himself, on the advice of the Firearms Control Board, that applicants for certificates have complied with the requirements necessary for the grant of certificates under the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1996.
(4) The order made under subsection (1) above shall make such provision for the composition of the Board and for its procedures as the Secretary of State shall deem necessary.
(5) Fees for licences shall be payable to the Board.
(6) The Secretary of State shall have authority to give instructions to the Board in the exercise of its powers.
(7) An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: I am afraid that this is not quite so short an amendment. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me because the history behind the establishment of a national firearms control board is quite a long one. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to explain some of the background.
In March 1992, the Home Office issued a consultation document setting forward the proposal to create a civilian body to take over the firearms licensing function from the police service. It was proposed that a non-departmental public body should be set up, to be known as the "Firearms Control Board", which would have complete responsibility for the administration of the licensing provisions contained within the firearms Acts.
The Home Office identified two main areas of concern which arose from the current system. The first was the quality of service provided by the police—a lack of consistency and a lack of expertise by those police personnel who undertook firearms licensing and administrative tasks; and, secondly, value for money. In terms of the lack of expertise, it was pointed out that many police officers who made inquiries were neither skilled in the handling of firearms nor experienced in the use of sporting weapons. That often caused friction between the police and firearms certificate holders; namely, that,
"experienced shooters are sometimes irritated by inexpert officers and more generally by a system which they perceive to be inefficient and inconsistent".
In terms of the lack of consistency within the administration of firearms licensing, it was noted that this occurred not only with individual police forces but also between the 51 police forces within the United Kingdom. In terms of value for money, it was further identified that the use of police officers in firearms licensing work was not cost effective. Additionally, those costs had probably been added to by the inconsistencies of practice throughout the police service in England, Wales and Scotland. The Home Office concluded:
"Using police officers for such work is expensive in direct terms but also fails to capitalise on their valuable specialist police training and experience".
It is envisaged that a firearms control board should also carry out a range of additional functions currently handled by various organisations, thus streamlining responsibility for firearms issues. Examples of such functions include the safety inspection of ranges, the administration of the control of explosives regulations and the co-ordination of the exchange of information concerning movement of firearms between EC member states.
In 1993 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary published its own report entitled The Administration of Firearms Licensing. The report was generally critical of the 12 police forces that had been the subject of the inspection. HMIC concluded that the
"inspection showed that the service provided varied between excellent and very inefficient".
Additionally, licence applicants were subject to differing local requirements, some of which bordered on the discriminatory, without apparent justification. It noted that the
"use of properly trained civilian personnel was very much in the minority and that untrained police staff were still common".
Out of the 12 police forces inspected only one had developed a system which positively and effectively checked the names of offenders against its firearms and shotgun certificate holder database. That point may interest the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. For the information of the Committee, the police force was South Yorkshire.
The Home Affairs Committee, in its third report, also considered the idea of a civilian firearms licensing body in its inquiry into the possession of handguns. In its report of July 1996 it recommended that the concept should be revisited by the Government. It accepted that there was evidence to suggest that the police had still not achieved the necessary standards of training in relation to firearms licensing.
I am well aware that Lord Cullen did not recommend the removal from the police of any firearm licensing function. However, I need hardly remind the Committee that neither did he recommend the outlawing of heavy calibre pistols. It should be remembered, however, that Lord Cullen's comments must be read in conjunction with the terms of reference of his inquiry. Furthermore, he makes no reference to expense as a reason for not having such a board. No suggestion is made that the board's officials would not communicate with the police in exactly the same way as do, for example, Customs and Excise, traffic wardens or DVLC at Swansea. The police would be able to input criminal records and evidence of unreliability, just as information from other outside agencies can be added to an applicant's file. There is no difference in that sense.
The key issues are, first, whether the chief officer could rely on the board to present him with a proper assessment of the applicant's background and whether he or she was suitable to be in possession of a firearm, and, secondly, whether it delivered the service in a more efficient, consistent and reliable fashion. I believe that the evidence to date suggests that that would not be too difficult.
In addition to the comments from the Home Office in 1992—to which I have already referred—and from the Home Affairs Committee, I can add that the British Shooting Sports Council, the British Association of Shooting and Conservation and the Gun Trade Association are in favour of such a move. It is most important to respect their views as they witness at first hand how the present legislation is operating. Furthermore, the Firearms Consultative Committee, chaired—as we all know by now—by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury is in favour of the recommendation.
I wish to mention briefly the question of costs, which I appreciate is a key issue. It has proved extremely difficult to get hold of any meaningful figures either to establish the cost of administering the present system of licensing, or what the alternative costings would be of both establishing and running a firearms control board. As I understand it, the Home Office produced some figures from a report undertaken by Ernst & Young but it seems to be quite difficult to get hold of those figures for reasons which I cannot quite understand. However, I have some figures based on 1989 which show interesting and perhaps somewhat alarming variations in costs between the different regions. These figures were produced from ACPO's multi-force firearms scrutiny study. That seems a somewhat unusual term, but it is the one used. For example, in Cambridge the average costs of granting a firearm certificate is £12.61—a precise figure. The average cost of renewal is £13.55. That does not make much sense to me for obvious reasons. However, conversely in North Wales the average cost of granting a firearm certificate is £29.29. It is a rural area and a little larger to administer. I can understand that. But the cost of renewal is £5.52. I believe that that demonstrates the wide inconsistencies within the regions. The ACPO multiforce firearms scrutiny study indicates that certificates could be issued for considerably less than the fee charged at that time.
With regard to firearms and shotguns the overall figure for 1989 is as follows: administrative costs, £8.5 million; revenue £4.7 million; and a shortfall of £3.8 million. However, if such tasks were to be carried out by a firearm control board it is generally acknowledged that there will be a saving in costs, first, by not using the police but civilians. That has been demonstrated by other examples. Approximately 1, 500 police will be freed to concentrate on other tasks for which they have been trained and are more suitable to deal with.
However, even if the final costs were in excess of the present system, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take note of this point. I am informed that shooters would be prepared to pay more if they knew that there was to be a fairer system in place which was not subject to the arbitrary decisions which seem to prevail under the present system, but would best serve the interests of everyone in minimising the risks of firearms getting into the wrong hands. At the end of the day that is surely what we seek to achieve above all else.
It should be stressed that within the Home Office proposal chief constables would not have had the final say in administrative decision making. The police would have input only in terms of information concerning past convictions of applicants together with relevant intelligent information concerning individuals. However, in the amendment chief officers would not be asked to surrender the ultimate sanction as to who has or does not have guns in their area. That is an important point. They would be required to exercise such a decision on the advice of the new board. The officers of the board, based on regional centres, would take on the administration, assessment of licences, and inspection of security. Although the provision involves the cost of the board, the system releases police officers who are usually untrained in firearms matters. I believe that many of us have seen examples of that. They often have no interest in the subject through no fault of their own. It is imposed on them. They have not had proper training. It allows the police to concentrate their efforts on matters to which they are better suited. It would be more cost effective.
The effect of the amendment is to provide a framework around which the Government can construct a firearm control board. It is deliberately drafted so as not to describe exactly what form the board should take—that would be left to the Secretary of State—but would be set up by an order requiring a positive procedure.
Experience dictates that changes are necessary if we are to achieve a greater level of consistency in the issuing of firearm licences throughout the land. We need a body of experts with proper training and with a full knowledge of firearms and their use. Above all—I return to this point because I believe it to be very important—we must establish the most efficient system to ensure as best we can (and that is all we can do) that the horrors of Hungerford and Dunblane are prevented from happening again. I beg to move.
I support the excellent proposal of my noble friend Lord Peel. I would in any case support it as, yet again, it is a recommendation of the FCC—a body which is not listened to enough by Her Majesty's Government over matters of great importance.
I wish to add nothing to my noble friend's most eloquent remarks, apart from one small point. It seems to me very much the case that, given the results of Options for Change, with people coming out of the Army, there are excellent NCOs of very good standing with excellent firearms training. They are firearms experts and they have man-management skills. They would be the ideal people to take the place of the police, to go round and inspect premises, perhaps on a county constabulary basis, to see whether people have the proposed security arrangements in place, whether they are people who are capable of using these weapons and indeed are licensed to do so, and whether they are capable of holding down a licence responsibly. One of my noble friend's most important points was that there would be no diminution in the power of chief officers of police in these matters. As he said, the shooting fraternity is quite happy to support the cost of the establishment of such a body. I support the amendment.I rise to speak very briefly in support of my noble friend's amendment, which is a sensible one. During the Cullen inquiry the point was made that there is a tension between a police force seeking to regulate the shooting community and a police force under pressure to provide a good service to those very same people. The events of Dunblane and Hungerford inevitably raise questions as to how effectively the police discharged their responsibilities.
An independent national licensing authority such as that proposed in my noble friend's amendment would remove that tension and relieve the police of a responsibility which I am not sure they particularly relish. I very much hope that this amendment will find favour with the Government.I rather hope that the noble Earl will press this amendment to a Division, if only because I want to see the Division List. I want to compare it with yesterday's Division List. Noble Lords who took part in that debate on the Police Bill will recall that when we proposed, and the Committee agreed, that there should be a senior judge responsible for giving authorisation for something under 2, 000 acts of intrusive surveillance by the police, we were accused by the Government of second-guessing the police—something under 2,000!
What is proposed here is a firearms control panel which will advise on "any"—I assume that means "every", otherwise it does not mean anything at all— application for the grant, renewal or revocation of a certificate. If ever there were a new bureaucracy being set up to second-guess the police, this is it.I speak as president of the BSSC and a former chairman of that body, which has long advocated this particular proposal. There is wide variation in the administration of the legislation as it relates to England and Wales, and also Scotland. It all depends on the whim of the chief constable. Some chief constables are very strict in their administration of the firearms Acts; others are very liberal. That has been a constant thorn in the flesh of many shooters. The firearms control board would iron all that out because all applications would go to that body. That is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
I could regale your Lordships with examples of the ignorance of many policemen on firearms but at this time of night I will not detain your Lordships any longer. I support the amendment.9.45 p.m.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, slightly misses the point on this matter. The firearms control board would not take any operational responsibilities or decisions away from chief officers of police; it would be purely advisory to chief officers. I understand that the position is not quite what the noble Lord said it was.
That is exactly my point about second-guessing. There would be a whole body of people—all of these ex-NCOs—who would have to look at every single application for the grant or revocation of a licence, but they still would not take the decision; the decision would be taken by the police. I repeat: if that is not second-guessing, what is?
I was unfortunately not able to be here yesterday to help the Government in their predicament, but it seems to me that yesterday's vote was about a body being set up to second-guess the police when they were being over-active and not acting in the interests of the individual. The body proposed by this amendment is a body to be set up for a situation when the police are not very interested in what they are doing and where, on the record of Dunblane, they have not served the interests of the individual or the society which they are supposed to be protecting.
My noble friend Lord Peel said that many of us had seen examples of police being untrained and disinterested in firearms certification matters. I have to confess to being among those people. I have had the police come to see me both in Scotland, where I have a number of rifles, and in London, where I keep shotguns. Although the interview that I have with the police is always entirely friendly and professional, they make it clear that they do not know what they are on about and they resent the waste of time that they are put to in this matter. They ask how the weapons work, and so on, but they are plainly not interested in their duty on this occasion. I therefore support this amendment. I think this body would free the police to do more useful tasks in other areas. I do not accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.I totally agree with what is proposed in this amendment. It is wise for us to consider that the police are the prime movers on this matter. It is vitally important that we have this body. I totally support what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. It is important for us to have people with experience. Options for Change was mentioned. These people know what they are talking about. There is no point in asking a toddler to swim the Channel. These people understand entirely what is meant when it comes to firearms safety.
Perhaps I may suggest that this board is not just for individuals; it also concerns the shooting clubs. This board would ensure that a shooting club, because of its staff, would be absolutely sound and secure. As to second-guessing, is that not what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was promoting in the amendment which he proposed on 16th January? Is not this second-guessing and double-checking exactly what we need to ensure safety for the public? I support the amendment.Surely what my noble friend Lord Peel is asking for is consistency. There is a lack of consistency. I have very little to criticise in regard to the Surrey constabulary which protects me very well. But on one occasion, two police constables were sent round to check my shotgun certificate and when I was not there another two were sent around. That is an extremely expensive way to operate and a waste of police power.
One asks for consistency between one case and the next in the same police area and also all over the country. We cannot accept that the police have done a very good job in this matter; otherwise, Mr. Hamilton would not have had a firearm certificate. We should always bear that in mind. Just for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, let me say that I am very unhappy that I could not come to vote for his amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, yesterday. I like the idea of warrants for people. But I shall still vote for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel if he presses it. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, thinks that I am inconsistent, so be it.Among documents shown by police to Lord Cullen was a report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland on the subject of the administration of the firearms licensing system in 1995. The Scottish Office press office called a meeting to present it to the press. It was cancelled at the last minute. It seemed that someone or other had tried to hide the document. It has been asked for by Members of the other place and by me. It was part of Lord Cullen's evidence. So why is it not now available? I should have thought that it was very relevant indeed to the need for a control board.
In rising to support the amendment, I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whose amendment I supported last night. Quite frankly, what I voted for last night, as I understood it, was the imposition of safeguards against abuse of police powers in bugging and other forms of entry into people's premises. That is what I thought I had voted for. Frankly, that is totally different from what I understand this amendment to be about. This amendment is about creating a greater level of efficiency in the administration of a licensing system.
It is rather sad that this is yet another recommendation to the Home Office previously made by the committee set up by the Home Office itself which has not been implemented. Inevitably, I am reminded of a letter written to The Times some years ago by A.P. Herbert, when yet another committee of which he had been a member had had its advice ignored. He said that the Government was like an elderly hypochondriac—always asking for a second opinion and never taking it. I hope very much that the tragedy of Dunblane will at least focus into a little action by the Home Office.After the sitting of the House last night, I myself am beginning to feel like an elderly hypochondriac. Notwithstanding any weakness of body, my spirit is quite resolved in opposing the amendment. The Government firmly believe that it would be the wrong route to follow.
It may be instructive to inform the Committee of the history of the matter. In March 1992, the Home Office published a consultation paper on the proposal to set up a single national licensing authority for firearms, to be known as a firearms control board. The proposal was that the board would be run by civilians and take over from the police the task of issuing firearm and shotgun certificates, registering firearms dealers and carrying out other licensing work under the firearms Acts. After examining the responses to that consultation document, the Government undertook a detailed feasibility study into the advantages and disadvantages of a firearms control board. That study found that, although a national licensing authority might generally improve the quality of service to shooters and bring about what shooters sought and still seek—namely, consistency of approach to decision-making—the running costs of such an authority would be considerably higher than under the then current police system. There would also have been considerable start-up costs involved. I understand that a summary of the report was placed in the Library of the House and that the figures contained in it formed the basis of the revision of firearms fees brought into effect in January 1995. The study also threw up the point that there would be a continuing need to involve the police in firearms licensing and a continuing need for liaison between the licensing authority, which was responsible for granting the licences and certificates, and the police, who had certain responsibilities, of course, for the enforcement of the law. This, so the Government's advice ran, would lead to a duplication of effort. It was for those reasons—the question of cost, the duplication of effort and the need to have a continuing police involvement in firearms work—that the Government announced in July 1994 that they would not be proceeding with the proposal. During the hearing conducted by Lord Cullen the issue of setting up a firearms control board was raised again. Lord Cullen records in paragraph 8.4 of his report:Lord Cullen concluded that he was not in favour of the removal from the police of any of the functions concerned with the operation of the present system. In paragraph 8.5 of his report he said:"The BSSC maintained that there was a case for taking the administration of licensing procedure, if not also decision making, away from the police, leaving them to be involved in the supply and interpretation of intelligence about applicants and holders. The Shooters' Rights Association maintained that the Home Office had misrepresented the cost. The Association's proposals were intended to simplify and streamline the licensing system so that it could be used as an intelligence-gathering system. The police would carry out the inspection processes in rural areas; and the work would be put out to tender in urban areas".
In that paragraph of his report Lord Cullen fully supported the view which the Government had announced back in 1994. The Government are aware that the Firearms Consultative Committee has a different view, a view which it has continued to express. But, for the very reasons we were discussing earlier, it is a body independent of government, and the Government are perfectly entitled to reject that advice if they consider it right to do so. That remains the Government's position, having re-assessed the position in the light of the amendment. The Government are satisfied that the advantages of such a body would be outweighed by its drawbacks. In assessing whether a person is suitable to hold a firearm certificate, local knowledge is essential. It is not clear to us why officials in a central location could make judgments requiring local knowledge in a more effective and sensible way than could be done by local police officers or civilians. I understand that throughout the country those involved in licensing work for police forces, whether they be serving police officers or civilian personnel, receive training. That training enables them, with their local knowledge of the community in which they work, to go about the duties which they perform prior to the granting or refusal of the necessary certificates. A civilian licensing authority would not have that access to local knowledge; it would not have the informal contacts, the informal sources, which inform so much of police work. Furthermore, it would be difficult for an independent body such as the one proposed to have access to police records and police reports to the Crown Prosecution Service and to the Procurator Fiscal. Perhaps most importantly of all, the amendment proposes that the decision should remain with the chief officer of police. It is upon him that will rest the duty to decide whether or not a certificate should be granted or refused. It would be quite wrong to restrict the chief officer to any advice he might receive from a firearms control board, no matter how experienced in firearms work its personnel might be. He would be failing in his duty to ignore the opportunity of taking account of local knowledge and intelligence; and if he did so, and he reached the wrong decision, it would be he, not the firearms control board, who would be responsible for it. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury made it clear that the board did not wish to take over operational decisions. That is clear from the terms of his amendment. But that fact makes it clear that, as the chief officer is responsible for taking the decision, it is he, working with his officers and civilian staff, who should set about getting the information he requires. And, no doubt following the events of Dunblane, chief officers throughout the country will be reviewing the procedures they follow to see how and in what manner they can be improved. Mention has been made of the question of cost. It was said quite fairly on behalf of the movers of the amendment that shooters would be prepared to pay additional costs if that brought about the consistency which they seek. But if the fees are to be payable in terms of this amendment to the board, that makes no contribution to the costs which chief officers may incur through instructing their police officers and staff to carry out additional inquiries. So it may be that the amendment is defective in that way also. I fully accept that the amendment is put forward with the best of intentions and with a genuine wish to improve the procedures for licensing in order to bring about consistency. I personally feel that the fact that decisions will rest with chief constables admits the possibility that one chief constable in a certain situation make take a different view from another. That is what decision-taking is all about. If they are to be responsible for their decisions, they must be free to take the decision they believe to be correct on the information before them. To impose consistency upon them would be wrongly to restrict their discretion and bring about inevitably the taking of wrong decisions from time to time. At the end of the day I am not sure that cost is important one way or another. The important thing is that the decision taker has the information he deems to be appropriate. With the greatest respect to those who have moved and supported the amendment, I do not believe it would achieve that aim. Before I sit down I wish to refer to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Burton about a certain report prepared by the Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland not having been made publicly available. As I think the noble Lord has been informed, the report was in draft form at the time the Dunblane tragedy occurred. Together with certain other documents it was made available by the Government to Lord Cullen. He took the view that it was not appropriate to make that document public. The Government agree with that view for the reason that the report was in draft form and has clearly been overtaken by events. There is no suggestion of concealing anything. The way in which the Government seek to proceed is on the basis of the facts as we now know them. The view that we take about the report is the one that Lord Cullen took that it would not assist a sensible discussion of the problems that require to be addressed to look at a draft report, which is now some time out of date. I say again that I accept this amendment is put forward in a very sensitive and sensible manner. Nevertheless, I believe that the proposals are fatally flawed. If the matter is pressed to a vote, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment."This is not for any reason concerned with cost but on the view that there should be an integration of the carrying out of enquiries and the taking of decisions within a single organisation; that the police are in the best position to collect and assess information bearing on the suitability of applicants or holders, which is at the heart of the certification system; and that there is inevitably a close link between the certification system and questions of enforcement".
The noble and learned Lord believes that we should follow Lord Cullen's recommendations so far as concerns this amendment. Would it not have been better for all concerned if we had followed them in their entirety?
Hear, hear!
It requires to be said again, as has been said many times in this House and in another place, both from these Benches and acknowledged on the Benches opposite, that all of Lord Cullen's recommendations were followed. We have come forward with legislation which takes his recommendations forward. If one looks at the detail of his report, it is impossible to point to a recommendation which the Government have not implemented. Therefore, I demur to the suggestion that lies behind the noble Lord's question.
Will the noble and learned Lord refer to Lord Cullen's summary of recommendations, at paragraph 24:
How can the noble and learned Lord say that we have followed that statement?"Consideration should be given to restricting the availability of self-loading pistols and revolvers of any calibre which are held by individuals for use in target shooting, preferably by their disablement"?
I believe that that was explained very fully by my noble friend Lady Blatch. The Government did consider the issue of disassembly. They have rejected it for reasons which have been made clear and which have found support in many quarters. They may not find support from every Member of the Committee, but the fact of the matter is that the issue of disassembly was addressed and rejected. The issue of fitting a locked barrel block was also addressed and was also rejected. The Government also considered the alternative to paragraph 24,
It is important to remember the opening words of this recommendation, "consideration should be given". That is what the Government were invited to do and that is what they did. I believe that the Committee will be right to acknowledge that if one looks at the detail of this recommendation it and all the others have been followed."if such a system is not adopted, by the banning of the possession of such handguns by individual owners".
I do not want to waste the time of the Committee. My noble and learned friend has not got over the words, "preferably by their disablement".
The noble and learned Lord told us that in 1994 it was decided that we would not proceed with a firearms control board. Reading the papers one would have assumed at that time that we would actually see an improvement in the administration of firearms licensing, etc. We have found that we have not had an improvement but a disaster in Dunblane. The subject of the thematic report would tell us exactly what was going on with the various Scottish constabularies. It is very disappointing that the Government have not let us see that report because I am sure that it would be most interesting.
I need hardly say that I am extremely disappointed by what I have heard. I take heart from the fact that, with the exception of two Members of the Committee, everybody has supported me. I realise that two have not. One is the noble Lord opposite on the Opposition Front Bench, and the other is the noble and learned Lord on my Front Bench. No doubt that has great significance. I am thankful and grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken and to all those who have supported me.
My noble friend said that this amendment was fatally flawed. That is an odd comment in view of the fact that it was only in 1992 that the Home Office recommended that there should be a firearms control board. It was the Government's prerogative to change their mind, but I am surprised that they have done so in such a dramatic way. That is as may be. There has been discussion about Lord Cullen. The term "cherry picking" is almost designed for Lord Cullen. We pick those items that we like or those that we do not like. No doubt that applies as much to my noble friends on the Front Bench as my noble friends on the Back- Benches, but there we are. My noble friend Lord Onslow referred to consistency. He is right. That is one of the fundamental reasons why there is a need to revise the present system which is not working. My noble friend Lord Marlesford referred to efficiency. He was quite right to point out the difference between yesterday's vote and today's non-vote, as it will be. I know that that will disappoint the noble Lord opposite because he wants to see who will go through the Division Lobbies. I am afraid that will not happen. I cannot understand the argument about duplication of effort. I thought I made it perfectly clear that the firearms control board would not duplicate the work of the police but would be reporting to the police and taking the place of police officers who at the moment do this work. I do not believe that point stacks up in any shape or form. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, implied a second bureaucracy. They are not a substitute for the police; they are complementary to it, and that is the whole point of the amendment. I shall not divide the Committee on this matter. I am extremely disappointed by what I have heard. I will look at the matter most carefully and reserve the right to return to it at the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Interpretation and supplementary provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Short Title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]
Clause 42 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Transitional arrangements for small-calibre pistols]:
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequential and minor amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 85 not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 26, line 39, at end insert—
(" .In section 32A(4)(b) and 32C(7), for the words "section 4(2) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 (formalities on transfer of shot guns)" there shall be substituted the words "section 27(2)(b) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 (requirements relating to transfers of firearms)".").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendment No. 86 with Amendment No. 71.1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 26, line 46, at end insert—
("In section 54(2)(b), for the words "section 26" there shall be substituted the words "section 26A".").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to Amendment No. 88 with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 26, line 46, at end insert—
(" . In section 57 (interpretation), in subsection (4) for the definition of "rifle" there shall be substituted—
""rifled gun" includes carbine;".").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 89 along with the Government's amendments, Amendments Nos. 71, 88, and so on. I never had a reply from my noble friend the Minister. I beg to move.
I apologise to my noble friend, but I believe that it had more to do with the procedures of the House at that time. I appreciate the sentiment behind my noble friend's amendment. I am happy to tell him that it is unnecessary. All carbines are rifled and so will automatically be caught by the slight change in words that have been included in Clause 1(3). It is not necessary to state specifically that they are included.
I am grateful for that information. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 26, line 48, after first ("words") insert (""26(4), ").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 71. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
moved Amendments Nos. 93 and 94:
| Page 28, line 14, column 3, at end insert— | |
| ("In section 23(2)(a), | |
| the words "in, or".") | |
| Page 28, line 18, column 3, at end insert— | |
| ("In section 54(5)(b), | |
| the words "in, or".") | |
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 71.1 beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Police Bill Hl
10.17 p.m.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blatch.)On Question, Motion agreed to.
had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 157:
After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
CRIMINAL RECORDS TRIBUNAL
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a body to be known as the Criminal Records Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to hear an appeal from any individual applicant who disputes the accuracy or relevance of a new certificate which is issued to him under section 106 and which contains the same information as the original certificate.
(2) The Tribunal may examine any information held on the applicant and that contained on the certificate and assess the accuracy of the certificate.
(3) A person who appeals to the Tribunal may be represented by a person of his choice.
(4) The Tribunal shall give reasons for its decisions.
(5) An appeal shall lie from a decision of the Tribunal to the High Court.
(6) The Tribunal may award compensation to an individual applicant.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment was debated much earlier this morning. It would be inappropriate of me to suggest that it be debated again. I do not move it.
My Lords, my understanding is that this amendment was pressed to a Division last night. Therefore the amendment is still on the Table.
My Lords, it is still on the Table. I am grateful to the Minister for that correction. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 107 [Evidence of identity]:
moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 43, line 33, at end insert—
("() Regulations dealing with the taking of Fingerprints may make provision requiring their destruction in specified circumstances and by specified persons.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that the amendment proves to be uncontentious. It permits regulations to be made to deal with the destruction of fingerprints which have been taken in order to provide evidence of identity, when those have served their purpose. The provisions we have in mind would be based on those in Section 64 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and would permit the individual to witness the destruction of the fingerprints. I beg to move.
My Lords, I believe that this is a worthwhile amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for moving it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109 [Registered bodies]:
moved Amendments Nos. 159 to 161:
Page 44, line 11, leave out first ("body") and insert ("person").
Page 44, line 11, leave out ("body which") and insert ("person who").
Page 44, line 14, leave out ("body which") and insert ("person who").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]
moved Amendments Nos. 163 to 167:
Page 44, line 17, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (2A) and").
Page 44, line 17, at end insert—
("(2A) A person applying for registration under this section must be—
Page 44, line 18, leave out ("body") and insert ("person").
Page 44, line 20, leave out ("it") and insert ("he").
Page 44, line 21, leave out ("it") and insert ("he").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were discussed with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 44, leave out line 24.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 133. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 170:
After Clause 109, insert the following new clause—
PERFORMANCE BY CONSTABLES ON CENTRAL SERVICE IN SCOTLAND OF FUNCTIONS UNDER THIS PART
("In Scotland a constable engaged on central service (within the meaning of section 38 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967) may perform functions under this Part (other than functions under section 104(2B) or (7), 110(1) or (2) or 112) on behalf of the Secretary of State; and without prejudice to the application of subsection (5) of section 108 in respect of any other person performing functions on behalf of the Secretary of State, that subsection shall apply in respect of any constable performing functions by virtue of this section as the subsection applies in respect of the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at our debate on Second Reading I mentioned that in Scotland the work on access to criminal records under Part V of the Bill will be undertaken by the Scottish Criminal Record Office. This new clause allows that office to do the work on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The Scottish Criminal Record Office is well established as the central database for criminal records in Scotland. It already carries out, in a centralised way, the criminal record checks under the present non-statutory arrangements in Scotland. These arrangements are very satisfactory and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wishes to build on them, rather than setting up a new body in the way which is necessary in England and Wales.
The Scottish Criminal Record Office is staffed by constables on central service under the Crown, in accordance with Section 38 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. Although they are working under the Crown, these constables are not part of my right honourable friend's department and so cannot automatically carry out functions on his behalf. The new clause gives them that power.
However, certain functions of the Secretary of State are excluded. These are the Secretary of State's power to make regulations and to specify and lay before Parliament the Code of Practice. These functions will be carried out, as regards Scotland, by the Scottish Office.
The Scottish Criminal Record Office will, however, be responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the normal operation of the disclosure system. I am confident that it will do so very well. Its reputation is high.
Finally, the amendment extends the Secretary of State's limited immunity from proceedings, which is conferred by Clause 108(5) of the Bill, to include constables at SCRO who are performing functions on his behalf.
The net effect of the new clause is to allow the Scottish Criminal Record Office to act in Scotland on behalf of the Secretary of State in exactly the same way as the Criminal Records Agency will in England and Wales on behalf of the Home Secretary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 110 [Code of practice]:
moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 44, line 26, leave out ("may publish, and") and insert ("shall publish, and may").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 173 to 176. Amendments Nos. 171, 173 and 176 fulfil the undertaking that I gave at the Committee stage that the Bill would be amended so as to make explicit our intention that the Secretary of State will publish a code of practice. I hope that that will be acceptable to noble Lords.
The understandable wish to ensure that ex-offenders are rehabilitated and not discriminated against is the motivation behind Amendment No. 174. This would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make arrangements for monitoring compliance with the code of practice by registered bodies.
As has been said many times during our consideration of this Bill, it is our intention to put in place an effective new system of criminal record checks which takes account of the rights of the individual but which is also straightforward and cost effective. The inspection and monitoring regime which is proposed by this amendment would add significantly to the cost and complexity of this scheme. It would also, let us not forget, be a most unwelcome burden on, for example, small businesses and local authorities.
There are safeguards in the Bill to ensure that wherever possible the code of practice is adhered to. The Secretary of State will be able to suspend registered bodies which he considers have failed to abide by the code. Sanctions also exist against individuals who breach the code by disclosing conviction information to those not entitled to it. Indeed, a criminal offence will be committed which could be punished by a prison sentence.
Finally, Amendment No. 175 proposes that the code of practice should be subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament. The draft code has already been the subject of a lengthy consultation process where we have sought the views of employers, regulatory bodies and civil liberties and voluntary groups. Some 250 responses were received and many of the views expressed have been taken on board. The code of practice will require further consolidation and consultation and, given the detailed and extensive nature of this continuing process, we would expect the final code to meet the legitimate concerns raised by many interested parties. In light of that we do not consider it necessary for the code to be subject to affirmative resolution. It will, however, be published and laid before both Houses of Parliament.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the House will support the amendments in my name. I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh not to press his amendment but I understand that he was not going to in any event.
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding in advance to my Amendments Nos. 174 and 175. That was entirely proper since I had agreed that they should be grouped together. I am grateful also to the Government for accepting the important point that the code of practice should be mandatory and not permissive, which is contained in Amendment No. 171. It is important that codes of practice of this kind should be subject to as much scrutiny as possible, although I do not doubt for a moment the extent of the consultation which has taken place and the care which is being taken to take account of the responses to the consultation.
The Home Office memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee said, in reference to the code of practice, that because it will deal with administrative matters it is not thought necessary for it to be subject to any further parliamentary procedure. Indeed, that is what is now proposed although the Minister has told us that the code will be laid before Parliament but the affirmative resolution will not be used. In fact, my Amendment No. 175 provides for the negative resolution procedure rather than the affirmative procedure to be used. However, I must query whether the code of practice will be purely administrative. Other codes of practice of this kind, and certainly previous codes of practice on this subject, have gone well beyond administrative matters and have dealt with organisations' policies on employing offenders. Indeed, they may well affect employment law. Those matters are not administrative. I query seriously whether it is right for the code of practice only to be laid before Parliament and not to be subject, as we propose in Amendment No. 175, to the negative resolution procedure. I recognise that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee accepted the assurances of the Home Office. I am less willing to do so. I did not move my Amendment No. 162 which is concerned with employers' policies on recruiting offenders because I knew that the matter could be debated, as it is being debated now, with this group of amendments. But the requirement which was in my Amendment No. 162 for those responsible to be satisfied that employers have positive policies for the employment of offenders is still very much in the forefront of my mind. I am encouraged by the words the Minister used in proposing this group of amendments when she talked about the necessity for fair and just policies to ensure that there is not unnecessary discrimination against previous offenders as regards employment. After all, those offenders have served whatever punishment was awarded to them by the courts. It is extremely important that their lives should not be blighted subsequently by discrimination against them in the employment field. I say that not only as a matter of justice to the individuals concerned but also for two other reasons. First, obviously employers will do better if they have access to a wider catchment area, so to speak, of potential employees and that must include previous offenders. Secondly—and, perhaps, most importantly from the point of view of crime policy—it cannot be doubted that those previous offenders who find jobs and who are usefully employed are much less likely to offend again in the future. That is why it is necessary for there to be explicit recognition in the Bill of the need for positive policies for the employment of offenders. It is for that reason therefore that Amendment No. 174 requires the Secretary of State to,Of course, it should now read "the code of practice" rather than "any code of practice". Because of the defective wording, it will not be possible for me to take the amendment to a vote. I also believe that Amendment No. 175—which calls for the code of practice"make arrangements for the monitoring and inspection of compliance by registered bodies with any code of practice published under this section".
should be agreed to because of the importance of the code of practice. The Minister has not given any undertakings as to when the code of practice will be published. From what the Minister said, I can appreciate the care which has been taken to ensure that the representations that have been made to her are fully taken into account. I also recognise the validity of the Minister's point that a code of practice of this kind can, and should, be subject to change. Therefore, I hasten to add that I do not propose that the code of practice should be put on the face of the Bill. But it would be extremely helpful if the Minister gave an indication that the code—or at least the latest draft if the process is not complete—will be available to Parliament well before the Bill completes its passage. Although it would be very nice, I can hardly expect it to be available before the Third Reading in this House in a week's time. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could give some indication that it will be available for consideration by the House of Commons at least in time for its Committee stage, so that we can ascertain the full extent of the provisions of the code of practice."laid before Parliament … [to] be subject to annulment pursuant to a resolution of either House of Parliament"—
I should like, first, to say how grateful I am that the noble Lord has been so constructive about the proposals, albeit that he was critical about them not going far enough. While I am seeking advice, I should say that I do not believe that I can be definitive about the timing of the publication at this moment. However, I understand the noble Lord's concern that we should have sight of the code of practice, at least in draft form, before the Bill makes much more progress through this House.
I should like to comment on a particular concern of the noble Lord; namely, the way in which the code will affect employment. We do not intend to make provision in the code on employment policies because it would in effect mean that we were legislating in order to give former offenders a right not to be unfairly discriminated against. This we cannot do in a code; nor would it be right for central government to dictate to employers in what circumstances they should disregard convictions. We can of course advise employers, but it must be for them to decide the relevance of a particular conviction for the post in question. The code will therefore deal with administrative matters. That point was queried by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Guidance will of course be issued on employment practices. We believe it is the guidance to employers that will be important. My understanding is that we shall make the code available in draft. I do not know when that will be, but I shall seek more information on that tomorrow and I shall write to the noble Lord.I am grateful for those comments. Before the Minister sits down, and with the leave of the House, I hope she will understand that unless the code of practice is to be available in time for full consideration by another place there may be parliamentary activity—let me put it that way—to ensure that the matter is properly considered. She ought to understand also that I understand her assurances that the code of practice will cover only administrative matters, but if that is the case my honourable friends in another place will want to move a comparable amendment to my Amendment No. 162 to ensure that there are on the face of the Bill adequate protections for previous offenders in employment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 44, line 29, leave out from ("Parliament") to end of line 30 and insert ("the code of practice under this section as soon as practicable after publication and after revision.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 174 and 175 not moved.]
moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 44, line 32, leave out ("a code of practice published") and insert ("the code of practice").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this was spoken to with Amendment No. 171. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 112 [Regulations):
moved Amendments Nos. 177, 178 and 179:
Page 45, line 24, leave out ("section or section 104(7)") and insert ("Part").
Page 45, line 25, after ("instrument") insert—
("(2A) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations made by virtue of section 104(2B) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(2B) A statutory instrument to which subsection (2A) does not apply shall be").
Page 45, line 27, leave out ("section or section 104(7)") and insert ("Part").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 145. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 177, 178 and 179 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 119 [Rehabilitation of Offenders]:
moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 49, line 13, at end insert—
("() section 39 of the Osteopaths Act 1993;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 119 is concerned with repealing certain sections of previous legislation, which provide for exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. These amendments complete that process by repealing provisions in the Osteopaths Act 1993 and the Chiropractors Act 1994. It is our intention that these exceptions will be re-applied as part of a consolidated order under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. I beg to move.
My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not understand those comments. I understand the difference between osteopaths and chiropractors because my wife has had occasion to use both of them, but I do not understand what is being taken out of the Osteopaths Act and the Chiropractors Act. Is it the case that at the moment there is a requirement on osteopaths and chiropractors to employ a significant number of previous offenders? If that is the case, it seems slightly odd as most osteopaths and chiropractors are in private practice and do not employ anyone. If that is the case, is the intention to take out that provision and bring it back in a consolidated order, or is it the case that it is not required to do that at the moment and the intention is to bring it in and then take it out? It is not very clear to me.
My Lords, I understand that it is simply a consolidation measure. The amendment enables provisions in the Osteopaths Act 1993 and the Chiropractors Act 1994 to be re-enacted in a consolidated form in an exceptions order to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 49, line 14, at end insert—
("() section 40 of the Chiropractors Act 1994.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 121 [Commencement]:
moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 49, line 28, leave out ("or II") and insert (", II or IV").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that this will be a little more straightforward. The amendment simply applies the commencement provisions in Clause 121(3) to Part IV of the Bill as well as to Parts I and II. This is to allow for the fact that there may, for example, be a need to transfer some existing contractual rights and liabilities from the Home Office to the police information technology organisation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
moved Amendments Nos. 183 to 185:
Page 74, line 37, at end insert—
("In section 39 (liability for wrongful acts of constables), in subsection (4), after "1996" there shall be inserted "or section 23 of the Police Act 1997".").
Page 75, line 19, at end insert—
("In section 14 of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (liability for wrongful acts of members of the police force), in subsection (5), after "Police Act 1996" there shall be inserted "or section 23 of the Police Act 1997".").
Page 75, line 20, leave out ("the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970") and insert ("that Act").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 77, line 45, at end insert ("and
(b) after "1967" there shall be inserted "or means relevant service within paragraph (ba) or (bb) of section 38A(1) of the said Act of 1967"").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 86, line 22, at end insert—
("In section 88 (liability for wrongful acts of constables), in subsection (5)(b), after "or 98" there shall be inserted "of this Act or section 23 of the Police Act 1997".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendment No. 188:
Page 86, leave out lines 36 to 41.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 127. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Repeals]:
moved Amendment No. 189:
| Page 88, line 11, at end insert— | ||
| ("1967 c. 77. | Police (Scotland) Act 1967 | In section 39(4), the word "or" in the third place where it occurs.") |
The noble Baroness: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
moved Amendments Nos. 190 and 191:
Page 88, line 26, at end insert—
("1993 c. 21. Osteopaths Act 1993. Section 39.")
Page 88, line 28, at end insert—
("1994 c. 17. Chiropractors Act 1994. Section 40.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 180. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.