| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I moved amendments at an earlier stage of the Committee with the directly opposite intention to the amendment now proposed. I was concerned that there should not be an increase in the international arms trade as a result of the legislation. However, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, seems to be concerned to ensure that there will be an increase in that trade. I think that is deplorable. Of course it is true that licences are required for the export of arms of this kind. It is quite right that they should be because these arms can be used not only in domestic civil homicide--if that is the right way to describe it--but also in disturbed or disordered countries as weapons of war or of civil war. We should discourage this kind of increase in the international arms trade which would be encouraged by the noble Lord's amendment. I hope that the Government and the Committee will resist it.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Burton: I understand that people who have already applied for export licences are not receiving them at the moment because the authorities have stopped processing them. That must be wrong. The law is not being complied with as they have every right to obtain a licence at the present time. The issuing of those licences should not be deferred.
The Earl of Lytton: I have some slight misgivings about what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. It seems to me that handguns are relatively easy to obtain in Europe, of which we are part. Among other things, Europe provides for the free movement of goods, services and people within its overall borders. We cannot disinvent what already exists in terms of things which we in this country might decide are unsatisfactory but which are commonplace, in common use and are commonly accepted in other countries. While I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, might wish this country to make a gesture in the direction of the arms trade--I abhor that trade--there are much larger issues to consider such as matters we have heard about recently; namely, landmines and other things of that sort. Those issues need to be tackled, not the private ownership of handguns which have no large-scale application for the purposes of anti-personnel activities. In general, I support this amendment. So long as we
have free trade and so long as these items are legally owned in other countries, I do not see how we can possibly stand in the way of that.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble Lord's amendment would open the possibility of a large number of higher calibre handguns remaining in circulation for some time after the prohibition came into effect. I do not believe that the noble Lord's amendment is necessary to meet the concern which he has raised.
The Government recognise that some of those who currently possess higher calibre handguns may want to sell them to someone in another country where such handguns will remain lawful, rather than surrender their weapons to the police and receive compensation under the scheme which will be made under Clause 11. For that reason it is not necessary for the Government to become involved in the matter which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, have just discussed. As I say, it is recognised that some owners will wish to export their guns to countries where the guns will remain lawful. However, those who wish to do so will need to obtain an export licence from the Department of Trade and Industry. Obtaining such a licence takes a little time because the application must be checked for accuracy and omissions, and checks may be made if necessary to determine that the intended recipient of the firearm in another country has whatever authorities are required in that country to receive and possess the firearms.
Checks may also be made to make sure that there is no other reason why it would not be in the public interest for the firearm to be exported to the intended destination. I understand that in normal circumstances the Department of Trade and Industry processes such applications within 20 working days of receipt of a completed application. My noble friend Lord Burton suggests that there may be a problem at the moment. I undertake to check that matter with the department. The Government have not yet determined the precise arrangements for the surrender of higher calibre handguns to the police, including how long the surrender period should last. We are currently discussing with the police what period will be necessary, but it is likely that we will allow a period of two or perhaps three months. Such a period would in normal circumstances allow plenty of time for anyone who wished to export his firearm. I recognise, however, that there may be a significant increase in firearms export applications during the relevant period. We are therefore considering with the Department of Trade and Industry what arrangements might be made if there were to be a substantial increase. We will want to make sure that there are no unnecessary delays in the processing of applications.
We will also want to avoid the situation where a valid application for an export licence is still under consideration when the prohibition comes into effect. I agree with the noble Lord that people should not inadvertently be denied the opportunity lawfully to export their firearms. I do not believe, however, that the amendment is the right answer to that potential problem. It would have the effect that those who had made
applications for export licences did not have to surrender their firearms. They would remain in possession of their higher calibre handguns after the prohibition came into effect, provided they had lodged an application. This inevitably leaves open the possibility that some people may seek deliberately to thwart the effect of the prohibition.If large numbers of applications were made shortly before the prohibition came into effect, the department might take some time to process them. That is a problem which must be faced. That might mean that significant numbers of higher calibre handguns would remain in circulation for a substantial period beyond that which was intended by the prohibition. The Government believe that would create an unacceptable loophole in the introduction of the prohibition.
It is important that all those firearms which will be prohibited are out of circulation as soon as possible. We are considering whether the arrangements for the surrender and compensation scheme under Clauses 10 and 11 should allow for the possibility that those who wish to export their firearms should be allowed to surrender their weapons to the police during the normal surrender period until such time as the application is determined. If the application is granted, they would then be permitted to export the handgun. If, on the other hand, the application is refused, the owner would be able to receive compensation under the scheme as if he had surrendered it in the normal way like many others.
We are not at present convinced that such arrangements will be necessary but we are considering whether there may be a case for them. I am happy to give an undertaking to the Committee to consider the issue in detail with the Department of Trade and Industry, and if we conclude that it is necessary to make provision for the surrender and compensation arrangements under Clauses 10 and 11 along the lines I have outlined, that will be done. I hope that will meet the noble Lord's concern without leaving open the possibility of these guns remaining in circulation longer than the prohibition would normally allow. With that undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lytton for his support. He put the case well. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, chilled our blood with talk of the international arms trade as if we were talking about Exocet missiles, or even Kalashnikovs such as are used in civil wars. We are not talking about those things; we are talking about ordinary revolvers and pistols, .32, .38, .45, such as were freely obtainable by anyone in this country up until 1920, and with almost no difficulty until 1946. Most countries do not have the hang-ups--as I think I said on an earlier occasion--about pistols that we have in this country at the moment. If people in those countries want to buy the guns and their governments are happy that they should acquire them, why should they not do so?
I listened with great interest to what the Minister said. He has been helpful. The Government are thinking carefully about the matter and about possible problems that may arise. I shall read the Minister's comments
thoroughly. I may have to return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill but I hope that will not be necessary. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 [Purpose of Part II]:
Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 42:
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,
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").
"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.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page