| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Attlee: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, will carefully study the case law on Pepper v. Hart. On the basis that the noble Baroness intends to table a better amendment in her own name, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 51:
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.
Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 52:
The noble Lord said: I, too, thank my noble friend for that reassuring statement with which I am entirely happy.
Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 13, line 3, at end insert ("or for practice or testing related thereto").
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."").
Before Clause 31, insert the following new clause--
(" . In section 1 of the 1968 Act (requirement for a firearm certificate), subsection (3A) shall be omitted.").
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 70, 84, 85 and 90.
These amendments were originally in two groups. My first amendment undoes an amendment made in another place to require only one referee for a shotgun certificate. The next amendment goes further in that it removes shotguns from Section 1 of the 1968 Act. It is surprising that before 1967 no certificate was needed for a shotgun.
My motivation for putting down the amendments is that shotguns are not treated as powerful weapons, which defies all logic. For a long time a sawn-off shotgun was the preferred weapon of criminals, although I understand that machine pistols are more popular with sophisticated drug gangs even though they are Section 5 weapons.
When one compares the size of a 12-bore shotgun cartridge with a .22 or even a 9mm round, the latter two appear to be puny. Even more important is the fact that a shotgun cartridge can carry a variety of shot or even a solid slug. I covered that point in greater detail during the first day in Committee.
If handguns were not available to Hamilton, he might well have had a shotgun which he could have illegally modified to be concealable. The result would not be much different. It would not help the Committee for me to describe the differences. It is important to recognise that shotguns have a legitimate and widespread use in the countryside for sport and for controlling vermin.
There are considerable foreign exchange earnings from overseas visitors. In addition, there is a great deal of employment associated with field sports, which must not be jeopardised. No doubt many Members of the Committee, including the Minister, will tell me that the Bill is about handguns or victimising the legal owners of them. I should like to think that it is about increasing public safety and protecting the shooting community from having another madman within its midst.
My amendment will increase public safety and make the Bill much simpler and easier to understand. I expect some resistance to the amendments but I shall be interested to hear what the Committee feels about them. I beg to move.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Earl in what he says about shotguns and the requirement for a firearm certificate for such weapons. Shotguns are not firearms. They are used for completely separate purposes and disciplines. It is a matter that we have discussed at the FCC which disagrees completely with the noble Earl on this issue. We believe that the present laws regarding shotguns are adequate and are working well. I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may add a few words. I hope that the Government will not unite shotgun and firearm certificates. They are completely different. That is the impression I gained from the amendment. The two certificates should be kept totally apart and treated differently.
Baroness Blatch: I have to say to my noble friends and the noble Earl that the Government believe that the existing controls on shotguns are in most respects adequate. Most semi-automatic or pump action short barrelled shotguns are prohibited, and shotguns which are capable of firing three or more shots without reloading are subject to control by firearm certificates in the same way as a rifle.
The Committee will know that there are many perfectly legitimate reasons, especially in the countryside, why people should have ordinary shotguns. Very many people own them--over 700,000 in Great Britain as a whole.
People who wish to have them must first obtain a shotgun certificate from the police and satisfy them that they will keep and use the gun securely. Police can refuse to issue a certificate if they believe that the applicant has no good reason for having a shotgun.
Lord Cullen's Inquiry did not address shotguns, which have always been subject to a separate system of controls. He was very clear in his report that he saw shotguns as a very different from other kinds of firearms, which agrees with both my noble friends who have spoken on this matter. He said at paragraph 7.16:
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.
Earl Attlee: It seems that I am not receiving a great deal of support for or interest in the amendment. I am a little disappointed that we did not look at it closer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Applications for certificates and referees]:
Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 56:
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 61 and 63. Amendments Nos. 56 and 61 seek to address a problem relating to UK citizens who are not currently resident in the UK. Obvious examples are service personnel and overseas expatriate workers who bring considerable foreign exchange into the country.
Under Sections 26A and 26B of the 1968 Act, as amended by Clause 31 of the Bill, applications for certificates have to be lodged with the chief officer of police for the area in which the applicant resides. If a serviceman is living overseas, he will not be able to make a valid application until he moves back into the UK. That will create a range of unnecessary difficulties which my amendment seeks to address.
Amendment No. 63 seeks to have a European firearms pass and firearm or shotgun certificate combined. An EU driving licence is issued by the DVLA and covers the whole of the EU. I appreciate that there may be difficulties with the amendment, but I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the cross-border movement of guns with European firearms passes. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: It is possible for a person domiciled in, say, Dundee to obtain a firearm certificate which allows him to take his weapons anywhere in the country. Normally, one must declare where one intends to use a firearm; in other words, on whose land. My firearm certificate does not allow me to use my gun outside the footage of my estate, which is my home.
However, it is possible for a person to obtain a "roving" firearm certificate, if I may put it that way, in order to go stalking, say, in the Highlands. He may be able to obtain such a certificate from the police in the area in which he is domiciled. If he moves to another area he should, through his chief officer of police, link up with the police
"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".
Page 14, line 39, at end insert ("or has most recently resided or is reasonably expected to reside in the future,").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page