| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Attlee: I believe that the noble Earl has not quite understood the purpose of my amendment. It addresses the problem of people who are resident overseas.
Lord Monson: Unlike Amendments Nos. 53, 54 and 55, this is a moderate amendment and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Amendments Nos. 56 and 61 would allow a person living abroad to apply for a certificate before returning to this country. If the police were obliged to consider applications in such cases they would have little chance of meeting the applicant in person and no chance of inspecting his home conditions or security if he had not yet acquired the domestic premises in which he intended to reside.
The applicant would also be free to choose between applying to the last local police force from which he had obtained a licence and any number of police forces for other areas where he might reasonably be intending to live. In some cases, that could lead to a duplication of effort on the part of the police force and a measure of confusion.
The Government are aware that in a small number of cases the requirement for residence in order to apply for a certificate has caused problems, in particular with servicemen returning from abroad. The Firearms Consultative Committee considered the issue and its conclusions are set out in its seventh annual report, a copy of which is in the Library of your Lordships' House. The committee concluded that it was not necessary to amend the law but that chief officers should continue to treat cases sympathetically and as quickly as possible when servicemen return. That seems entirely sensible.
Amendment No. 63 relates to European firearms passes. Such a document is given force by the European weapons directive, which was agreed by member states. In order to be incorporated in a firearm or shotgun certificate, the exact form of the EFP would have to be reproduced on the certificate, making it a very unwieldy document. Furthermore, when a shooter wishes to visit another member state he must send his EFP to the authorities in that country to have it endorsed before he travels. If the EFP were to become part of the firearm or shotgun certificate the shooter would have to send the certificate as well. While his EFP and his certificate were out of the country he would have difficulty proving his legal ownership of any firearms or ammunition in his possession and he certainly would not be able to purchase any ammunition for use. In those circumstances it appears to the Government that Amendment No. 63 is not particularly sensible and I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful to the Minister, although I am not entirely convinced about the situation as regards overseas workers. Sometimes it is necessary for them to return to the UK at very short notice. It would make sense for them to have an appropriate certificate in place
just in case. However, I accept some of the difficulties to which the noble and learned Lord referred. I wish to be able to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 61 not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 62:
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
Having measured the performance, the procedure and processes must be reviewed in order that any room for improvement can be identified. An example of that in firearms administration would be if it were realised that the firearms inquiry officer on the ground did not have all the background information to the case. Another would be if the chief officer actually signing the certificate did not have all the available information in front of him when there were any contra-indications to signing. Both those problems were identified in Lord Cullen's report and an organisation running an ISO 9000 system would not easily make those mistakes.
It is important to understand that my amendment does not mean that the police will have to have an ISO 9000, although I accept that the best way in which to comply with the clause would be to have one as it involves continuous validation. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wish to make only a very small point which I perhaps should have made on earlier amendments. ISO 9000 is not a permanent classification. It has already changed and is now 9001. It is quite unsuitable to put it into legislation.
Earl Attlee: I agree with the noble Lord on that point. In fact, we used to be working to B 5750. That is a valid criticism and I am sure that the Minister will not hesitate to draw my attention to it.
Lord Burton: It is vital that the police should have proper procedures as regards the issuing of certificates. It is quite clear that such procedures did not exist in central Scotland, as the noble Earl has just said. Indeed, I have before me a note from the Clyde Valley Pistol Club which says that Hamilton was not even a member of the club for his 4-bore pistol when he applied for it. Not only is it that he was quite unfit to have that pistol, but he was not even a member of the club. If the minimum investigation had taken place, that would have come to light.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I believe that it is accepted on all sides of the Committee that it is important for police officers to have in place policy statements and quality checks to govern their firearms licensing systems. There can be little doubt that after chief officers have read the Cullen Report, that that concern will have been reinforced. I am quite sure that throughout the country, every effort will have been made to go over the systems which are in place.
This is a matter on which the Government consult with the police force regularly through meetings with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. Neither the police nor the Government believe that it would be appropriate to put on the face of the Bill reference to a particular standard. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, observed, ISO 9000 is to some extent a moving target, if I may use that expression in the context of the debate.
Indeed, the noble Earl himself said that he is merely looking to embody the principle of ISO 9000 rather than the detail of it. I suggest that it would be a serious mistake to put on the face of the Bill reference to a particular document which is bound to change. That is not in any sense to minimise the importance of having good management standards, and I hope that with that assurance, the amendment will be withdrawn.
Earl Attlee: The Minister has attempted to reassure us that after the disaster at Dunblane, the administration of firearms will be conducted differently. I imagine that after Hungerford, Ministers said exactly the same thing. I am rather disturbed because we seem to have made rather similar mistakes. I accept the comment made by the noble and learned Lord that it is not appropriate to put such a provision on the face of the Bill and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
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.".").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page