| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Attlee: 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?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is what I was asking about.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: 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 McIntosh 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 Earl of Mar and Kellie: 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.
The Earl of Courtown: 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.
7.43 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: 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 [H.L.]
7.44 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: 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]:
Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 1:
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
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.
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.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page