| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Attlee: 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.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: 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.
Earl Peel: 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.
The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 75:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause--
(" .--(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
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.
Lord Kimball: 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.
Earl Peel: 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,
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.
Lord Marlesford: 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
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.
"some bordering on the discriminatory without justification".
I find that worrying.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page