| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Attlee: I support the amendment on the basis that it will not merely make it easier for the police initially to refuse an application; it will improve applicants' confidence that their licensing application will be treated fairly. They will be more confident that their licences will not be refused arbitrarily. The amendment should be accepted.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised this subject which relates to appeals in the area of firearm certificates. Lord Cullen recommended in his report that,
- "consideration should be given to the reform of the scope for appeal against decisions of the chief officer of police by restricting it to enumerated grounds which do not trench on the exercise of his discretion".
As they did with others, the Government accepted that recommendation and we are currently consulting on what should be done about appeals under the Firearms Act. Following preliminary discussions the Government had with interested parties the Home Secretary wrote to the Lord Chief Justice in England. The Minister of State for Scotland has written in similar terms to the Lord President of the Court of Session about a consultation paper. That consultation paper has also been circulated to the Bar Council, the Faculty of Advocates, the Law Society, the Law Society in Scotland, all sheriffs principal, the Sheriffs' Association, the Temporary Sheriffs' Association, the British Shooting Sports Council, the Firearms Consultative Committee and various police staff associations. A copy of the paper has been placed in the Library of the House.
That consultation paper requests comments by 23rd January. One of the questions which the paper addresses and seeks comments upon is whether a tribunal would be a suitable substitute to a right of appeal to the courts. The amendment raises a different but not unconnected question of whether a tribunal should be a supplement to the appeal procedures.
I believe that until we have the results of the consultation exercise it would be a mistake to reach a concluded view as to the correct way forward in relation to appeals and as to the role which a tribunal may have to play in the area. Clearly, the views which
all Members of the Committee have expressed in connection with the amendment are cogent arguments in support of having a tribunal as a supplement to the appeals procedure. However, there may be arguments against such a course of action which other consultees will wish to advance.I assure the Committee that the Government regard this as a matter of importance because a concluded view must be reached by government and by Parliament before the Bill becomes law. Accordingly, once the consultation period ends on 23rd January, a view will be formed and that will be announced to the House when the Bill reaches its Report stage.
I hope that with that assurance my noble friend will withdraw the amendment and await the result of a consultation exercise.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for explaining the matter further. I believe that there is a problem. The proposal was brought forward after very serious thought in the third report of the Firearms Consultative Committee, which is the independent advisory body which, with a panel of experts, advises the Home Secretary. This matter has been running for a long time.
I am not satisfied that the body is a substitute for the courts. It is a stand-alone body which gives an extra fillip to people who cannot afford to go to the courts. I honestly believe that the Government should look very carefully at the proposal. I am sorry, but I must be difficult and I wish to press the amendment.
9.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 75) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 72.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Annaly, L.
Attlee, E.
Balfour, E.
Biddulph, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Brain, L.
Burton, L.
Clancarty, E.
Clifford of Chudleigh, L.
Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Congleton, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Cross, V.
Dacre of Glanton, L.
Dundonald, E.
Feversham, L.
Gisborough, L.
Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
HolmPatrick, L.
Hylton, L.
Kimball, L. [Teller.]
Lucas of Chilworth, L.
Marlesford, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Monson, L.
Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Montrose, D.
Nickson, L.
Northesk, E.
Onslow, E.
Palmer, L.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Peel, E.
Shrewsbury, E. [Teller.]
Stanley of Alderley, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Swansea, L.
Tollemache, L.
Wharton, B.
Willoughby de Broke, L.
Wynford, L.
Addington, L.
Addison, V.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.
Belstead, L.
Blaker, L.
Blatch, B.
Bowness, L.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Calverley, L.
Carlisle, E.
Carnock, L.
Carter, L.
Chadlington, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]
Courtown, E.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.] Cumberlege, B.
De Ramsey, L.
Dean of Beswick, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B.
Downshire, M.
Dubs, L.
Ellenborough, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Ferrers, E.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Goschen, V.
Grantchester, L.
Hacking, L.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.
Harris of Peckham, L.
Hayhoe, L.
Hemphill, L.
Henley, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Hooper, B.
Howe, E.
Inchcape, E.
Judd, L.
Kilbracken, L.
Long, V.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
McCarthy, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Mackintosh of Halifax, V.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Renton, L.
Rotherwick, L.
Seccombe, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Skelmersdale, L.
Stodart of Leaston, L.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Torrington, V.
Trumpington, B.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Young, B.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.24 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury moved Amendment No. 76:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause--
(" . The register of transactions required by section 40 of the 1968 Act to be kept by persons registered as a firearms dealer may be kept by electronic means on a computer or otherwise and the power under section 53 of the 1968 Act for the Secretary of State to make rules prescribing the form of registers to be kept under this section shall be extended to allow the prescribing of the form and manner in which such electronic records shall be maintained.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is very simple and very easy, and I am sure that the Government would very much like to support it. In the 1968 Act dealers were enabled to keep their register of firearms and transactions only in longhand. Coming up to the millennium, that seems rather ridiculous when we all use computers. Again, that is a recommendation of the FCC which was accepted by the Government and returned from the Home Secretary with an undertaking that at the first opportunity for primary legislation, that would be dealt with. This is the first opportunity for primary legislation. I believe that the Government ought to stand by their word of the past and accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I understand that my noble friend will not be moving Amendment No. 79 which is
I hope that my noble friend is sitting comfortably. I will endeavour to come back on Report, either with proposals as to how computerisation might be achieved by changes in the firearms rules and, if that is not possible, with an amendment to the Bill. I trust that my noble friend will accept that assurance.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: That was the most wonderful statement that I have heard tonight. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 77:
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause--
(" .--(1) The Secretary of State may by order establish a Firearms Control Board.
(2) The Firearms Control Board shall have responsibility for advising the chief officer of police on the grant, renewal or revocation of any certificate under Part II of the 1968 Act in respect of a person residing in his area.
(3) The chief officer of police shall satisfy himself, on the advice of the Firearms Control Board, that applicants for certificates have complied with the requirements necessary for the grant of certificates under the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1996.
(4) The order made under subsection (1) above shall make such provision for the composition of the Board and for its procedures as the Secretary of State shall deem necessary.
(5) Fees for licences shall be payable to the Board.
(6) The Secretary of State shall have authority to give instructions to the Board in the exercise of its powers.
(7) An order under subsection (1) above shall be made by statutory instrument and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: I am afraid that this is not quite so short an amendment. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me because the history behind the establishment of a national firearms control board is quite a long one. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to explain some of the background.
In March 1992, the Home Office issued a consultation document setting forward the proposal to create a civilian body to take over the firearms licensing function from the police service. It was proposed that a non-departmental public body should be set up, to be known as the "Firearms Control Board", which would
The Home Office identified two main areas of concern which arose from the current system. The first was the quality of service provided by the police--a lack of consistency and a lack of expertise by those police personnel who undertook firearms licensing and administrative tasks; and, secondly, value for money. In terms of the lack of expertise, it was pointed out that many police officers who made inquiries were neither skilled in the handling of firearms nor experienced in the use of sporting weapons. That often caused friction between the police and firearms certificate holders; namely, that,
In terms of the lack of consistency within the administration of firearms licensing, it was noted that this occurred not only with individual police forces but also between the 51 police forces within the United Kingdom. In terms of value for money, it was further identified that the use of police officers in firearms licensing work was not cost effective. Additionally, those costs had probably been added to by the inconsistencies of practice throughout the police service in England, Wales and Scotland. The Home Office concluded:
It is envisaged that a firearms control board should also carry out a range of additional functions currently handled by various organisations, thus streamlining responsibility for firearms issues. Examples of such functions include the safety inspection of ranges, the administration of the control of explosives regulations and the co-ordination of the exchange of information concerning movement of firearms between EC member states.
In 1993 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary published its own report entitled The Administration of Firearms Licensing. The report was generally critical of the 12 police forces that had been the subject of the inspection. HMIC concluded that the
The Home Affairs Committee, in its third report, also considered the idea of a civilian firearms licensing body in its inquiry into the possession of handguns. In its report of July 1996 it recommended that the concept should be revisited by the Government. It accepted that there was evidence to suggest that the police had still not achieved the necessary standards of training in relation to firearms licensing.
I am well aware that Lord Cullen did not recommend the removal from the police of any firearm licensing function. However, I need hardly remind the Committee that neither did he recommend the outlawing of heavy calibre pistols. It should be remembered, however, that Lord Cullen's comments must be read in conjunction with the terms of reference of his inquiry. Furthermore, he makes no reference to expense as a reason for not having such a board. No suggestion is made that the board's officials would not communicate with the police in exactly the same way as do, for example, Customs and Excise, traffic wardens or DVLC at Swansea. The police would be able to input criminal records and evidence of unreliability, just as information from other outside agencies can be added to an applicant's file. There is no difference in that sense.
The key issues are, first, whether the chief officer could rely on the board to present him with a proper assessment of the applicant's background and whether he or she was suitable to be in possession of a firearm, and, secondly, whether it delivered the service in a more efficient, consistent and reliable fashion. I believe that the evidence to date suggests that that would not be too difficult.
In addition to the comments from the Home Office in 1992--to which I have already referred--and from the Home Affairs Committee, I can add that the British Shooting Sports Council, the British Association of Shooting and Conservation and the Gun Trade Association are in favour of such a move. It is most important to respect their views as they witness at first hand how the present legislation is operating. Furthermore, the Firearms Consultative Committee, chaired--as we all know by now--by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury is in favour of the recommendation.
I wish to mention briefly the question of costs, which I appreciate is a key issue. It has proved extremely difficult to get hold of any meaningful figures either to establish the cost of administering the present system of licensing, or what the alternative costings would be of both establishing and running a firearms control board. As I understand it, the Home Office produced some figures from a report undertaken by Ernst & Young but it seems to be quite difficult to get hold of those figures for reasons which I cannot quite understand. However, I have some figures based on 1989 which show interesting and perhaps somewhat alarming variations in costs between the different regions. These figures were produced from ACPO's multi-force firearms scrutiny study. That seems a somewhat unusual term, but it is the one used. For example, in Cambridge the average costs of granting a firearm certificate is £12.61--a precise figure. The average cost of renewal is £13.55. That does not make much sense to me for obvious
With regard to firearms and shotguns the overall figure for 1989 is as follows: administrative costs, £8.5 million; revenue £4.7 million; and a shortfall of £3.8 million. However, if such tasks were to be carried out by a firearm control board it is generally acknowledged that there will be a saving in costs, first, by not using the police but civilians. That has been demonstrated by other examples. Approximately 1,500 police will be freed to concentrate on other tasks for which they have been trained and are more suitable to deal with.
However, even if the final costs were in excess of the present system, I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take note of this point. I am informed that shooters would be prepared to pay more if they knew that there was to be a fairer system in place which was not subject to the arbitrary decisions which seem to prevail under the present system, but would best serve the interests of everyone in minimising the risks of firearms getting into the wrong hands. At the end of the day that is surely what we seek to achieve above all else.
It should be stressed that within the Home Office proposal chief constables would not have had the final say in administrative decision making. The police would have input only in terms of information concerning past convictions of applicants together with relevant intelligent information concerning individuals. However, in the amendment chief officers would not be asked to surrender the ultimate sanction as to who has or does not have guns in their area. That is an important point. They would be required to exercise such a decision on the advice of the new board. The officers of the board, based on regional centres, would take on the administration, assessment of licences, and inspection of security. Although the provision involves the cost of the board, the system releases police officers who are usually untrained in firearms matters. I believe that many of us have seen examples of that. They often have no interest in the subject through no fault of their own. It is imposed on them. They have not had proper training. It allows the police to concentrate their efforts on matters to which they are better suited. It would be more cost effective.
The effect of the amendment is to provide a framework around which the Government can construct a firearm control board. It is deliberately drafted so as not to describe exactly what form the board should take--that would be left to the Secretary of State--but would be set up by an order requiring a positive procedure.
Experience dictates that changes are necessary if we are to achieve a greater level of consistency in the issuing of firearm licences throughout the land. We need a body of experts with proper training and with a full
"experienced shooters are sometimes irritated by inexpert officers and more generally by a system which they perceive to be inefficient and inconsistent".
"Using police officers for such work is expensive in direct terms but also fails to capitalise on their valuable specialist police training and experience".
"inspection showed that the service provided varied between excellent and very inefficient".
Additionally, licence applicants were subject to differing local requirements, some of which bordered on the discriminatory, without apparent justification. It noted that the
"use of properly trained civilian personnel was very much in the minority and that untrained police staff were still common".
Out of the 12 police forces inspected only one had developed a system which positively and effectively checked the names of offenders against its firearms and shotgun certificate holder database. That point may interest the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. For the information of the Committee, the police force was South Yorkshire.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page