| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Shrewsbury: I support the excellent proposal of my noble friend Lord Peel. I would in any case support it as, yet again, it is a recommendation of the FCC--a body which is not listened to enough by Her Majesty's Government over matters of great importance.
I wish to add nothing to my noble friend's most eloquent remarks, apart from one small point. It seems to me very much the case that, given the results of Options for Change, with people coming out of the Army, there are excellent NCOs of very good standing with excellent firearms training. They are firearms experts and they have man-management skills. They would be the ideal people to take the place of the police, to go round and inspect premises, perhaps on a county constabulary basis, to see whether people have the proposed security arrangements in place, whether they are people who are capable of using these weapons and indeed are licensed to do so, and whether they are capable of holding down a licence responsibly. One of my noble friend's most important points was that there would be no diminution in the power of chief officers of police in these matters. As he said, the shooting fraternity is quite happy to support the cost of the establishment of such a body. I support the amendment.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I rise to speak very briefly in support of my noble friend's amendment, which is a sensible one. During the Cullen inquiry the point was made that there is a tension between a police force seeking to regulate the shooting community and a police force under pressure to provide a good service to those very same people. The events of Dunblane and Hungerford inevitably raise questions as to how effectively the police discharged their responsibilities.
An independent national licensing authority such as that proposed in my noble friend's amendment would remove that tension and relieve the police of a responsibility which I am not sure they particularly relish. I very much hope that this amendment will find favour with the Government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rather hope that the noble Earl will press this amendment to a Division, if only because I want to see the Division List. I want to compare it with yesterday's Division List. Noble Lords who took part in that debate on the Police Bill will recall that when we proposed, and the Committee agreed, that there should be a senior judge responsible for giving authorisation for something under 2,000 acts of intrusive surveillance by the police, we were accused by the Government of second-guessing the police--something under 2,000!
What is proposed here is a firearms control panel which will advise on "any"--I assume that means "every", otherwise it does not mean anything at all--
application for the grant, renewal or revocation of a certificate. If ever there were a new bureaucracy being set up to second-guess the police, this is it.
Lord Swansea: I speak as president of the BSSC and a former chairman of that body, which has long advocated this particular proposal. There is wide variation in the administration of the legislation as it relates to England and Wales, and also Scotland. It all depends on the whim of the chief constable. Some chief constables are very strict in their administration of the firearms Acts; others are very liberal. That has been a constant thorn in the flesh of many shooters. The firearms control board would iron all that out because all applications would go to that body. That is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
I could regale your Lordships with examples of the ignorance of many policemen on firearms but at this time of night I will not detain your Lordships any longer. I support the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Shrewsbury: I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, slightly misses the point on this matter. The firearms control board would not take any operational responsibilities or decisions away from chief officers of police; it would be purely advisory to chief officers. I understand that the position is not quite what the noble Lord said it was.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is exactly my point about second-guessing. There would be a whole body of people--all of these ex-NCOs--who would have to look at every single application for the grant or revocation of a licence, but they still would not take the decision; the decision would be taken by the police. I repeat: if that is not second-guessing, what is?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I was unfortunately not able to be here yesterday to help the Government in their predicament, but it seems to me that yesterday's vote was about a body being set up to second-guess the police when they were being over-active and not acting in the interests of the individual. The body proposed by this amendment is a body to be set up for a situation when the police are not very interested in what they are doing and where, on the record of Dunblane, they have not served the interests of the individual or the society which they are supposed to be protecting.
My noble friend Lord Peel said that many of us had seen examples of police being untrained and disinterested in firearms certification matters. I have to confess to being among those people. I have had the police come to see me both in Scotland, where I have a number of rifles, and in London, where I keep shotguns. Although the interview that I have with the police is always entirely friendly and professional, they make it clear that they do not know what they are on about and they resent the waste of time that they are put to in this matter. They ask how the weapons work, and so on, but they are plainly not interested in their duty on this occasion. I therefore support this amendment. I think
this body would free the police to do more useful tasks in other areas. I do not accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I totally agree with what is proposed in this amendment. It is wise for us to consider that the police are the prime movers on this matter. It is vitally important that we have this body. I totally support what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, supported by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. It is important for us to have people with experience. Options for Change was mentioned. These people know what they are talking about. There is no point in asking a toddler to swim the Channel. These people understand entirely what is meant when it comes to firearms safety.
Perhaps I may suggest that this board is not just for individuals; it also concerns the shooting clubs. This board would ensure that a shooting club, because of its staff, would be absolutely sound and secure.
As to second-guessing, is that not what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was promoting in the amendment which he proposed on 16th January? Is not this second-guessing and double-checking exactly what we need to ensure safety for the public? I support the amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: Surely what my noble friend Lord Peel is asking for is consistency. There is a lack of consistency. I have very little to criticise in regard to the Surrey constabulary which protects me very well. But on one occasion, two police constables were sent round to check my shotgun certificate and when I was not there another two were sent around. That is an extremely expensive way to operate and a waste of police power.
One asks for consistency between one case and the next in the same police area and also all over the country. We cannot accept that the police have done a very good job in this matter; otherwise, Mr. Hamilton would not have had a firearm certificate. We should always bear that in mind.
Just for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, let me say that I am very unhappy that I could not come to vote for his amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, yesterday. I like the idea of warrants for people. But I shall still vote for the amendment of my noble friend Lord Peel if he presses it. If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, thinks that I am inconsistent, so be it.
Lord Burton: Among documents shown by police to Lord Cullen was a report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary for Scotland on the subject of the administration of the firearms licensing system in 1995. The Scottish Office press office called a meeting to present it to the press. It was cancelled at the last minute. It seemed that someone or other had tried to hide the document. It has been asked for by Members of the other place and by me. It was part of Lord Cullen's
evidence. So why is it not now available? I should have thought that it was very relevant indeed to the need for a control board.
Lord Marlesford: In rising to support the amendment, I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, whose amendment I supported last night. Quite frankly, what I voted for last night, as I understood it, was the imposition of safeguards against abuse of police powers in bugging and other forms of entry into people's premises. That is what I thought I had voted for. Frankly, that is totally different from what I understand this amendment to be about. This amendment is about creating a greater level of efficiency in the administration of a licensing system.
It is rather sad that this is yet another recommendation to the Home Office previously made by the committee set up by the Home Office itself which has not been implemented. Inevitably, I am reminded of a letter written to The Times some years ago by A.P. Herbert, when yet another committee of which he had been a member had had its advice ignored. He said that the Government was like an elderly hypochondriac--always asking for a second opinion and never taking it. I hope very much that the tragedy of Dunblane will at least focus into a little action by the Home Office.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page