---

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: After the sitting of the House last night, I myself am beginning to feel like an elderly hypochondriac. Notwithstanding any weakness of body, my spirit is quite resolved in opposing the amendment. The Government firmly believe that it would be the wrong route to follow.

It may be instructive to inform the Committee of the history of the matter. In March 1992, the Home Office published a consultation paper on the proposal to set up a single national licensing authority for firearms, to be known as a firearms control board. The proposal was that the board would be run by civilians and take over from the police the task of issuing firearm and shotgun certificates, registering firearms dealers and carrying out other licensing work under the firearms Acts.

After examining the responses to that consultation document, the Government undertook a detailed feasibility study into the advantages and disadvantages of a firearms control board. That study found that, although a national licensing authority might generally improve the quality of service to shooters and bring about what shooters sought and still seek--namely, consistency of approach to decision-making--the running costs of such an authority would be considerably higher than under the then current police system. There would also have been considerable start-up costs involved. I understand that a summary of the report was placed in the Library of the House and that the figures contained in it formed the basis of the revision of firearms fees brought into effect in January 1995.

The study also threw up the point that there would be a continuing need to involve the police in firearms licensing and a continuing need for liaison between the licensing authority, which was responsible for granting the licences and certificates, and the police, who had

21 Jan 1997 : Column 663

certain responsibilities, of course, for the enforcement of the law. This, so the Government's advice ran, would lead to a duplication of effort. It was for those reasons--the question of cost, the duplication of effort and the need to have a continuing police involvement in firearms work--that the Government announced in July 1994 that they would not be proceeding with the proposal.

During the hearing conducted by Lord Cullen the issue of setting up a firearms control board was raised again. Lord Cullen records in paragraph 8.4 of his report:

"The BSSC maintained that there was a case for taking the administration of licensing procedure, if not also decision making, away from the police, leaving them to be involved in the supply and interpretation of intelligence about applicants and holders. The Shooters' Rights Association maintained that the Home Office had misrepresented the cost. The Association's proposals were intended to simplify and streamline the licensing system so that it could be used as an intelligence-gathering system. The police would carry out the inspection processes in rural areas; and the work would be put out to tender in urban areas".

Lord Cullen concluded that he was not in favour of the removal from the police of any of the functions concerned with the operation of the present system. In paragraph 8.5 of his report he said:

"This is not for any reason concerned with cost but on the view that there should be an integration of the carrying out of enquiries and the taking of decisions within a single organisation; that the police are in the best position to collect and assess information bearing on the suitability of applicants or holders, which is at the heart of the certification system; and that there is inevitably a close link between the certification system and questions of enforcement".

In that paragraph of his report Lord Cullen fully supported the view which the Government had announced back in 1994.

The Government are aware that the Firearms Consultative Committee has a different view, a view which it has continued to express. But, for the very reasons we were discussing earlier, it is a body independent of government, and the Government are perfectly entitled to reject that advice if they consider it right to do so. That remains the Government's position, having re-assessed the position in the light of the amendment.

The Government are satisfied that the advantages of such a body would be outweighed by its drawbacks. In assessing whether a person is suitable to hold a firearm certificate, local knowledge is essential. It is not clear to us why officials in a central location could make judgments requiring local knowledge in a more effective and sensible way than could be done by local police officers or civilians. I understand that throughout the country those involved in licensing work for police forces, whether they be serving police officers or civilian personnel, receive training. That training enables them, with their local knowledge of the community in which they work, to go about the duties which they perform prior to the granting or refusal of the necessary certificates.

A civilian licensing authority would not have that access to local knowledge; it would not have the informal contacts, the informal sources, which inform

21 Jan 1997 : Column 664

so much of police work. Furthermore, it would be difficult for an independent body such as the one proposed to have access to police records and police reports to the Crown Prosecution Service and to the Procurator Fiscal.

Perhaps most importantly of all, the amendment proposes that the decision should remain with the chief officer of police. It is upon him that will rest the duty to decide whether or not a certificate should be granted or refused. It would be quite wrong to restrict the chief officer to any advice he might receive from a firearms control board, no matter how experienced in firearms work its personnel might be. He would be failing in his duty to ignore the opportunity of taking account of local knowledge and intelligence; and if he did so, and he reached the wrong decision, it would be he, not the firearms control board, who would be responsible for it.

My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury made it clear that the board did not wish to take over operational decisions. That is clear from the terms of his amendment. But that fact makes it clear that, as the chief officer is responsible for taking the decision, it is he, working with his officers and civilian staff, who should set about getting the information he requires. And, no doubt following the events of Dunblane, chief officers throughout the country will be reviewing the procedures they follow to see how and in what manner they can be improved.

Mention has been made of the question of cost. It was said quite fairly on behalf of the movers of the amendment that shooters would be prepared to pay additional costs if that brought about the consistency which they seek. But if the fees are to be payable in terms of this amendment to the board, that makes no contribution to the costs which chief officers may incur through instructing their police officers and staff to carry out additional inquiries. So it may be that the amendment is defective in that way also.

I fully accept that the amendment is put forward with the best of intentions and with a genuine wish to improve the procedures for licensing in order to bring about consistency. I personally feel that the fact that decisions will rest with chief constables admits the possibility that one chief constable in a certain situation make take a different view from another. That is what decision-taking is all about. If they are to be responsible for their decisions, they must be free to take the decision they believe to be correct on the information before them. To impose consistency upon them would be wrongly to restrict their discretion and bring about inevitably the taking of wrong decisions from time to time.

At the end of the day I am not sure that cost is important one way or another. The important thing is that the decision taker has the information he deems to be appropriate. With the greatest respect to those who have moved and supported the amendment, I do not believe it would achieve that aim.

Before I sit down I wish to refer to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Burton about a certain report prepared by the Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland not having been made publicly available. As I think the noble Lord has been informed, the report was in draft

21 Jan 1997 : Column 665

form at the time the Dunblane tragedy occurred. Together with certain other documents it was made available by the Government to Lord Cullen. He took the view that it was not appropriate to make that document public. The Government agree with that view for the reason that the report was in draft form and has clearly been overtaken by events. There is no suggestion of concealing anything. The way in which the Government seek to proceed is on the basis of the facts as we now know them. The view that we take about the report is the one that Lord Cullen took that it would not assist a sensible discussion of the problems that require to be addressed to look at a draft report, which is now some time out of date. I say again that I accept this amendment is put forward in a very sensitive and sensible manner. Nevertheless, I believe that the proposals are fatally flawed. If the matter is pressed to a vote, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment.

Lord Monson: The noble and learned Lord believes that we should follow Lord Cullen's recommendations so far as concerns this amendment. Would it not have been better for all concerned if we had followed them in their entirety?

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: It requires to be said again, as has been said many times in this House and in another place, both from these Benches and acknowledged on the Benches opposite, that all of Lord Cullen's recommendations were followed. We have come forward with legislation which takes his recommendations forward. If one looks at the detail of his report, it is impossible to point to a recommendation which the Government have not implemented. Therefore, I demur to the suggestion that lies behind the noble Lord's question.

---