| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether this amendment is identical to the amendment the noble Earl moved in Committee; it seems to have the same effect. Of course there is a case for greater stringency across police forces in the way in which they handle applications for firearm certificates; of course we know from Dunblane that there are defects in the way in which different police forces deal with the
problem. Indeed, one of the reasons why we are in favour of a total ban on handguns is because we know that those procedures will never be perfect and that the wrong people will slip through the net.However, if the noble Earl's amendment is the same as it was in Committee, it is plain daft. The amendment sets up a firearms control board which will advise on every single grant, renewal or revocation of a certificate. The noble Earl has told us that there are 800,000 firearms holders. I do not know how many thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of grants, renewals or revocations that means in the course of a year. When I was proposing that there should be prior authorisation by a judge for around 2,000 applications for the power of intrusive surveillance on the Police Bill, I was told that that was double guessing and a duplication of effort. The noble Earl is seriously proposing that a firearms control board shall look at every single grant, renewal or revocation of a firearms certificate and then that the police shall have the responsibility and shall satisfy themselves that it has been done correctly. In other words, they have to do it again. To do a million things twice every year--even if it were 500,000 or 100,000--is--I use the word advisedly--daft.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, invites us to believe that this amendment is daft. But surely he will see that the immense amount of police time which at the moment presumably goes on these 800,000 grants, renewals or revocations of firearms certificates must be enormously expensive. Those who have been at the receiving end of this process, as many of us have, know that the police spend far more time on it than they want to. It is enormously expensive. If it were entrusted to the firearms control board, as suggested by my noble friend's amendment, it would save an unquantifiable sum of money.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord misunderstands me. The amendment says that the chief office of police has to be satisfied that it has been done correctly. How else can he do that other than by investigating each case himself?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I think the noble Lord misunderstands. The chief officer of police would not have to go through the whole process again. He would merely have to consult on any information he had in exactly the same way as the police might object to the DVLA granting a licence to someone who perhaps had been found alcoholically in control of a vehicle. The police are perfectly happy to rely on the DVLA for that. They have their own system for that. No one suggests that that is an enormous duplication and that it renders the system inoperable. The amendment is immensely sound. I support it.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I cannot support the amendment. I am not keen on the creation of a UK-wide or a GB-wide organisation for this
purpose. It is important that this activity is retained firmly in the hands of the police. They probably need to work up their skills at it. However, they have local knowledge and are under local democratic control. Certainly in the case of Scotland, our eight police forces ought to be doing this work and not a national body.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what worries me about the amendment is the over-centralisation of decisions. It is the chief officer of police, with his local knowledge, who is in the best position to make the decisions with regard to the renewal of firearm certificates. I have the greatest respect and sympathy for my noble friend Lord Peel on this occasion. However, the amendment puts forward a view that responsibility for detailed decisions requiring local knowledge should be centralised. I do not see the need for that. I would therefore be very surprised if I were to find that my noble friends on the Front Bench were able to accept the amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am always a little fearful when I am confronted by a coalition and a cosy atmosphere of agreement between the two Front Benches with unease behind them. I say this with the utmost caution. In my experience those behind them quite often turn out to be right. When noble Lords on the Front Benches launch accusations of daftness on anyone sitting in the lower classes behind them who has the presumption to put forward an idea which is not entirely and immediately acceptable to them, I begin to get seriously worried, as I am on this occasion. I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Peel is entirely daft.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that the noble Earl was daft but that his amendment was daft.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am so grateful to have achieved something tonight and to have elicited from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the clarity of his view that in no way is he saying that my noble friend is daft.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I never did say that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, my noble friend is far from daft. I do not believe that my noble friend would produce a daft amendment and I do not believe that he has.
I believe that there is a degree of common ground, but I do not know. In view of the things that have happened there is not entire satisfaction with existing arrangements. It is a very modest suggestion. I do not hear any noble Lord dissenting from that on either side of the House. I also understand that, since it is obviously vital that the police have some sort of standing in the matter, the chief constable will have the last word but that the real, heavy work will be undertaken by an independent body. I do not believe that the police will be in any way undermined. In practice, the chief constable may find himself possessed of very valuable allies on whose advice he
can rely and who would provide, in the event of an error, at least some kind of excuse; namely, that he was advised to do something by much respected outside bodies and that it was not entirely his fault. As regards Dunblane, that situation might have been quite useful.The last point I wish to make is about the Firearms Consultative Committee. I am not entirely familiar with the detail of the routine work that no doubt that distinguished and very able body carries out. I understand that it is a government body. I cannot see why the committee which, I understand, favours my noble friend's suggestion, and the Home Office, which is a kind of peripheral body as regards the committee, should not be willing to accept guidance in this matter. I have an awful, nagging fear that the Home Office is a place where people are very reluctant to open windows which might let in a little fresh air and some change.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I wish to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. All the amendment suggests is that the work done by junior police officers be done by the board and its reports then submitted to the chief constable. That is not duplication, but substitution.
It is very important to remind the House of one of the basic changes that have taken place over the past 25 years in the issuing of firearm certificates and licences. Twenty-five years ago nearly every serving police officer had done national service and was familiar with firearms and rifles. In a sense they were comfortable with them. That is no longer the case. Many of us have had occasion to have an inspection by a young serving police officer for whom it was clearly a novel experience. In many cases, young officers do not know where to look for the numbers and have to have them pointed out.
We should remember the point raised at Second Reading by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who said that there is a great reservoir of people who are trained firearms experts, who have come out of the Armed Forces and who would be available to be recruited by such a board. There is much more merit in the suggestion than either my noble friend the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have been prepared to accept.
I urge the Government to look hard at this point again and at the points raised on Second Reading. I know that all of my colleagues at the British Field Sports Society endorse the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel. I should like an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that she will look at it seriously.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I am a little concerned about this amendment. At the moment inspections are carried out by uniformed police officers. An officer may not know much about firearms, but at least he will be in uniform which gives the impression of authority. It would be somewhat off-putting if an official dressed in an ordinary suit were to come round and start looking at
one's guns. That would give some cause for concern. I do not know whether it is intended that the new force will be in uniform; perhaps that is what should happen.
It would probably be wrong for members of the board to come from a central area or "the region". Essentially, local knowledge is what matters. I hope that it is intended that those people (who will, I hope, be in uniform) will operate within and from police headquarters so that they will, in effect, be policemen but in a different uniform. They should report immediately on a local basis. If they were out of uniform and working from "the region", as opposed to within the immediate locality, that would be not only inefficient, but unfortunate.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page