| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, with the leave of the House, they are two separate points. On the one hand there is the trophy of war. That could be any pistol
which was captured during the war and which was a trophy. Heritage pistols may well have been bought by collectors without any link to capture on the battlefield. I mentioned the Churchill Mauser which was not captured but which is obviously a great historical weapon.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as regards the manufacture of pistols, we are talking of recent times in referring to 1946.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, I support the amendment. Our arms heritage is an extremely important part of our total historical heritage and within it pistols feature prominently. Although we are grateful to the Government for the exemption which extends to 1st January 1919 that date does not coincide with any considerable historical watershed or any technological one. In terms of historical context, a date around the mid to late 1940s far more closely corresponds to the end of our imperial aspirations and our fighting to consolidate and then retain the Empire. It would also embrace pistols of the Second World War, so underlining their place in world and European, as well as imperial and British, heritage.
Much of our national heritage in pistols is held in large private collections. For those who have so much financially at stake, the loss of their holdings represents a loss in some cases of a major part of their personal assets. Under existing proposals, only a proportion would qualify for the Bisley exemption. So there would be a severe, perhaps in many cases irresistible, temptation to send collections overseas. For a nation to contrive the loss of a significant part of its heritage and the heritage of the Commonwealth is surely misguided, some would even say reprehensible.
The adoption of the amendment would save many post-1919 pistols of real interest and significance at no cost whatever to public safety. They would be kept--disassembled if required--without ammunition. Moreover their age and outmoded design make them very unlikely targets for anyone seriously bent on crime. Spare parts are very difficult to locate, even at present; the task will be yet more problematic after the Bill is passed.
After all is said, the historic pistols that the amendment seeks to preserve include some which were carried in our darkest hour, our finest hour. They are as much part of the story of this country's survival as are the carefully preserved Cabinet War Rooms in Whitehall; the anti-invasion pillboxes and other defences scattered across our countryside now at last being systematically listed to ensure their survival; or the Spitfires and Hurricanes so devotedly kept in flying condition by armies of enthusiasts. There is no valid reason to discriminate against historic pistols. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amendments would extend the provisions in Clause 7 to allow historic handguns to be kept at home as part of a bone fide collection. I understand the reasons behind the amendment. It would increase the number of handguns
that may be kept at home, especially those that were manufactured in the inter-war years and during World War Two. I know that the police have expressed grave doubts about the greater availability of the weapons and the risk to public safety that they would create.Under Clause 7 as at present drafted certain historic handguns manufactured since 1919 would not be destroyed but could be stored at sites designated by the Secretary of State. Such sites would have to meet similar security standards as the licensed pistol clubs. This would allow the historic guns to be safely stored, reducing the risks to the public but allowing the guns to be appreciated by their owners and others.
For all the reasons I have given as well as the point made by my noble friend, we believe that we are talking about relatively recent guns in a collection. Therefore, we find the amendment unacceptable as a compromise and are unable to accept it.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friends for supporting me. Clearly there is no point in going to a Division. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause--
. The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1)(aba), (b) or (c) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer any firearm, weapon or ammunition designed or adapted for the purpose of tranquillising or otherwise treating any animal, if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to possess, or to purchase or acquire, the firearm, weapon or ammunition subject to a condition restricting its use to use in connection with the treatment of animals.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, under the Bill as currently drafted vets will be eligible to apply to the police for a firearm certificate allowing them to hold a high calibre handgun and expanding ammunition for use in connection with the humane destruction of animals. As part of their professional duties vets also have recourse to pistols, rifles and blowpipes for administering tranquillising darts or darts containing other medicines such as antibiotics to sick animals. Under the current legislation the Secretary of State's authority is required, under Section 5(1) of the Firearms Act 1968, for the possession, purchase, acquisition, manufacture, sale or transfer of any lethal barrelled weapon used for the discharge of any noxious substance and any ammunition which contains such noxious substances.
This gives rise to an anomaly. Under the Bill a vet will need only a Section 1 certificate, granted by the police, for a high calibre handgun used to kill animals. But for merely putting an animal to sleep or treating it with a specially adapted gun he will need the higher
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is content with the change. Both the Association of Chief Police Officers in England and Wales, and the sister association in Scotland, have been consulted and are content that the change does not pose any greater risk to the public. The tranquillising equipment would still need to be held by a vet on a firearm certificate issued by the chief officer of police. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Expanding ammunition etc.: exemptions from prohibition]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 8 perhaps I may say that there is a minor error on the Marshalled List of which parliamentary counsel are aware. In Amendment No. 40, the last line should include the words "Section 27" instead of "Section 26".
I apologise for the number of the amendments, which are technical and drafting. The group comprises Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 11, 13 to 15, 19, 22, 30 to 37, 40, 47, 51, 54, 59 to 67, 69, 72 to 79, and 81. They concern consistency of language and clarity and have no policy implications whatever. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, in this group of amendments I shall refer first to Amendment No. 30. There is a considerable difference between the word "surrender" and the word "deliver". Let me give your Lordships an example. When a keeper whom I employed suddenly died I found, rather to my horror, that not having the estate's .22 and .243 rifles on my certificate, I could not take those guns to my house. They had to be taken to a firearms dealer to be looked after until my certificate was altered. I surrendered the guns to the police, who then delivered the guns to an agreed firearms dealer. The police, would not permit me to drive five miles to deliver the rifles in question to the firearms dealer. So I believe that there is quite a difference.
I realise that Clause 27 deals with clubs. However, I feel that there could be some delay. I remind your Lordships that most steel gun cabinets have two locks and each lock requires a different key. If the police take away the keys, that at least makes it secure. That is my first point on my noble friend's amendment.
In Amendment No. 69 to Clause 80, unless I am mistaken, the letter (b) should not be there at all.
Those are my only comments on the amendments.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I wondered whether my noble friend Lord Balfour would raise the point. I believe that our amendment covers all my noble friend's concerns. Clause 27 of the Bill to which
The revocation would be a matter for the Secretary of State who issues the licence under Clause 27. He would send a notice to the responsible officer of the club or possibly to other members of the club if there were reason not to send it to the responsible officer. There must be provision, under the circumstances, for the small calibre pistols which are held at the club, and so the notice will require the people to whom it is sent to deliver them to the police. They would remain the property of their owners who would be able to join other clubs or sell them to firearm dealers if they prefer.
I understand my noble friend's concern. Whereas the Bill currently specifies that the pistols must be surrendered to the police, the amendment would require them to be delivered. In practice, that would mean the same thing and hence the amendment. The Government envisage that if one of the licences is revoked, the police would deliver the Secretary of State's notice to the club and they would therefore be on the premises to take delivery. The club members would deliver the guns to the police simply by handing them over, just as they would do if the Bill required them instead to surrender them.
There is also provision under Clauses 10 and 12 of the Bill for delivery to be effected by the club to the police station either by the responsible officer or by a third party, if by any chance that seemed the right thing to do. But we do not envisage that happening in practice, even if the time should come when any of the small calibre pistol licences issued under the Bill were revoked.
The point of the change from "surrender" to "deliver" in this clause is to clarify the fact that members of a licensed club do not forfeit their ownership of the pistols kept there by reason of that revocation. The clause already provides that the owners may recover those pistols from the police. So there is no change in policy in that respect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("second") and insert ("first").
4 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page