Firearms Bill Moved by Lord Colgrain That the Bill be now read a
second time. Lord Colgrain (Con) My Lords, I am very pleased to
present this Bill following its recent consideration in the other
place. It was initiated by my honourable friend Shaun Bailey MP,
and it addresses two important aspects of our firearms controls
concerning miniature rifle ranges and ammunition. We have strong
gun controls in the UK, which help to prevent criminals using
illegal...Request free trial
Firearms
Bill
Moved by
That the Bill be now read a second time.
(Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to present this Bill following its
recent consideration in the other place. It was initiated by my
honourable friend , and it addresses two
important aspects of our firearms controls concerning miniature
rifle ranges and ammunition. We have strong gun controls in the
UK, which help to prevent criminals using illegal firearms. They
also ensure that those who hold guns legally do not present any
danger to the public. These controls are always kept under review
so that action can be taken to strengthen them further where the
evidence suggests that this is necessary.
This is why the Government launched a firearms consultation on 29
June, following recommendations made in the wake of the tragic
shootings in Plymouth and on Skye, to seek views on whether
further changes are needed to our tough firearms controls. The
clauses in the Bill will help to improve these controls by
addressing two vulnerabilities that could be exploited by
criminals or terrorists and those with malicious intent. I will
comment on these clauses in some detail. The first clause brings
in new controls to miniature rifle ranges. It is fair to say that
the current exemption in law for miniature rifle ranges is a
lesser-known area of firearms law, but it is none the less
extremely important that we improve the legislative regulation
around miniature rifle ranges, which is set out in the Firearms
Act 1968.
Section 11(4) of the Firearms Act at present allows a person to
purchase, acquire or possess miniature rifles or ammunition
without a firearms certificate when they are conducting or
carrying on a miniature rifle range or shooting gallery at which
only miniature rifles and ammunition not exceeding .23-inch
calibre or air weapons are used. Additionally, a person can use
these rifles and ammunition at such a range without a
certificate. This means that they will not have been subject to
the usual careful police checks on a person’s suitability, and
nor will there have been any police assessment as to how they
will store and use the firearms safely. The term “miniature
rifle” is used in the legislation, but it is important to
recognise that the firearms to which this term applies are lethal
guns that are otherwise subject to the requirement for the holder
to apply for a firearms certificate to possess them.
The police and others have raised concerns that the exemption is
a loophole in firearms law. They say that the legislation is
vulnerable to abuse by criminals or terrorists seeking to access
firearms and to sidestep the usual stringent checks carried out
by the police.
The miniature rifle range exemption has been in existence for
many years, and it is used for a number of legitimate activities.
For example, it is widely used by small-bore rifle clubs to
introduce newcomers to sports shooting. It is also used by some
schools and colleges, by activity centres offering target
shooting, at game fairs and in a number of other legitimate
environments. I can personally testify to the benefits that can
accrue to schools, having been a governor of one where this
facility was enjoyed. Many of these locations would be severely
affected if the exemption was removed entirely, and this is not
the intention of the Bill.
In recognition of this, the Bill preserves the benefits that the
miniature rifle range exemption offers, enabling newcomers to
sports shooting to try out the activity without having a firearms
certificate, but in a safe and controlled environment. It brings
in new controls by making it a requirement that the operator must
be granted a firearms certificate by the police, having undergone
all the necessary checks as to suitability, security and good
reason.
The Bill also more tightly defines what may be considered as a
miniature rifle by restricting these to .22 rim-fire guns, which
are lower-powered rifles. Currently, there is concern that the
definition in the legislation,
“not exceeding .23 inch calibre”,
could allow the use of more powerful firearms that would not be
suitable for use on a miniature rifle range by an uncertificated
person, even with the necessary supervision and safety measures
in place.
I now turn to the second firearms matter addressed in the Bill,
which concerns the controls on ammunition. The legislation will
help the police to tackle the unlawful manufacture of ammunition
by introducing a new offence of possessing component parts with
the intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of complete
ammunition. The police have raised concerns that the component
parts of ammunition are too easy to obtain and are being used by
criminals to manufacture whole rounds of ammunition.
To help explain what this part of the Bill does, I will briefly
set out what those components are and how they go together to
make a round of ammunition. The components are the gunpowder used
to propel a projectile from a firearm, the primer, which is an
explosive compound that ignites the gunpowder, the projectile or
bullet and the cartridge case. Of these, the first two are
covered by current legislation. Controls on the possession of
gunpowder are set out in the Explosives Regulations 2014, which
require that, with certain exceptions, anyone wanting to acquire
or keep explosives must hold an explosives certificate issued by
the police. There are already controls on primers set out in the
Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. Section 35 of that Act makes it
an offence to sell or purchase primers unless the purchaser is
authorised to possess them—for example, by being a registered
firearms dealer or by holding a firearms certificate authorising
them to possess a firearm or ammunition. However, the latter two,
the projectiles or bullets and the cartridge case, are
constructed of inert material, and these are not controlled at
present.
Given the nature of these two components and the quantities in
which they are made, it would be difficult to control their
possession and there is no wish to do so. However, the current
legislative controls can make the prosecution of certain cases by
the police difficult. They may believe that there is intent to
produce ammunition unlawfully but they may be unable to progress
certain criminal cases if the materials found are not
controlled.
The assembly of ammunition requires that various component parts
be used, including restricted and unrestricted components. The
new offence means that the police will better be able to
prosecute cases where criminals are manufacturing ammunition,
including where only some of the component parts are present
provided that intent is shown. This will be a significant step
forward in helping the police to tackle gun crime.
In closing, I say that the changes made by the Bill are necessary
ones because they address vulnerabilities that have been
identified in our firearms controls. Events such as those we saw
in Keyham in August 2021, on Skye in August 2022 and at Epsom
College in February this year are clear reminders that we must
not be complacent about the risk that firearms can present. The
Bill seeks to strengthen two important aspects of this country’s
firearms controls; I am grateful for the support that it has
received so far and commend it to the House. I beg to move.
10.41am
(Con)
My Lords, before I say anything substantive on the Bill, I would
like to declare my interests—or non-interests. I own no firearms
under either the Firearms Act or a firearms certificate and none
that is exempt, and I have no intention of acquiring any.
However, I own my grandfather’s .455 Webley service revolver as
it is an historical item. I had it deactivated around 1997 to
avoid any possibility of it causing harm to anyone and to avoid
the need for me to hold a firearms certificate.
I congratulate my noble friend on his extremely skilful and
comprehensive introduction to his Bill. To use a cliché, what is
there not to like about the Bill?
Deactivated firearms are not relevant to the Bill but this is a
good opportunity to raise the issue. Several years ago, we were
required to change the law on deactivated firearms by an EU
directive that did two things. First, it required records to be
kept of transfers of certain deactivated firearms, which requires
the Home Office to keep records and employ an official whose sole
function is to keep these completely unnecessary records. I hope
that my noble friend the Minister will give some indication,
either now or in writing, of whether he intends to use the powers
in the REUL Bill to relax the requirement around notifying these
transfers; this would avoid the need to have an official in the
Home Office keeping these records, which are of no use.
Secondly, the directive required us to prohibit the sale or
transfer of what were termed defectively deactivated firearms;
these are what we call early deactivated firearms and would
include my grandfather’s .455 Webley. Some may worry about
reactivation but an old deactivated firearm can, in certain
cases, be worth more than a real firearm. It is not worth messing
around with an old firearm like my grandfather’s because it is
simply an uneconomical proposition; it is cheaper just to buy an
illegal one off the black market. I cannot sell or transfer my
grandfather’s .455 Webley to anyone because it is illegal to do
so but there is absolutely no problem around me owning it. Of
course, I have no intention of transferring it to anyone; it will
be an insignificant part of my estate when I die. However, I am
aware that defectively deactivated firearms—early deacts—are
being sold or transferred privately. If it is okay for me to own
and keep owning a defectively deactivated firearm, why is it not
okay to sell or transfer one?
We have an undesirable situation here, arising from an EU
directive. We have left the EU. We do not need to comply with
this useless directive. In due course, we will have to repeal
both provisions—that is, the provision on keeping records of
certain transfers and the provision on preventing people selling
or transferring deactivated firearms. Currently, we are creating
criminals out of law-abiding citizens.
There has been media comment about firearms being made by 3D
printing. I know that Home Office officials are aware of this,
but does my noble friend the Minister agree that the current
legislation adequately deals with the problem and that there have
been successful prosecutions? I understand that officials are
keeping a close eye on the situation but, at the moment, the
technology of 3D printing is not quite good enough to make a
really effective firearm; you still need to machine steel.
I do not intend to return to any of these issues at later stages
of the Bill. I hope that, if he cannot respond to me now, my
noble friend the Minister will reply to me in writing. I also
hope that, in due course, my noble friend will have the order of
commitment for this Bill discharged so that we can just get on
with it.
10.47am
(Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to rise in support of the Bill. Like
the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, this is a piece of legislation
that will pretty obviously improve our weapons controls. I
commend the noble Lord, , on his customary precise
and acute advocacy.
One recurrent concern that I have developed in recent years is
that our legislation is reactive far too often. We scrabble to
catch up with societal shifts outside this place and pass laws
that are no sooner promulgated than they are eclipsed by rapid
developments in technology or the attempts of those who are
incentivised to find legal loopholes. It is in that state of mind
that I listened carefully to the noble Earl’s contribution; I am
glad that he raised the issue of 3D-printed weapons. Last year,
there was a substantial amount of reporting on the growing threat
of such weapons on our streets. I distinctly remember
the National Crime
Agency publicly stating—I think I quote it accurately—that
the current generation of 3D-printed weapons are “credible and
viable” compared with earlier versions and that, although they
are often single-shot weapons, they are lethal. It seems possible
that this issue will need to be returned to at some point in the
future because, although I am pleased to hear that the relevant
parts of our regulatory authorities are watching this carefully,
we will soon need to do more than just watch it.
During my time as Secretary of State for Defence, I grew
extremely familiar with Clemenceau’s axiom that generals always
prepare to fight the last war. It strikes me that, in our
attempts to deal with very serious problems, we sometimes have a
tendency to do that too. However, the Bill is not one of those
occasions for this reason, which is one of the reasons why I
commend it to your Lordships’ House: it seeks to close a loophole
in Section 11(4) of the Firearms Act but as part of an
incremental process of improving our firearms laws and in
response to concerns raised by law enforcement in the firearms
safety consultation. I do not want to go back to 3D printing but
I hope that 3D-printed weapons will be a significant part of that
review.
While the loophole addressed by this Bill talks of “miniature
rifles”, the fact remains that these are potentially deadly
weapons. It is right that the operators of miniature rifle ranges
should be subject to police suitability checks and that the
definition of “miniature rifles” should be clarified to ensure
that no one should be allowing others to have access to deadly
weapons unless they themselves hold an appropriate licence.
Noble Lords may recall a disturbing image that emerged from a
Scottish shooting event at Eskdalemuir a couple of years ago. It
showed participants shooting at targets through a hatch that was
daubed with misogynistic slogans. It is an unfortunate truth that
misogyny and guns very often go together. I remember, when I was
in America, going to an open sale of guns. There is an entirely
different culture—in Florida, in this case—from the one we live
in. The amount of misogyny that goes on the T-shirts of the
people who are buying the guns was really disturbing. I do not
wish to stray further into that territory, because it is well
outside the scope of this Bill, but this fact should give us
pause to reflect on wider regulation of firearms.
Noble Lords will recall the tragic events in Plymouth in 2021,
where a shooter killed five women, including his own mother. The
investigation found that the shotgun was legally owned and that
the perpetrator had subscribed to incel content and uploaded his
own material to incel forums. In an inquest earlier this year,
the co-ordinator for firearms licensing on the National Police
Chiefs’ Council said that if the mandatory checks had been
properly conducted, they should have revealed that his firearms
licence
“should never have been issued”.
While thinking about that appalling case, I note that there has
been a surge in the number of temporary permits for firearms as a
direct consequence of increasing backlogs in the system.
I make my next point not from a partisan perspective but as a
question of safety. Can the Minister describe how the
decision-making process in granting a temporary permit, as
opposed to a regular permit, differs? If there is a difference in
the rigour of background checks that are required, it may be that
we need to operate on the presumption of refusal of them, save
where there is a demonstrable need in terms of work—for instance,
in the agricultural sector. In addition, I understand that the
Government have committed to consulting on the question of
application fees for firearms licences. Presently, very often
they do not cover even half the cost of processing the
applications. At a time when the public finances are, to put it
lightly, rather overstretched, that would be a very welcome
development. Alongside the measures contained in the first clause
of this Bill, I also welcome Clause 2, which introduces a new
offence of possessing component parts of ammunition with intent
to manufacture and provides clear definitions and sentences.
In closing, I make the point that this Bill is not an attack on
shooting as a sport. Thanks to careful drafting, Clause 2 will
not criminalise those who already possess ammunition or component
parts of it and Clause 1 merely requires the owners and operators
of rifle ranges to possess a firearms licence and to restrict
themselves either to lower-powered air weapons or to .22 rim-fire
rifles. These are hardly insuperable barriers to operating such a
facility. This Bill is a valuable contribution to our firearms
regulatory regime, and this debate is a welcome opportunity to
draw the Minister’s attention to some other issues. I shall
support this Bill as it moves through your Lordships’ House.
(Con)
My Lords, I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, , but it is already a
very serious offence to manufacture a pressure-bearing component
of a firearm. We have the legislative framework and officials are
looking at it very closely.
10.53am
(Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, , on his precise introduction
of this Bill and on clearly setting out the elements of it. I
also congratulate his honourable friend Shaun Bailey for piloting
it through the House of Commons.
The Opposition welcome this Bill. It is said that the UK has one
of the toughest systems in the world for regulating the ownership
of firearms. Nevertheless, our laws and regulations need to
remain fit for purpose and be updated regularly. The licensing
system currently in force dates back more than 50 years. It was
established by the Firearms Act 1968. Despite the importance of
the 1968 Act, it took the tragedies of mass shootings in
Hungerford and Dunblane to prompt further action to tighten our
laws in the 1980s and 1990s. Today, the memories of five
people—Maxine Davison, Stephen Washington, Kate Shepherd, Lee
Martyn and Lee’s three year-old daughter Sophie, who were shot
dead in Plymouth in August 2021—cast a shadow over today’s debate
on this Bill.
As we have heard from the noble Lord, , Clause 1 would make limited
changes to the scope of provisions in the Firearms Act on the use
of weapons at shooting ranges and galleries. The question is
whether these changes go far enough. For instance, the
Government’s response to a consultation published last July
announced plans to introduce a new requirement for operators of
miniature rifle ranges to be issued with a firearms certificate.
The response noted that this would require changes to primary
legislation but did not give a timescale.
Clause 2 would introduce a new offence of possessing component
parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture. This reflects a
recognition that the law as it stands has not kept pace with
changes in technology over recent years. Again, the changes do
not appear to have gone as far as they could have gone. For
instance, the offence created by Clause 2 would apply to
ownership of four primary components: bullets, cartridge cases,
primers and propellants.
My honourable friend asked the Minister, , to state
“whether he is confident that even with those changes, the law
would adequately reflect the application of recent technological
developments such as 3D printing and other evolving
technologies”.
The Minister confirmed that
“3D printed weapons—either the weapons themselves or the
components thereof—are treated the same as regular
weapons”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/3/23; cols. 1075-76.]
I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm that the
provisions of this Bill will be kept under review as the
technology of firearms evolves. I note that the new offence
envisaged by Clause 2 would require evidence of an intent to use
components to manufacture ammunition. What can the Minister tell
us about the standard of proof that will apply when determining
intent? How might attempts to evade detection be addressed as
part of efforts to tackle such offences?
Finally, there are a number of important issues that the Bill
does not address. I therefore have a number of questions for the
Minister. Do the Government plan to establish a new independent
regulator for firearms licensing? Can we have an update on
progress towards implementing the Government’s commitment to a
national accredited training scheme for firearms inquiry
officers? When will the new curriculum be introduced? What
changes, if any, do the Government plan to make to the licensing
process at national level? Will changes be made to the
application fees for firearms certifications, which are currently
between £70 and £80, to reflect more accurately the cost of
processing the applications, which can exceed £500?
What steps will be taken to address the apparent surge in the
number of temporary permits—which, according to recent reports,
is a direct consequence of backlogs in the system—to fully ensure
that weapons do not get into the wrong hands? How will wider
policy challenges, such as the urgent need for more effective
action to tackle online radicalisation, be addressed in the weeks
ahead? Will the Minister consider changes to the Online Safety
Bill to strengthen the law in that area? The fear is that
loopholes and weaknesses in our firearms laws will not be
addressed until it is too late.
The Minister in the House of Commons stated that
“the Government are waiting for the prevention of future deaths
report from the Plymouth coroner … We will also consider the
recommendations made by the Independent Office for Police
Conduct, as well as a report by the Scottish Affairs Committee
prompted by a tragedy that took place on the Isle of Skye”.
We heard about that earlier. The Minister concluded that
“the Government will respond substantively within 60 days of
receiving that prevention of future deaths report, which we
believe we will receive in the very near future”.—[Official
Report, Commons, 3/3/23; col. 1076.]
Can the Minister update us on that expected timetable?
My noble friend said that he
supported the Bill and raised the issue of single-shot 3D
weapons. I will add that, from my experience as a magistrate, in
both adult and youth courts, when it comes to weapons used in
incidents, what is most prevalent is the use of toy weapons,
which are very often not easily distinguishable from real
weapons, particularly when they are painted black and concealed
in some way. I take it that this Bill does not seek to address
that in any sense: nevertheless, that is what I actually see when
I am sitting in court dealing with firearms-related offences.
Does the Minister have any comment on that?
Otherwise, I support the Bill.
10.59am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward this
Private Member’s Bill to the House and for his introduction. I
join him in paying tribute to in the other place for
initiating the Bill. I also commend my noble friend for the
thoughtful and very compelling case he has made for these two
firearms measures. I thank all those who have contributed to the
debate today. I welcome their support and constructive comments
on our firearms controls.
I am very pleased to say that the Government support this Bill.
As the noble Lord, Lord Browne said, it improves the existing
legislation and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, just noted,
our laws must remain fit for purpose and be kept under review. I
am a shotgun certificate holder myself and a member of the BASC,
the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. I have an
interest in this area, and I know that the BASC, as a
representative of shooting interests, is broadly supportive of
the measures put forward in this Bill too.
We keep this country’s strong gun controls under review and are
prepared to consider taking action to strengthen them further if
the evidence shows this to be necessary. That is why we fully
support the measures contained in this Bill, and it is why, as my
noble friend noted, we launched a firearms consultation on 29
June, following recommendations made in the wake of the terrible
shootings in Keyham and Skye. The firearms licensing consultation
will be open for eight weeks. We will listen most carefully, and
with a balanced and proportionate approach, to the views which
come forward on whether further changes are needed to this
country’s robust firearms controls.
This Bill is about addressing two vulnerabilities which have been
identified in the existing licensing controls. We committed to
taking action on both of these issues following a public
consultation conducted on a number of firearms safety issues in
late 2020 and early 2021. As noble Lords have heard today, the
Bill tightens the law around miniature rifle ranges, while
preserving the existing benefits that they offer. It still
enables those who are new to target shooting to experience the
sport without having to be a certificate holder, but it ensures
that this will take place in a safe and controlled environment by
removing the exemption that currently allows those operating such
ranges to do so without first obtaining a firearms certificate.
Removing this exemption will mean that the operator will be
subject to the usual police criminal record and suitability
checks, as well as police checks to ensure that the rifle range
is run safely and that the firearms used there are stored
securely. Miniature rifles will also be more tightly defined in
law so that only less powerful .22 rim-fire firearms may be used
on miniature rifle ranges.
As we have discussed, the Bill also tackles the unlawful
manufacture of ammunition by introducing a new offence of
possessing component parts with the intent to assemble
unauthorised quantities of complete ammunition. The police have
raised concerns that the component parts of ammunition are too
easy to obtain and are being used by criminals to manufacture
whole rounds of ammunition. The new offence means that the police
will be able to better prosecute cases where criminals are
manufacturing ammunition, including where only some of the
component parts are present, provided that intent is shown. This
measure supports the police in tackling gun crime.
Both these measures received support in the public consultation
that I referred to earlier. It was widely acknowledged, including
by those representing shooting interests, as well as those who
wish to see tighter firearms controls more generally, that these
changes will help to strengthen our firearms controls. This Bill
will make a valuable contribution to firearms legislation, while
making sure that those who wish to continue to legitimately
engage in firearms activities, whether that involves target
shooting at clubs or activity centres, the legitimate home
loading of ammunition or other lawful activities, are able to
continue to do so.
I shall come on to some of the more detailed questions. My noble
friend Lord Attlee has spoken about the position of older
deactivated firearms which can be possessed but not sold or
transferred without complying with the current deactivation
standards, which are aligned with EU deactivation standards. I
understand his concerns about this issue. We will keep all
firearms matters under review and will consider our deactivation
standards to see whether changes are necessary to the current
position. As regards his specific question about REUL, I cannot
comment, but I shall obviously make sure that his concerns are
registered. I also note his comments about the possible value of
his grandfather’s firearm, but I have to say, given its
provenance, it might be worth rather more than he thinks.
My noble friend, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Browne and Lord
Ponsonby, also raised the question of how we continue to keep
people safe with the emergence of firearms produced using 3D
printers. 3D-printed firearms fall within the scope of the
Firearms Act 1968 and are subject to the same controls and
licensing requirements as any other firearm. There have been
successful prosecutions; in fact, I literally just googled this,
and there was one on 23 June in West Yorkshire for possession of
a 3D-printed firearm. So the law is working—but the Government
are committed to tackling the threat posed by 3D-printed guns,
and we are working closely with law enforcement, including
the National Crime Agency
as part of the multi-agency response to the emergence of
3D-printed firearms.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, questioned me a little more
closely on the intent point with regards to the new ammunition
offence. We listened carefully to the calls for the clauses on
ammunition to be explicit about the need for criminal intent to
be proven, to ensure that those who legitimately manufacture or
home-load ammunition are not inadvertently caught by the
provisions of the Bill. Because of this, the drafting of the
legislation is, rightly, very clear about the need for intent to
be proven. I have heard what the noble Lord says. As I say, the
whole issue remains under constant review.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked me about the consultation and
whether it will include a presumption in favour of granting a
firearms licence. We did look at this issue in detail. The
legislation makes it clear that the police must first be
satisfied that issuing the licence will not endanger public
safety or the peace. Therefore, such changes to the legislation
would make no practical difference to the current application
practice, which is centred on the requirement for the police to
be satisfied that the applicant is suitable and safe to be
granted a firearms licence.
The Government will continue to listen carefully to
recommendations that we receive about how to further improve our
firearms controls. We are open-minded to change, while ensuring
that our response is proportionate and focused on areas of
vulnerability where those are identified. Where necessary, we
must strengthen the legislation on which our controls are based,
and the measures in this Bill of course do that. But we will also
use other tools—and I think these will answer a number of the
questions of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. We have committed
£500,000 in funding to support development and rollout of a new
training package for firearms licensing staff, developed by the
College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. In
due course, the training will become mandatory for police
firearms licensing staff.
On 14 February this year, we refreshed the statutory guidance for
the police on their licensing functions, to ensure that the
police are making the necessary inquiries before granting or
renewing firearms licences. The statutory guidance aims to raise
standards and improve consistency across all police forces. In
addition, the Government have worked with the medical profession
to put in place robust medical arrangements as part of the
licensing controls, to ensure that those who hold firearms are
physically and mentally fit to do so. A new digital marker system
to flag firearms owners to doctors has been introduced to GP
surgeries, which will further strengthen these arrangements.
The Home Office has also launched a review of firearms licensing
fees: the fees that the police charge for the issue or renewal of
firearms licenses. We will be consulting on any changes that will
be required later this year. The purpose of the review is to
provide full cost recovery for the police, so that they have the
resources they need to maintain effective and efficient licensing
arrangements that meet the needs of firearms owners, while also
ensuring that the public are kept safe.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the fire and
rescue services will be conducting a thematic review of police
forces’ firearms licensing arrangements in 2024-25. That will
provide us with an important opportunity to take stock of the
changes that have been introduced and to ensure that we are doing
all we can to ensure that our licensing arrangements are safe and
meet the needs of the shooting community, alongside the
overarching need to ensure the safety of us all.
I am glad that we will make our robust firearms controls even
stronger through the measures in this Bill. The new requirement
for a firearms certificate will enable the police to check the
suitability and security of those running miniature rifle ranges,
while preserving the benefits that they offer, including to
newcomers to the sport of target shooting.
I shall address the final couple of questions asked by the noble
Lord, Lord Ponsonby, as regards a regulator, or perhaps a central
licensing body, to administer firearms certificates. There are no
plans at present to create such a body to administer firearms
licensing. We believe that there is some value in having local
police firearms licensing departments. That enables the police to
be in touch with the local communities and local medical
practitioners, as well as being able to visit the applicants.
As regards the noble Lord’s question about the coroner’s report
and the timetable, I am afraid I do not have any information on
that as yet. Of course, I shall report back as soon as I am able
to. As regards the Online Safety Bill, I have heard what the
noble Lord has said, and I will make sure those concerns are
passed on to the relevant department. I am afraid I do not have
any comments that I can usefully make as regards toys, although I
note the incredible likeness between the real firearms and some
of the toys that are manufactured.
The amendment to the legislation on ammunition will give the
police the tools to bear down on criminals who fuel gun crime by
manufacturing ammunition unlawfully. The introduction of the new
offence of possession of component parts with the intention to
assemble unauthorised ammunition is another important step in the
fight against crime.
I reiterate my thanks to my noble friend for bringing this Private
Member’s Bill before the House. I hope to see it receive Royal
Assent, as I believe it will have a significant impact in
strengthening our firearms controls still further. The Government
are in full support of the Bill and the important changes it will
bring.
Finally, I am afraid I do not know the difference between
temporary licences and the more traditional ones, if you will,
but I will find out and report back.
11.10am
(Con)
My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have spoken in this short
and important debate. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has
considerable experience in speaking on firearms matters in the
House. To hear him say, “What is there not to like about this
Bill?”, is very reassuring. The noble Lord, , obviously has
considerable experience too in wider defence matters, but to hear
him say that this would obviously help with the control of
weapons and to have his endorsement is most encouraging.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will know that amendments were
laid at the other end that were withdrawn. It is very comforting
to feel that there is support from his side of the House on this
as well. I am very grateful to him for that.
Lastly, I say to my noble friend the Minister that there has been
strong reference to the nature of 3D production of weapons. We
should be mindful of that going forward. To finish on that note,
I hope that out of this Bill we will perhaps find that there are
mechanisms that will be able to prevent 3D manufacture.
Lastly, as a one-time special constable in the police myself, I
know how much the police will be grateful for the fact that your
Lordships are paying very close attention to this Bill.
Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole
House.
|
