Antique Firearms Regulations 2020

Lord Rosser Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

We are certainly not opposed to these regulations, but there appears to be some doubt on the Government’s part as to whether they will have any impact on the serious issue they are intended to address.

As the Minister said, the regulations seek to resolve concerns about the increased use of antique firearms in crime by providing a statutory definition of antique firearms. In so doing, the regulations set out to provide certainty on which firearms can be possessed or traded as an antique and thus be exempt from the need for a firearm certificate and the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968, as amended by the Policing and Crime Act 2017. The Minister gave the figures. The number of antique firearms recovered in criminal circumstances was four in 2007, reached a peak of 96 in 2016 but was still at a figure of 68 in 2019. Since 2007, six fatalities have been linked to antique firearms.

The lack of a statutory definition of an antique firearm, as opposed to Home Office non-statutory guidance, has enabled criminals to obtain old but still functioning firearms without the control provisions and licensing requirements under the 1968 Act being applicable. As has already been commented on, in 2015 the Law Commission recommended defining “antique firearm” in legislation to remove ambiguity over what was meant and provide greater clarity for the police and other criminal justice agencies in enforcing the law and prosecuting offenders. That recommendation was accepted by the Government and the Policing and Crime Act 2017 provided for a statutory definition, which led to a public consultation that year on the detailed aspects of the statutory definition.

Like the noble Lord, Lord German, I ask the Government to say in their response why it has taken more than five years to implement a Law Commission recommendation on a matter impacting on serious violent criminal offending at a time when violent crime has risen, and why it has taken three years from the conclusion of the public consultation on the detail of the statutory definition to bring these regulations forward. This might suggest a somewhat laid-back attitude to the incidence of violent crime, unless the Government say that the reason for the delay is that they still do not think that the regulations will actually have any impact on violent crime involving antique firearms.

If that is the case, such a stance would appear to be in line with the statement in the impact assessment—if I have understood it—that

“there is no robust evidence to indicate that re-classifying antique firearms in this way will reduce criminality involving antique firearms, serious violence, wounding or homicides.”

Does that statement represent the Government’s view of the effect, or rather non-effect, on public safety of these regulations, which have taken more than five years to appear following the Law Commission recommendation and have a net cost to business of £500,000 a year on top of set-up costs of £6 million? In their response, a clear statement is needed from the Government on not only the reason for the time it has taken to bring these regulations forward, but, in the light of the statement in the impact assessment, which I accept I may have misinterpreted, whether and why the Government think that these regulations will address two specific government issues.

The first issue is the concern mentioned in paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“Law enforcement has raised concerns with the Government about the increased use of antique firearms in crime.”


In the light of the statement in the impact assessment, do the Government think that the regulations will address that concern?

The second specific issue arises, once again, in the light of the statement in the impact assessment that

“there is no robust evidence to indicate that re-classifying antique firearms in this way will reduce criminality involving antique firearms”.

The issue is whether, and why, the Government believe that these regulations will deliver on their stated primary objective, as set out in the impact assessment:

“The primary objective is to preserve public safety by strengthening firearms legislation to prevent the criminal misuse of antique firearms.”


Again, in the light of the statement in the impact assessment, do the Government believe that these regulations will deliver on that primary objective?