| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, contrary to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, the first duty of any British Government is defence of the realm?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is fishing for an answer which is wide of the Question.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is not the problem here that we have foolishly given our fisheries over to the common resource of the Community, and that before we did so we had 85 per cent. of the value of fish in our waters and 80 per cent. of their volume? We now have 30 per cent. of the volume and 8 per cent. of their value. Has not that been a colossal financial disaster for this country?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that is an old question which has been answered at great length previously. All I can say is that my answer is no. As to why, I do not believe that I have time to go into that unless I am given another hour and a half or so. I have failed to convince my noble friend in the past and I am sure that I have now.
Ballistic Missile Defence Systems
3.31 p.m.
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether the written paper given to the United States periodical Defense News and reported in the Guardian of 13th January constitutes an announcement of a decision on United Kingdom participation in ballistic missile defences and, if so, why this announcement was not first made to Parliament.
Earl Howe: My Lords, no decision has been taken by Her Majesty's Government on our participation in
ballistic missile defence systems and no paper was given to Defense News. We are still assessing whether we have a national requirement for ballistic missile defence, taking into account risks posed by ballistic missiles from a national perspective and evaluating the options for responding to these risks.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, which shows that we are dealing here with a leak and not with a decision which has been taken and withheld, even temporarily, from Parliament. Will the Minister confirm that these matters will be debated before the Government take a decision? Is not that a reasonable thing to ask? Perhaps I may explain that the system in question is a very small tip of a very large iceberg. Am I not right in saying that it is a programme favoured only by the US airforce, and is not even a tri-service proposal in the United States? Am I not right in saying that it consists of putting iodine lasers with a kill range of about 200 nautical miles on Boeing 747s, and then having those planes roam around the world, ready to zap anybody and anything, thus constituting a large new offensive capability?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the particular system mentioned in the article to which the noble Lord's Question refers is one of a number of systems that have been looked at during the course of the pre-feasibility study. We cannot make judgments about any BMD system until we have determined whether or not there is a national requirement. I cannot comment upon the view the United States takes of that particular system. As to the noble Lord's other question, we in the UK are nowhere near reaching a point where an announcement might be made on the way forward, but naturally we shall make an announcement to Parliament as and when there is something to announce.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is no reasonable hope or expectation of any effective ballistic missile defence, and it is precisely that question which has led many senior military figures in recent times to take the view, which I have been expressing for some long time, that it is time to get rid of the nuclear weapon?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as to the technical feasibility of any system, again, I have to say that we are not yet at that stage. We need to do a great deal of work before we reach that point. It is of course a pertinent consideration, but the main one is whether there is a gap that needs to be filled.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are content to wait for the Government's review and the result which no doubt will be reported to Parliament in the course of time? We recognise that this is an important and indeed vital matter which involves a great number of technical and difficult problems which have to be studied in a very clear way.
We are very happy to wait to see what the Government have to say and to make our judgment as and when the Government produce their own conclusions.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I find those remarks extremely helpful. I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is clear that we agree completely on this matter.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, has the Minister a moment to say anything about the possibility of a discussion in Parliament before the Government take their final decision?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I have tried to indicate, it is still early days. Advice has not yet been submitted to Ministers, let alone have any decisions been taken. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, with his interest in these matters, will not be slow in tabling a Motion at an appropriate moment. Of course I am more than happy to correspond with him on this question at appropriate intervals.
Crime (Sentences) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.36 p.m.
Lord Swansea rose to move, (a) That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they do report Clause 6 of the Bill without amendment; and (b) That, when the Bill is reported from the Committee of the Whole House, it be recommitted to a Select Committee in respect of Clause 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to make it clear at the start that this is not a delaying tactic and still less a wrecking tactic. I have tabled the Motion because the point is complex. Referral of Clause 6 to a Select Committee would enable detailed study to take place with expert witnesses for and against the proposal for storage of pistols as laid down in the Bill.
The proposals in the Bill provide for expensive, secure storage, which will be far beyond the means of most clubs. Many clubs will be forced to close down. There is an alternative method which is described as disassembly; in other words, the removal of certain components from the pistol, which can be separately stored. That will take up far less room. Having been removed from the pistols, they are just lumps of metal. They would be useless for any purpose except to deter people. The pistol is therefore immobilised. That has the same effect as removing the distributor arm from the distributor of a motor vehicle.
The effect of the Motion is to refer to a Select Committee consideration of whether the disassembly of pistols should be used as a means of control. The Motion does not delay the rest of the Bill, and there is therefore no reason why the Government should oppose the move. As I said, I have no wish to delay the Bill's
progress. I know that the Government are worried about the time factor--about the Bill running out of time and being lost. I should be happy to accept a government Motion to fix a timetable for the Select Committee to report--let us say, four weeks or whatever period of time might seem right to the Government.By confining the reference to Clause 6, it will be possible to consider the issue of disassembly in isolation, making any consequential amendments on Report. There are two powerful reasons why the House should proceed in that manner.
First, the issue is not a trivial one. Under the terms of the Bill handguns have to be stored and used at licensed clubs. The issue is whether they should be stored whole, or whether they should be dismantled and only their key components stored. Lord Cullen, in his report, said the option,
- "which is open to least objection on the grounds of practicality is the temporary dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers by the removal of major components".
The dismantlement option is quicker and easier to implement and it will save money both to clubs which have to pay for increased security and to the Treasury in terms of fair compensation.
More important, it will enhance public safety. The storage of whole guns will create identified arsenals of weapons which can be a natural attraction to terrorists and criminals. Central storage of key components only, with the scattered storage in homes of the rest of the guns, will avoid that danger.
The second reason is that without the Select Committee procedure the House will not be able to make an informed judgment on which option is to be preferred. Lord Cullen acknowledged that the decision should be made on sound technical advice. This advice has not been forthcoming. The Select Committee can call expert witnesses for and against the proposals who can be examined.
In the first place, the Government acted with undue haste. They received Lord Cullen's report on 14th October 1996. They obtained a single letter from the Forensic Science Service on 16th October 1996. Their rejection of the dismantlement option was available to Parliament in printed form on 12th November 1996. It is very clear from the timetable that it was impossible for there to have been adequate consideration of so serious an issue.
Secondly, the Government began by rejecting dismantlement on the ground that it was not practical. Their response to Lord Cullen's report said:
- "While removal of key components is feasible for certain types of gun, it is not a practical proposition for others".
- "The Government took advice from the Forensic Science Service on the practicability of disabling multi-shot guns. It concluded that the way forward was unworkable.".--[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/96; col. 175.]
- "we accept that there are many varieties of handgun that can readily be dismantled, but there are others for which it is a much more difficult operation".--[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/96; col. 784.]
- "I accept at the outset that it is a matter of judgment and that it is not possible to prove conclusively that one argument is right and one argument is wrong".--[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/96; col. 1149.]
So there we are. It is a matter of judgment after all. But on what evidence are we to make the judgment? On the one hand we have the unanimous advice from experts outside the Home Office that dismantlement is practicable and safe. We have also the stated preference of Lord Cullen. On the other hand we have two letters from Mr. Warlow, of the Forensic Science Service, made available by the Home Office. The first of the letters, dated 16th October, has already been abandoned by the Government as an adequate explanation. The second, dated 18th November, contains Mr. Warlow's personal opinion quoted by Ministers:
- "This procedure [dismantlement] would not provide a guaranteed measure of assurance against the possible misuse of a pistol by a determined and motivated individual".
The Bill has been rushed through the Commons with no opportunity to get to the bottom of the matter. The only correct procedure for the House is therefore to interrogate Mr. Warlow and the other experts and make its own conclusion on the basis of the evidence. That is what the Select Committee procedure will provide.
Moved, (a) That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they do report Clause 6 of the Bill without amendment; and (b) That, when the Bill is reported from the Committee of the Whole House, it be recommitted to a Select Committee in respect of Clause 6.--(Lord Swansea.)
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I dislike certain aspects of the Bill, but, with respect to my noble friend, I dislike even more his proposition in the Motion. I say that for two main reasons. First, I believe that a Bill of this character is best dealt with in its entirety on the Floor of the House in a Committee of the Whole House. Secondly, the proposed procedure could put in jeopardy the whole Bill, in view of the very short time which may well be available between now and the dissolution of this Parliament. I suggest that if that happened we should be in a position which was contrary to the spirit of the Salisbury Convention, which is well established and is long standing.
Whether we like it or not, the Bill was in the gracious Speech and it passed all its stages in another place with substantial majorities. To risk ditching it now would be very unwise. Indeed, I would go further and say that it would be sheer folly, in view of the policy of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, to interfere with the composition of this House. In saying that, I am not opposed to amending the Bill if your Lordships believe that to be appropriate. Indeed, we as a Chamber pride ourselves in revising Bills. We frequently amend Bills and send amendments to another place which it accepts as improvements. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept amendments dealing with certain aspects of the Bill which are causing most concern in particular to the law abiding shooting community.
My conclusion is amend the Bill, if your Lordships believe that to be appropriate, but do not risk ditching it through lack of time. That I say firmly now.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page