| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that we will not hear any more belated Second Reading speeches like that in the House today. Of course the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is not a breach of the procedure of the House; indeed, it would not have been allowed by the Clerks at the Table if it had been. But it is seriously an abuse of the spirit in which those procedures are conducted and it is seriously dangerous to the wish not only of the elected Chamber
but also of a very large number of people in this country to see this legislation concluded before the general election.It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the detailed arguments about disabling or not disabling guns made by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, and others. If those arguments had had any validity, they should have been put on Second Reading and a procedural Motion should have been tabled to attempt to achieve some other procedure other than a Committee of the Whole House. As it was, the House decided without dissent that the Bill should be read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, which is what has happened. Therefore, to attempt at this stage, when the gap between Second Reading and Committee has elapsed, to defer one part of the Bill to a special Select Committee procedure--though it may be technically correct--is profoundly wrong.
I took careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said. He said that the suggested procedure would not delay the rest of the Bill. However, we cannot delay one part of the Bill without delaying the rest of the legislation. If we were to accede to the Motion and delay even one part of the Bill--or, indeed, one clause or even one line of it--rather than dealing with it in Committee as is proper, the whole of the Bill would be delayed. It is clearly inconceivable that we should then reach a Report stage on 4th February (as is now planned) and, given the situation regarding the numbers in the House of Commons, it is highly likely that the Bill would then fail to obtain Royal Assent before a general election.
On this Bill, as noble Lords know, my noble friends have freedom of conscience and they can vote as they wish. But my own intention would be to urge them most strongly to vote against this procedural Motion and to vote for the Bill to proceed in its entirety into Committee. I give the House the following warning. If as a result of this debate the Motion is carried and the Bill is delayed in such a way that it does not achieve Royal Assent before the general election and it subsequently comes before Parliament with a Labour Government, not only will this legislation be put through with the greatest urgency but the argument for the exclusion of the hereditary peerage from Parliament will be strongly increased. This Motion should be voted down.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, it has been stated that the Bill is relevant to all those involved in handgun shooting; namely, 60,000 people in this country. But this Bill is much more relevant to the rest of the country, despite what we may think from the contents of the huge postbags that we have all received. I believe that the legislation is far too important to be delayed. The Bill is very important to the population and we cannot legislate solely for 60,000 people and ignore the very widespread fear of handguns which has not only been brought about by the Dunblane and Hungerford incidents but is also an inherent factor.
I should like to make just two points. First, the inevitable procrastination will show us to be "out of touch" to an even greater extent than is currently
believed. Secondly, even if it is not the intention of the Motion to delay the Bill, that is exactly how it will be perceived.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I have no complaint at all about any of the speeches made in this short debate in support of the Motion of the noble Lord. Views are strongly felt in your Lordships' House. They are legitimately held. Sharply conflicting views were expressed on Second Reading and will be expressed again. I have no objection to this debate taking place, even if it were legitimate for me to have one. I regret very much any threats which appear to have been made about the consequences that might follow from any action the House might take.
I think we all recognise that this is a complex issue which deserves careful scrutiny. We can all be wise after the event. On reflection I, for one, believe that it might have been better to have had a Green Paper following Lord Cullen's report or, if it were possible, a pre-legislative committee to discuss many aspects of this complex question. However, that is a view I hold in retrospect. I do not blame anyone else for proceeding in the way that the Government chose to do in the light of public pressure at the time.
We now have a Bill before us. As noble Lords have said, it has passed through another place. We have a continuing duty of scrutiny but we certainly ought not to delay the Bill unreasonably. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, to discover whether there were any aspects of Clause 6 which were so fundamentally unusual to justify his singling it out as a clause which might go to a Select Committee. I did not hear those arguments. I do not see why, if that clause were to go to a Select Committee, the whole Bill might not also be sent to a Select Committee, However, that time is past. We have a Bill and we have the opportunity to discuss it today, and on at least one other occasion in Committee. I strongly urge your Lordships to conclude this debate and to proceed with the formal scrutiny of the Bill.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I hope I may put it to the Government that it is very much in their own interests to accept this Motion, which is not, of course, a wrecking Motion. As my noble friend Lord Attlee pointed out, if it is accepted it need not delay the Bill by more than 14 days at most. If the proposed Select Committee were to find that the Home Office firearms expert was right about disassembly, and that almost every other firearms expert was wrong, the Government would have won a significant victory, and much of the opposition to Part I of the Bill would collapse. If, on the other hand, the Select Committee should find that almost all the other experts were right, and by extension that Lord Cullen was right, the Government need not lose face. They could legitimately maintain that they were right to err on the side of extreme caution when making their initial speedy decision but that now that there had been time to investigate the disassembly question thoroughly it had become evident that the proposed draconian restrictions
were not after all necessary and that Lord Cullen's recommendations on disassembly could, after all, be adopted.The prizes--assuming that the Select Committee were to find for Lord Cullen, so to speak--would be enormous all round. Tens of thousands of law abiding men and women would be able to continue practising their sport and their clubs would not go bankrupt in consequence of extremely expensive security precautions which would otherwise be necessary. Tens of thousands of natural Conservative supporters would return to the fold. Tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money could be better spent elsewhere and, above all, the general public would be much safer in that a dismantled gun has almost no value to a thief. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, replying to a supplementary question on the first Starred Question today, said, if I heard him right, that complicated scientific investigation should be left to scientists, or words to that effect. I believe it is sensible to follow that principle on the extremely important and complicated question of disassembly. I therefore urge your Lordships to support the Motion.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but having listened to it I have become a little concerned about some of the things that have been said. We need to appreciate that, as the second Chamber is constituted at the moment, and as it operates at the moment, there is a distinction between ourselves and the other House. Two problems that exist in the other House can be overcome in this House. First, amendments to Bills in the other House are selected. Not all amendments that are tabled are debated. The other problem the other House has is that quite often Bills are committed to Select Committees of the other House and not all Members of the other place can contribute to those committees. One of the glories of this House is that all amendments are considered and, in general, Committee stages are conducted before the whole House and every Member of your Lordships' House can contribute.
Bearing in mind the topic of the Bill, we can recognise that we have a significant number of experts in this field. We can also recognise that a whole range of Members of your Lordships' House right across the Chamber can express themselves articulately on this matter. I argue that in the situation we are now in it will not help the House and the consideration of the Bill if this Motion were agreed to. I hope that Clause 6, along with the rest of the Bill, will be considered by a Committee of the whole House, as this House has established a strong reputation for providing something that is different from the other place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this Motion until I heard the uncharacteristically immoderate speech of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I shall not speak for long, but I believe that we have been extremely unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, who has tried to be helpful. He, like myself, understands--as does every other
Member of this House--that the Government set up the Cullen inquiry which reported and recommended that disassembly was a possible way of dealing with this matter. The Government chose not to accept that report and indeed announced their intentions before the report had been published or properly assimilated. Therefore we have not had the opportunity we should have had to discuss properly in this House the course of action recommended in the report. In my view therefore there is a good reason why a less than normal procedure should be adopted to ensure that the experts give their views. After all, we in this House are not experts, nor can we act as an expert body when the House is in full Committee. There is a case for subjecting the matter to a quick examination--which was reported on by Lord Cullen--by experts, and for having a considered view, or perhaps more than one considered view, put before the House.
There is a great deal of feeling in the country on this matter. The Bill has come to this House after a guillotine procedure was introduced and enforced in the House of Commons. Therefore, as my noble friend has just said, it is right and proper that this House does its duty and ensures that the Bill is given proper consideration for as long as that takes.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page