| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this is a very important amendment and I intend to say a few words about it. I am extremely suspicious of an amendment which comes before us at the end of a Bill which has been through the House of Commons and through all its stages in this House.
I am suspicious of it for two reasons. First, it seems to show that this Bill, as so many of us have said, has been drafted in haste. In other words, it has not been properly thought out. Had it been properly thought out and had this clause been necessary, then it would have been in the original Bill. But here we find, at the end of what the Government say is a well thought out Bill, a very important clause which clearly had not been thought of at the beginning nor at any stage in its passage through the House of Commons or in this House.
As has already been said by a number of people, the clause is not subject to the affirmative procedure, it is subject to annulment. Anybody who has been in the House of Commons knows perfectly well that it is very difficult to have a debate on this procedure. It is necessary either for the Opposition Front Bench to be in favour of any move to annul or for there to be a considerable number of signatures on the Order Paper. That, again, is why I am suspicious of this particular procedure.
On this occasion I will take the advice of my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I notice he is aghast at that, but it is nice to conclude the Bill on the basis that for the first time during its passage I am able to accept his advice. I hope it will prove to be very sound and will be taken by the House of Commons.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first I apologise unreservedly for the bringing forward of this amendment so late in the Bill. Can I also say to all noble Lords who have expressed concerns--my noble friend Lord Boardman and noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and others--that I understand them, certainly in the context in which they have been expressed by the noble Lords. I hope in a few minutes to be able to allay some of those fears. I should like to accept the advice proffered by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in this instance that we pass this amendment today because I believe there are good reasons for it. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has hinted that he believes so too. I can give an assurance that we shall continue to talk with the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, who is the chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, and I shall ask my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to continue to give thought to this to ensure that all the concerns expressed by noble Lords in this House are addressed and, if necessary, that the wording may be changed in another place, although I believe at this moment that that will not be necessary.
A very real constraint is that subsection (2), if read as a free standing subsection is worrying, but it is limited to transitional or consequential matters because of what it says in subsection (1). It cannot be read in isolation from subsection (1). My noble friend Lord Pearson was also concerned about the use of Subsection (2). It would only refer to any other enactment in so far as it affects the transitional arrangements and consequences of implementing the measures of this Act--that would be the constraint--and the measures as set out in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Renton offered two reasons why he thought people should feel less worried about this. But I proffer to my noble friend a third reason. The constraint is that the exercise of this power must arise from transitional arrangements and consequences of implementing the measures which are determined in the Bill. I say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the amendment would not allow the purpose of the Bill to be changed. Regulations have to be consequential and they have to be transitional. If I can give examples: transitional arrangements for establishing a new licence to pistol clubs; or the change from the old to the new requirement for a firearm certificate.
My noble friend Lord Renton was right when he made the point that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments also scrutinises all delegated legislation to ensure that very point--that the powers are not abused. Therefore, if there was any hint whatsoever of a future Secretary of State wishing to use his powers rather more widely than they are set out in this amendment, that would be considered an abuse of the Secretary of State's powers and that would be reported to both Houses. So I believe all the safeguards are there. If I could read from a section of the letter which I received, signed by Dr. Tudor on behalf of my noble friend Lord Alexander,
- "The Chairman has, however, asked me to say that the Committee's report on the Bill (a copy of which I attach) drew attention to the absence of any transitional provision in relation to what was then Clause 17 of the Bill. (That clause has of course now been amended in a way which would meet the Committee's specific concern.) In the light of the Committee's earlier concern"--
- "and provided that the new power is limited to transitional and consequential provisions, the Chairman sees no reason to object to the amendment which you [i.e. the Government] propose. He also considers that the negative resolution procedure is appropriate".
The amendment is here. The power is there for the Secretary of State so that when the transitional arrangements are made if there is some point that has not been foreseen it would be possible for the Secretary of State to have a remedy to put it right--and the power of course would have to be consistent with transitional arrangements--rather than hold up a scheme where he would have to wait for amendment of primary legislation in order to act.
I hope with those assurances, and taking the advice of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that this House passes this measure. We will continue to look very carefully at it and at what has been said about it in this place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Transitional arrangements for small-calibre pistols]:
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 72 to 77:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequential and minor amendments]:
Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 81:
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. The first anniversary of the Dunblane tragedy will be in four weeks' time. On 13th March 1996 Thomas Hamilton entered a primary school in that town and fired 105 rounds of ammunition killing 16 children and their teacher and wounding a number of others. He had with him four high calibre handguns and 743 rounds, all of which he was legally entitled to hold. Lord Cullen's inquiry into the incident produced 23 recommendations on the control of firearms, which the Government have accepted, and one recommendation restricting the availability of self-loading handguns. Twelve of the recommendations are being implemented by administrative means; the remaining 11 are included in the Bill.
Recommendation 22 invited the Government to consult with interested groups about the proposal by the Association of Police Surgeons that a forensic medical examiner might consider the medical history of a person applying for a firearm certificate, that history having been provided by the applicant's doctor.
We have duly consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers, the BMA and the British Shooting Sports Council, but none has given any support for it. Indeed, they have drawn attention to various practical or ethical difficulties. The Association of Police Surgeons has since withdrawn its proposals in the light of the lack of support from other parts of the medical profession. In the light of those responses we do not propose to take the matter further. I am grateful to the Association of Police Surgeons for its contribution to the general concerns that Lord Cullen addressed.
Turning to the subject of disassembly which now forms the new Clause 10 of the Bill, Lord Cullen, in his recommendation 24, invited the Government to consider the separate storage of component parts of handguns. This was debated at great length in the House, and the technical arguments for and against disassembly have been well rehearsed. The Government remain unconvinced that disassembly would provide sufficient assurance against the possible misuse of a pistol by a determined individual. The issue will be re-examined in another place.
Two clauses, Clauses 17 and 19, have been added to extend the compensation arrangements beyond the Government's commitment to compensate people for their surrendered prohibited handguns and ancillary equipment. The impact of those amendments will also need to be re-examined in another place.
The Bill is an important further step in providing the public with reassurances about the presence of handguns in the community. It will ban high calibre handguns and will introduce tight controls over the procurement, ownership, storage, use and disposal of the small calibre pistols that may continue to be used for the sport of target shooting.
The Government have an onerous duty to consider the extent of the controls necessary on the ownership and possession of handguns. Taking account of Lord Cullen's findings, we have set out in the Bill the way in which the Government believe that his objective of strict control on access to handguns can most effectively be achieved. As a result of today's debates, there will be further consideration of the issue of a probationary period of membership of clubs which was raised in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
During the passage of the Bill I have been sustained and helped greatly by my noble friends, particularly my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay but also my noble friend Lord Courtown who has worn out much shoe leather to-ing and fro-ing energetically on my behalf, and by the good humour which characterises our debates. My thanks go to the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for their courtesy throughout the debates on the Bill. The Government have been guided throughout the consideration of the Bill by the need to provide the public with the necessary protection it deserves. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Baroness Blatch.)
Page 28, line 7, leave out ("purchased or acquired") and insert ("contracted to acquire").
Page 28, line 15, at end insert--
("( ) Sub-paragraph (1) above applies to a pistol which a person has (before the appointed day) contracted to acquire if it is delivered to any designated police station as soon as reasonably practicable after it comes into his possession.").
Page 28, line 36, leave out ("at a designated police station") and insert ("in police custody").
Page 28, line 38, after ("station") insert ("to which it was delivered under paragraph 2 above").
Page 28, line 40, leave out from ("writing") to end of line 41 and insert ("for the release of the pistol to the chief officer of police for the area in which the designated police station to which it was delivered under paragraph 2 above is situated").
Page 29, line 4, leave out ("which is").
Page 30, line 41, leave out ("32(2)").
Page 32, leave out line 15 and insert ("information comprised in that register in a visible and legible form)"; and").
Page 32, leave out lines 21 to 23.
Page 33, line 28, at end insert--
(" 21. In section 22(1)(c) (firearms consultative committee), for the words "the principal Act, the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act" there shall be substituted the words "the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997".").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page