| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lieutenancies Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.--(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.--(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
United Nations Personnel Bill
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.--(Lord Brougham and Vaux.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Sundays (Dancing and Licensing) Bill [H.L.]
Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Geneva Conventions Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Avebury, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.--(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. It is concise and admirable in all respects.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.--(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8
Clause 6, page 3, line 6, at end insert ("unless the pistol complies with subsection (2A) below.")
Because the disassembly of pistols would not provide adequate safeguards for the protection of the public.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.
This issue has been thoroughly discussed at each stage of the Bill, both in this House and in another place. It would not be the best use of the House's time for me to rehearse the arguments with which by now your Lordships will be very familiar. The Government's position has always been that small calibre pistols in their complete form should be stored in secure licensed clubs. The case for disassembly was put with force. It is entirely understandable and indeed proper that it was considered again in another place. It is the right of this House to invite another place to reconsider any issue.
The other place has reconsidered this issue. The elected House of Parliament, having considered the arguments put forward here and in another place, has
I believe that your Lordships should not insist on the amendments passed in this House. I accept, of course, that the arguments for and against disassembly are finely balanced, but it is the decided opinion of another place that the amendment does not provide an adequate level of protection for the public. Therefore, I invite this House not to insist on Amendment No. 8 for the reason numbered 8A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.--(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I expected to hear from the other side of the House, but clearly those Benches wish to remain silent. I am not prepared to remain silent on this issue. Indeed, I read the debate in the other place on the amendment with increasing incredulity, especially the speeches of the Home Secretary and my honourable friend Mr. Doug Henderson, who spoke from Labour's Front Bench. Reading the Home Secretary's speech, I thought he seemed embarrassed by the whole thing. He certainly seemed embarrassed to have to object to your Lordships' amendment. Indeed, he leaned very heavily on the plea of the Association of Chief Police Officers that disassembly could not be policed. It says that about many things. We should have to repeal huge tranches of the criminal law, especially the Road Traffic Acts, if that plea were accepted.
Let me repeat that I believe that public debate on this issue has been denied. The fact that the Cullen Report was not debated in both this House and another place and throughout the country means that the public did not have the opportunity to express their view on the Bill. Quite frankly, I have been rather put out that it has been represented--indeed, from the Government Front Bench today--that the House of Lords should yield to another place and not insist on its amendments because we have had our say. That is not good enough. This House is not simply concerned with having its say. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 protect the position of the Commons as the elected House and the sovereign body. But this House also has rights under those two Acts and it is legitimate for us to exercise those rights.
If we are not prepared to insist on our amendments because we are being told that we have expressed our views and that should be an end of the matter, then we reduce ourselves to the status of a consultative council rather than a House of a sovereign Parliament. Furthermore, we would be undermining the principle of a bicameral Parliament and reducing it to a de facto unicameral Parliament. This is the only second Chamber that we have and those who believe in the bicameral system should persist in their right to insist on our amendments. Until we change the system, it is the only system we have.
The noble Baroness mentioned the large majority against this amendment in the House of Commons. However, was it a fact, as Mr. Marlow indicated on a
It has also been suggested to me that there should be no Division because there may be a derisory vote in favour of insisting on our amendments. That is not a good reason for not dividing. If a measure is good in itself and in principle, then it is worthy of being tested. Those who wish to change their previous position must be seen to do so. Those who wish to maintain their position in the face of a Commons rejection must be given the opportunity to do so, and be seen to do so. If nobody else divides this House this afternoon, I shall certainly do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may put another point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right in relation to the question of entitlement; no one could be more clear about that than myself. The question is, if we are to keep our bicameral structure, do we not have to be sensible and careful as to how we use it?
To ask another place to think again was our entitlement. It is our entitlement to insist; but to insist is quite another thing. To what constructive end do we insist? It is the settled will of the elected Chamber, as expressed by a substantial majority on two occasions, that this Bill in the form proposed on the Marshalled List shall receive Royal Assent. To what conceivable purpose are we to divide? The Opposition and the payroll vote would ensure that the Commons amendments and reasons would be accepted. One does not doubt the sincerity or courage of noble Lords who vote in the "Not-Content" Lobby.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Did he take the same attitude on the War Crimes Bill?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I took a different attitude as a matter of conscience; I took it on my own initiative; I lobbied no one and I did not think I would win. That was a wholly different affair and not comparable on any basis. That was a decision of the majority of this House. On this occasion we must question the judgment of noble Lords who, for no constructive purpose, enter the "Not-Content" Lobby.
There is no doubt that I supported the dismantling amendment. It does not matter what one thinks personally; what matters is the constitutional position of this House. We have the guiding rope in our hands; let it not become a noose around our necks.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we can say what we like about my noble friend Lord Stoddart, but he has spirit. When many Members of this House on the Government Benches spent many hours in debate on these issues objecting strongly to the proposals in the Bill, it was my noble friend who was prepared to take it to the last ditch and suggest that the House should divide on the issue. I pay tribute to his spirit, even though I disagree with his arguments.
It was significant that my noble friend spent little time arguing the validity of the specific amendment before us. There were two amendments on disassembly. First, there was the amendment that was carried and, secondly, there was the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which came later in the list and was therefore withdrawn. I was inclined not to oppose the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which was framed in extremely cautious terms so as to avoid, as far as possible, the risk to the public of disassembly. I cannot say that--of course on these matters I speak personally and not on behalf of my noble friends--about the amendment which was carried.
I do not believe that the House should have been convinced that there was no risk involved in disassembly; it should not have been convinced that it was not at least possible and, indeed, probable, that clever people would find ways of matching up the slide assembly with the rest of the gun. I do not believe that we should have accepted the argument that it was the gun itself which should be allowed to be kept outside the licensed premises. In short, the amendment was wrong. It is on that basis, as an individual, that I ask my noble friends to oppose the proposal of my noble friend Lord Stoddart and to support the Motion that we should not insist.
The issue remains as to whether it is right, under any circumstances, to engage in opposition to the Commons when it has expressed a contrary view a second time. I plead guilty to having put to this House on occasion a Motion that we should insist on our amendments; in other words, that we should oppose another place where it seems appropriate. My noble friend silenced the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who was unable to find any real distinction between his action on the War Crimes Bill and what he is opposing now.
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason--
8A
3.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page