LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 27 July 1967)

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 13, to which the Commons have disagreed.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, on this Amendment we are under a particular handicap, because the proceedings in another place must have occurred as recently as after 10.30 last night, and consequently we have no Record of the Commons proceedings on the Amendment. I do not know whether there was a Division in another place or not. Fortunately, there is a relatively long explanation of the Commons' decision, and here again I would not advise your Lordships to hold out against another place.
This was an Amendment, if I remember correctly, that was moved by myself, though it had been tabled by my noble and learned friend, Lord Dilhorne; he happened not to be in his place at the time, and I moved it on his behalf. I still think it shows that the Government did not do sufficient preparatory work on their proposals relating to shot-guns, because even now it appears that they are not sure whether photographs will be necessary in relation to shot-gun certificates. I deduce that from the Commons' Reason, which says: Because the subsection removed by the Amendment confers powers which experience may show to be necessary …' 1138 Considering the long period of gestation of this Bill, I should have thought that by this time the Government could have decided whether or not it was necessary for an applicant for a shot-gun certificate to have to go through all the tedious paraphernalia of providing a kind of passport photograph and getting his identity certified by an independent person. This is just the sort of power which ought not to be given to the Government unless the case for it is proved; and the Corn-finitely that we were going to do a thing not been proved, but that experience may show it to be necessary. There it is. I regret this decision, too, but I advise your Lordships to accede to it.
I can only express my thankfulness that it was not decided in another place to reverse your Lordships' decision to the effect that a child of 13 presented with a shot-gun should not be considered as committing a criminal offence. When it is said that Amendments carried in your Lordships' House on a Division are always of null effect because they are invariably reversed by another place, at any rate we can claim for ourselves in this instance that a thoroughly sensible decision carried here on a Division has been accepted by the Commons.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, the generosity which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has shown throughout our exchanges this morning deserted him at the last moment, because he did the Government less than justice over the Amendments with regard to the child of 13 to which he referred. The noble Lord is surely aware that in accepting these Amendments I gave an assurance that they would not be interfered with and that they were fully agreed.
The reason why this permissive power is still permissive and may still not be used is the very best of reasons; namely, that this suggestion was made by an interested organisation, who suggested that it would be a good thing if power were taken to have photographs on certificates. We have not yet discussed it. The noble Lord will be aware that we really cannot discuss this finally with interested organisations until the Bill becomes an Act and the Home Secretary has the rule-making powers for which he asks. There is nothing wrong with that, and it would be quite wrong to say definitely that we were going to do a thing 1139 when in fact we are still deferring a decision until we have had the discussions.
One other point makes this Amendment quite essential, and that is the Secretary of State's power to make different provision for different cases in both the firearm and shot-gun certificate system. That bath water went out with the baby when this Amendment was carried. We certainly need these powers of making different provision for different cases, short-term certificates, for example, for an application for overseas visitors staying here more than 30 days compared with standard three-year certificates for residents and so on. These powers are essential, and they will be used wisely.