LORDS AMENDMENT

HL Deb 20 February 1997 vol 578 cc786-817

8 Clause 6, page 3, line 6, at end insert ("unless the pistol complies with subsection (2A) below.")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

8A 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 come down on the side of the Bill as drafted and against the amendments. It did so overwhelmingly by a majority of 279 votes.

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 point of order, that Conservative Members of Parliament—other than the payroll vote—either voted against the Government or abstained from supporting the Government? If so, Conservative Peers should take heart and insist on the amendment. Not to do so would be letting down their colleagues in another place who had the courage to stand up and be counted in support of your Lordships' amendments.

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.

3.45 p.m.

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.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I am fully able to find many distinctions. The time of the House is better employed.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, that may be the noble Lord's view. I am always glad to hear from him. I believe the argument to be of great significance. We should acknowledge—as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, did—that within the constitution my noble friend is entirely right to bring this matter forward. As to whether it is wise, I take a different view. We are in the curious circumstance that we have legislation which is brought forward in the last Session of a Parliament and is brought forward because of a perceived risk—your Lordships may not all agree—arising from a clear unpleasant danger at Dunblane. The public reaction to the tragedy at Dunblane and the demand for change in our gun control laws ought not to be underestimated.

The risk that my noble friend takes were he to win in a Division is that the whole Bill would be lost. That is a risk we should not take. We should support the Government Motion that we do not insist on our amendment.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I attended the debate in the other place and, as far as I am concerned, it debated the matters very carefully. It was of some interest to me to watch the Home Secretary attempt to justify his position on disassembly. I also watched the other place waste a considerable sum of public money. But that is its prerogative.

My feelings about the Bill are exactly the same as when the Bill first came to your Lordships' House. My feelings about the wisdom of disassembly are still exactly the same. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his comments supporting my amendment. I think it was a shame that it was not accepted. However, I am not convinced that it would be in the interests of your Lordships' House or any sector of your Lordships' House to pursue the amendment. I therefore do not think that we should send anything back to the other place.

Lord Cottesloe

My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I should like to make one point that did not perhaps come out very fully in previous debates. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments about disassembly but I think it is true to say that the Bill is unsatisfactory because in the eyes of the uninformed it appears to advance public safety when in fact it does no such thing. It does nothing to attack the real problem of hundreds of thousands of illegal firearms in this country and their continuous supplementation by more such arms being smuggled across and under the Channel.

I shall not argue about figures and how much it will cost, but it might be better to spend the money on extra customs officers to search many more vehicles entering the country. That is hardly likely to be popular with motorists but it might be better for the general public as a whole to be put to some inconvenience in the genuine interests of public safety. To my mind such a measure would be a much more effective way of spending money to prevent another Dunblane than that which the Bill represents, which throws all the burden and expense on to a small number of law-abiding citizens without achieving anything other than stress and agony. We have the wrong target in our sights.

Perhaps I may conclude by saying that, to my regret, I was unable to be present at the very end of Third Reading last week. However, I have read in Hansard the compliments paid to the noble Baroness. If it is not improper for me to do so now, I should just like to say how very much I agreed with them, and, if it is not grossly impertinent on the part of a comparatively new boy, to add that I thoroughly endorse them all.

Lord Dixon-Smith

My Lords, I wonder whether I might introduce yet another consideration which is perhaps very important at this stage. I refer to the interests—the strategic interests—of those who are interested in sport with handguns. The position we now face is that the other place, for better or worse, is determined to have a Bill. There is probably general agreement in this House that the Bill itself is an awful Bill. It would be better if it were not here at all. But that is an ideal situation which we do not face.

I wish to put the following consideration into everyone's mind. If as a result of our actions today the Bill were to fail and if, as a consequence, at some point in the future an even worse Bill was brought forward—such a course has on occasions been advocated from one or two places—we would have done nothing and achieved nothing on behalf of those whose interests we say we wish to support in trying to improve the Bill. We ought to have that consideration in mind in supporting the Minister on this matter.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, I wish to mention something which has arisen out of these debates and which goes to the heart of your Lordships' existence. Every time some of us have supported amendments the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, "Ah, silly, old-fashioned, anachronistic hereditary Peers; that is why they should be abolished". I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is nodding his head or shaking it—I am never quite sure with him.

The arguments against the Bill have been overwhelmingly solid and sensible and we have supported Lord Cullen. For perfectly sound, historical reasons, another place has panicked because a general election is approaching and the Secretary of State for Scotland represents Dunblane. I blame none of them for doing that. I would have done exactly the same had I been in any of their positions. All I suggest to your Lordships is that had the composition of your Lordships' House been more sensibly arranged we would have had the authority to insist on sensible changes. What the Front Bench opposite proposes for change is even sillier than what exists at the moment. This shows that the sooner your Lordships' House is sensibly reformed, can sensibly do its proper job and can sensibly make the House of Commons occasionally think again, the better.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—I shall not follow him into his constitutional argument because I think that would be quite improper—I hope he will recognise that not a single one of the contentious amendments which were carried in this House and had to be reconsidered in another place would have been carried without the hereditary peerage.

The Earl of Onslow

So what!

The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne)

My Lords, I wonder whether the House will allow me to intervene for a moment on a purely procedural matter rather than the merits of the arguments of the case.

I have taken advice about what our normal procedures are in cases of this kind. I am advised that it is the practice of the House that a Motion to insist on a Lords amendment is taken before the Motion that this House do not insist on a Lords amendment. Defeating a negative Motion, if that is what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, wishes to do, would not achieve, if I may put it this way, a positive result. Therefore, if he wished to push this to a Division and were he to win against my noble friend's Motion that this House do not insist, then, contrary to our present practice—but, under the circumstances, it might be sensible for us to do this—he would have to submit a manuscript amendment to the effect that this House does insist. It would be more usual, I am advised, if that Motion had been tabled earlier and it would be the normal practice of this House to take that Motion first before the do not insist Motion. I hope that is both clear and helpful to the House.

4 p.m.

Lord Swansea

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in what he said. What is the use of a revising Chamber if it is not allowed to revise and its views are not acted on? We have taken time to discuss an imperfect Bill at length and dispassionately. I am not going to rehearse the arguments in favour of disassembly in detail now. We have been through all that very thoroughly—at Committee stage and on Report—only to see our efforts ignored and kicked aside. We pride ourselves in having in this Chamber a variety of experts on every subject one can think of and the subject of this Bill is no exception. On these Benches we have many noble Lords who have a considerable knowledge of the subject matter of the Bill, which is more than can be said of noble Lords opposite and of many Members of the other place. I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.

Lord Monson

My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, decides whether or not to submit a manuscript amendment, unlike my two noble friends on these Benches who have spoken so far I believe that it is absolutely right to support the amendment. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested, there is not the slightest danger of the Bill being lost except in the extremely unlikely event of the Cabinet having already decided on a 20th March general election. I do not imagine that anyone seriously believes that to be the case.

On Sunday there will be a demonstration by 25,000 shooters, their friends and families in London. If the Bill goes back to the other place, it will be able to reconsider it in the light of the views expressed at that demonstration. That is one additional reason for voting in favour of the amendment.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred to my right honourable friend in another place and also, I believe, to one of his own colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench in the other place. I say to the noble Lord and to the House that my right honourable friend was not embarrassed. He was very conscious of the genuine and deeply felt concern on the part of those who supported disassembly. My right honourable friend has said—and I repeat it—that the arguments for and against disassembly were finely balanced. He made that point on Tuesday, and I make it again today. The arguments were indeed finely balanced.

This matter has not been easy because it is not an easy subject. Having the responsibility of addressing difficult issues, such as disassembly, falls to the Government and I believe that they have taken the matter extremely seriously. They have listened to the argument and have come to a conclusion.

Perhaps I may join the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. He has indeed shown spirit, as indeed he always does. He is assiduous and he is always consistent. I believe that this House would be the poorer without noble Lords of such spirit. So long may this House act as an effective check and balance on another place, because I believe that that is the role of this House.

This House rightly asked another place to think again, and it has done that. It has sent us a clear view on the issue of disassembly. I have already given the voting record. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to those who voted in another place. Those who voted and how they voted is a matter of public record. What we do here today is both to consider the issue, which is the subject of the debate, but also to take into account the views expressed in another place, not once but twice, and to ask the question posed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is this. What would be achieved by sending this issue back to another place knowing in advance of doing so that it has expressed an unequivocal view by a large majority? It is very probable that it would do so again. Once again I invite the House not to insist on Amendment No. 8.

4.4 p.m.

On Question, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 197; Not-Contents, 24.

Division No. 1
CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Elles, B.
Acton, L.	Erne, E.
Addison, V.	Feldman, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Ferrers, E.
Ailsa, M.	Fitt, L.
Aldington, L.	Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Gainford, L.
Allen of Abbeydale, L.	Gallacher, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Geraint, L.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.	Gladwin of Clee, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Glasgow, E.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.	Goschen, V.
Ashbourne, L.	Graham of Edmonton, L.
Astor, V.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Hampton, L.
Balfour, E.	Harris of Greenwich, L.
Bath, M.	Haskel, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Hayhoe, L.
Beaverbrook, L.	Hayman, B.
Belstead, L.	Hayter, L.
Berkeley, L.	Hemphill, L.
Berners, B.	Henley, L.
Blackstone, B.	Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Blaker, L.	Hogg, B.
Blatch, B.	Holderness, L.
Borrie, L.	Hollis of Heigham, B.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Hooper, B.
Brentford, V.	Hooson, L.
Bridges, L.	Howe, E.
Buckinghamshire, E.	Hughes, L.
Butterfield, L.	Hunt, L.
Butterworth, L.	Inglewood, L.
Byford, B.	Jay of Paddington, B.
Cadman, L.	Jeger, B.
Calverley, L.	Jenkins of Hillhead, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.	Judd, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	Kilpatrick of Kincraig, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Kimball, L.
Carnock, L.	Kinnoull, E.
Chadlington, L.	Knollys, V.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.	Knutsford, V.
Chelmsford, V.	Laing of Dunphail, L.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]	Lauderdale, E.
Clanwilliam, E.	Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Clark of Kempston, L.	Lindsay, E.
Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.	Lockwood, B.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Long, V.
Cockfield, L.	Lucas, L.
Coleraine, L.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Courtown, E.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Cowley, E.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]	Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Crickhowell, L.	[Lord Chancellor.]
Cromer, E.	Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Cuckney, L.	Mackie of Benshie, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	McNair, L.
Cumberlege, B.	McNally, L.
Davidson, V.	Mar and Kellie, E.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Marlesford, L.
Denbigh, E.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Denton of Wakefield, B.	Merrivale, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Mersey, V.
Donoughue, L.	Meston, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Methuen, L.
Dubs, L.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Dundonald, E.	Milverton, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.	Seccombe, B.
Morris of Castle Morris, L.	Serota, B.
Mountevans, L.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Nelson, E.	Southwark, Bp.
Nicol, B.	Strabolgi, L.
O'Cathain, B.	Strange, B.
Ogmore, L.	Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Onslow, E.	Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
Oxfuird, V.	Suffield, L.
Paul, L.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Pender, L.	Taylor of Warwick, L.
Peston, L.	Tenby, V.
Pike, B.	Terrington, L.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.	Teynham, L.
Plant of Highfield, L.	Thomas of Gresford, L.
Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Prys-Davies, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.	Tollemache, L.
Rankeillour, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Rawlings, B.	Trumpington, B.
Rawlinson of Ewell, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Redesdale, L.	Walton of Detchant, L.
Richard, L.	Westbury, L.
Ripon, Bp.	White, B.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Romney, E.	Wise, L.
Rotherwick, L.	Wolfson, L.
St. Davids, V.	Wynford, L.
St. John of Bletso, L.	Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Blake, L.	Howie of Troon, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L.	Monson, L.
Clancarty, E.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Congleton, L.	Rathcavan, L.
Cross, V.	Sandwich, E.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Stallard, L.
Devonport, V.	Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]
Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.	Swansea, L. [Teller.]
Erroll, E.	Thurso, V.
Falkland, V.	Torphichen, L.
Harding of Petherton, L.	Wrenbury, L.
Harris of High Cross, L.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

4.16 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT

12 Clause 6, page 3, line 18, at end insert—

"(2A) A pistol shall not be a small-calibre pistol for the purposes of this section provided—

1. (a) the slide assembly or cylinder or other component part specified under subsection (2B) below has been removed and stored on the premises of a licensed pistol club; and
2. (b) the firearms certificate for the pistol specifies premises other than the licensed pistol club specified in paragraph (a) above at which the remainder of the firearm shall be stored.

(2B) If he is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety, the Secretary of State may by order specify a component part other than the slide assembly or cylinder to be stored at a licensed club, and may do so in respect of a particular model or type of pistol to which this section applies. (2C) This section applies to pistols chambered for 22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges.")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

12A 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. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 12A.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 12A.—(Baroness Blotch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

15 Clause 7, page 4, line 6, leave out from ("to") to end of line 7 and insert ("a condition requiring the pistol to be kept at a licensed pistol club")

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—

15A Line 2, after 'at' insert 'licensed premises of',

and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—

15B Page 3, line 43, leave out 'and used only.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15A to Lords Amendment No. 15.

With this Group, it will be convenient for me to speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 15B, 34A, 50A, 79A, 84A, 96A, 98A and 105A to, or consequential to, Lords Amendments Nos. 15, 34, 50, 79, 84, 96, 98 and 105. These are all technical and drafting amendments and have no policy implications whatsoever.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15A to Lords Amendment No. 15.—(Baroness Blotch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15B to Lords Amendment No. 15.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15B to Lords Amendment No. 15.—(Baroness Blotch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

25 After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—

COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR FIREARMS DEALERS

(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996 were wholly or mainly carrying on business as registered firearms dealers under the 1968 Act, in respect of any loss of business directly caused by the prohibition contained in section 1.

(2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide for payments to be equivalent to one year of after-tax profits of the business, based on the average after-tax profits from the audited financial statements of the business for the three financial years, or for the total period of trading if less than three years, before the passing of this Act as calculated by a qualified person.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above—

"business" means only the business or that part of the business directly affected by the prohibition contained in section 1; and

"qualified person" means a person eligible for appointment as a company auditor in accordance with section 25 of the Companies Act 1989.

(4) A scheme under subsection (1) above may—

1. (a) restrict eligibility for receipt of payments to claims made within a period specified in the scheme;
2. (b) provide for the procedure to be followed (including any time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims.")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

25A Because it involves a charge on the public revenue and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting the above reason may be deemed sufficient.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu—

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT

25B After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—

COMPENSATION FOR FIREARMS DEALERS CONSEQUENT ON JUDGMENT OF EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

(".—(1) The Secretary of State may, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996 were wholly or mainly carrying on business as registered firearms dealers under the 1968 Act, in respect of any compensation which is declared by a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights to be required to be paid as a result of a breach or breaches of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the entry into force of this Act.

(2) A scheme under subsection (1) shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 25A, but propose Amendment No. 25B as an amendment in lieu.

This is a matter upon which the relationship between the two Houses and their privilege is quite clear. The reasons given by another place relate to their privilege and it is perfectly right that we should not in any way seek to dispute that or to disagree. I should therefore like to explain why I seek to move an amendment in lieu.

The debate in another place on the compensation issue for registered firearms dealers took place in the shadow of their "guillotine" so that there was no time for proper consideration of the European Convention on Human Rights issues which underlay the extremely modest provision to compensate registered firearms dealers which this House approved. I have carefully studied the debate and all of the proceedings in this House, but I remain in the dark as to the Government's reasons for concluding, if they do so conclude, that to enact this Bill without providing any compensation for the destruction of the businesses of registered firearms dealers would be in accordance with the obligations placed on Parliament as well as on the Executive under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the convention, read on its own and read with the non-discrimination guarantee in Article 14 of the convention.

The Government's responses so far to every attempt to clarify the position remind me of a very polite and extremely parliamentary version of the irritable father in Ring Lardner's marvellous story. Your Lordships remember that he describes a father being hopelessly lost while driving his naughty and inquisitive son through an urban wilderness. "Daddy, daddy", the little boy asks. "Where are we?" The father's reply is recorded as, "'Shut up', he explained." I am sure that the noble Baroness will do much better than that, but that is one reason for my having tabled this amendment in lieu. It is an attempt before the Bill is enacted to obtain sufficient information from the Government to enable this House and another place to know whether or not it is likely that the Parliament at Westminster is about to legislate in breach of international treaty obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom.

I do not intend to become a convention or constitution bore so I shall be brief. It is clear that the Bill will interfere with the property rights of firearms dealers registered on 16th October 1996 when the Government announced their intention to introduce the ban. It also seems clear that, taken together, the grant of a licence to such firearms dealers, the obligations imposed on Ministers by Questions of Procedure for Ministers to comply with the convention, and the rights conferred on firearms dealers by Article 1 of the first protocol created legitimate expectations on the part of firearms dealers that they would be entitled either to carry on their business under their licences or to receive compensation if the value of their licences to carry on their lawful business was destroyed or severely damaged as a result of the coming into force of the Bill.

I have previously sought to explain why in my view the fair balance required by Article 1 of the protocol cannot be struck and maintained between the general interests of the community on the one hand and the individual rights and interests of firearms dealers on the other, unless fair compensation is paid for the destruction of their businesses as a direct result of the operation of the Bill and in breach of their reasonable and legitimate expectations. To find a fair balance is the essence of the issue. An excessive burden must not be placed on any group in society. The losses that firearms dealers will inevitably sustain are excessive unless some compensation is paid to them. At no time in the debate on the issue in this House and in another place have Ministers ever stated that they consider this legislation strikes and maintains a fair balance between the general community on the one hand and registered firearms dealers on the other. They have spoken of a fair balance in general terms. That is the particular issue on which we must focus. Ministers have continued to assert that they believe that the legislation complies with our treaty obligations under the convention. They have not explained why they believe that to be so. They continue to rely on a distinction that they draw between property consisting of handguns and accessories on the one hand and property that consists of the right to run a business on the other. They say that the former only is property within the scope of the convention.

On my reading of the case law neither the convention nor for that matter the common law makes such an arbitrary distinction between different kinds of property. The distinction has no rational basis. I do not understand, until it is explained to me, how it can possibly pass muster under the convention. That is my first concern.

My second concern is to try to achieve a fair and orderly means of compensating all registered firearms dealers if, and only if, any one of them were to succeed before the European Court of Human rights. That is why my amendment seeks to empower a future Secretary of State to introduce a scheme in the wake of a judgment in favour of any one firearms dealer; otherwise, there will be an unfair and shambles-like situation in which one registered firearms dealer wins his case and a number of other firearms dealers have not brought any cases. They should all be entitled in justice to receive compensation. There should be statutory authority to allow the Secretary of State to bring in a scheme to cover the entire category of firearms dealers registered on 16th October 1996 and to comply properly and speedily with the judgment of the court to cover the entire category.

My final and third concern—here we enter a more arcane and esoteric area but I mention it nonetheless—is to ensure that there is adequate parliamentary authority for recurring public expenditure that may arise, especially if there is no appropriate statutory scheme. Since the convention was ratified by the UK, and particularly since the right of petition was accepted 30 years ago, successive governments have incurred significant recurring expenditure to satisfy judgments of the European Court and to pay the costs of friendly settlements under the convention, as well as contributions towards the cost of the court and commission. It remains unclear to me whether there is proper legal authority for those payments. Two years ago I asked the Government what was the legal authority for paying out public funds for Strasbourg costs. On 3rd March 1994 I received the response: The costs are met from the Votes of the government departments concerned, as approved by Parliament in the annual Appropriation Act".—[Official Report, 3/3/94; col. WA83.]

I venture to doubt—when I say this I feel like the small child who observes that the emperor has no clothes—whether that is a sufficient response in respect of recurring expenditure (I emphasise "recurring expenditure") that is likely to arise if this Bill results in continuing findings of breaches of the first protocol.

Yesterday and this morning I wrote to the Minister raising my various concerns. I have also spoken to her ever-helpful private office. I am sorry that I did so only yesterday afternoon and this morning, but I had little time in which to consider the matter after the Bill had been considered in another place. I am sorry that she is faced with a series of questions. I will not bore the House by reading them out. I have raised these issues in question form. I very much hope that at the eleventh hour the noble Baroness will be in a position to clarify these issues for the benefit of the House as a whole and, if necessary, for the benefit of the European Court of Human Rights. That will enable us, in the words of the noble Baroness, to act as an effective check and balance. I say to noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench that, assuming I am right, it is they who will have to pick up the pieces if they form a government in the spring election. They, too, should be interested in knowing exactly why it comes about and why the Government consider that they have a strong case under the convention, if they do. For those reasons, I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose Amendment No. 25B as an amendment in lieu.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I oppose this amendment. Taken at face value, Amendment No. 25B assumes that the Court of Human Rights will order compensation under Article 1 in excess of that allowed under the Bill when enacted. Surely, it cannot be within the province of your Lordships' House to anticipate any judgment or finding as to a breach of the convention or any measure of compensation before Her Majesty's Government have argued their case before the court.

The noble Lord refers to esoteric concepts of case law and property. It is all pie in the sky until the matter has been argued and the court has come to a conclusion. Secondly, surely as a charge on the public revenue, as another place properly claims privilege and does not offer any further reason, can it be appropriate for your Lordships to resolve that a scheme for compensation introduced by virtue of such a judgment of the court shall be subject to annulment by a single House of Parliament, your Lordships' House?

There is more behind this than meets the eye. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has introduced yet again a Bill to incorporate the convention into our law notwithstanding "any rule of our law to the contrary". It would be premature, indeed it would be presumptuous, to assume that his Human Rights Bill will ever reach the statute book. In this regard this amendment savours of pre-emption. The convention was drafted over 40 years ago. It reflects the worries and concerns of post-war Europe. The meaning of incorporation has never been properly thought out. The convention was never designed to be and is not suitable to become a substitute Bill of Rights in the United Kingdom. We have our own unwritten constitution, well-established norms of conduct which regulate the relationship between the two Houses. These evolve with time. They are not immutable. The flexibility suits us and has served us well for centuries, as distinct from a written constitution, a Bill of Rights which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights.

4.30 p.m.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I refused to follow the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, into a broader discussion of the reform of the House of Lords and I certainly refuse to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway (or indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lester), into a discussion of the repatriation of the European Convention on Human Rights into our law. That would be way outside our proper consideration at this stage of—may I remind the House—the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. That is despite the fact that I rather like the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that we shall have to deal with it within a very short space of time.

I want to return to the issue of compensation to gun clubs and gun dealers which is contained in the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, moved and which were carried in this House.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, what I am dealing with does not concern gun clubs, only registered firearms dealers.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am delighted to accept that correction, but the issue is still the same. The point about compensation, either to gun dealers or gun clubs, is that it involves very substantial additional expenditure in compensation and the Commons, in their reason No. 25A, have said it involves a charge on the public revenue. The Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.

There is of course no rule which lays down absolutely that we shall not resist a Speaker's ruling of privilege or the judgment of a committee of reasons in this case. However, there would have to be extraordinarily strong reasons for us to go against that reason No. 25A.

I do not find myself very much convinced by the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. He is a great expert: he has spent a large part of his distinguished career concerned with the law as it relates to our international obligations. I respect him for that. But he is asking, as I understand it, that we should be sure now as to whether this particular example—the compensation of gun dealers—would be within or outwith the terms of the protocol to the European Convention. I do not see that we can ever do that. We argue on all these cases from analogy. It has, of course, been made clear that there are occasions when it is right and proper for Parliament to award compensation to those who suffer as a result of Acts of Parliament. That is indeed what is proposed in this Bill (I nearly said "this Act" because it nearly is this Act)—compensation for the loss of the weapons themselves. But the examples on the other side of no compensation—

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that his own party, in its admirable consultative document on incorporation of the convention, has advocated setting up a parliamentary committee with the express purpose of informing this House and another place before legislation is passed as to whether it might breach the convention.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, indeed, I am aware of that. In fact, as the noble Lord knows, we have both been involved in discussions on the point at different times. That would indeed be a very valuable procedure, but we do not have that procedure. Without it we argue from analogy and, as I said, there are plenty of examples of compensation but there are also plenty of examples of no compensation being awarded on the basis that it is and must be an acceptable risk of being in business of any kind that one is subject to changing legislation. The examples which were given in the debates in this House, of changing health and safety legislation, changing drug approvals, and many others, seem to me to be very powerful indeed. On the merits of the issue itself as well as on the procedural matter, I would advise my noble friends not to support the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his amendment.

Earl Russell

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has made the most delightfully ingenious speech, to which I listened with great pleasure and a great deal of interest. However, I am not at all certain that it was on the question before the House.

The noble Lord alleged first that this amendment anticipates the ruling of the convention. It does no such thing. It merely asks the Government to accept what for my part I certainly accept, and what I heard my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill accept when he moved the original amendment, that any or all of us may be in error when we consider what a possible future judgment might be.

When Parliament, in a statute, prohibits certain conduct it does not make a prophecy that that conduct will take place. In the history of the statute book there are some very curious examples of that principle.

Nor does this amendment in any way pre-empt the question of incorporation. That question is not before the House. It may come before the House on some future occasion. It certainly is not now. What this amendment is concerned with is how Parliament might react to the meeting of a liability which may occur under an existing obligation. It is my understanding that it is the position of this Government, which I have heard stated many times since 1992, that this Government accept their international obligations and discharge their liabilities under them. It is an honourable position. I have heard it, I respect it, and I hear it with pleasure. We have an obligation under which a liability may arise. This amendment relates only to the means by which that obligation could be met. If the obligation should arise, I understand that legislation would be needed to accept it. Most business managers will tell you that in the middle of a busy legislative Session it is not easy to insert into that programme a major new controversial measure. I have heard the Minister many times asserting the virtues of flexibility. They are virtues. The amendment has them. It offers them to the Government, as I see it, for their convenience.

The Earl of Lytton

My Lords, I am no lawyer, as your Lordships will know. Therefore I cannot enter the fray on the matter of international or constitutional law, but I am inclined to support the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his line of inquiry, particularly as he so ably carried forward a point, which I was unable to carry forward due to other commitments, on the whole question of compensation. All the arguments have been rehearsed, and I shall not go over them again. It seems to me that governments must act, and must be seen to act, reasonably, not capriciously, with due regard for all the consequences and on proper and full consideration.

My concern is that the Government's approach to all those has fallen short of what I would have hoped in this instance. It is the hallmark of a free society that, if the government of the day have to take away legitimate minority rights, compensation should follow, especially—and this may answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—if the transitional arrangements are inadequate. If you are given time to restructure, of course you can take on the changes and suffer the losses, but if you have not been given that time, then you cannot do that, and you are in a cleft stick, because there are other legislative matters, including the insolvency laws, it might be said, which might come into play as well.

We have had our fair share of legislation in the past that has gone badly wrong. I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House on a local government finance Bill. It may be appropriate that I am following the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because when we came to repeal part of that he referred to that repeal Bill as the black pudding removal Bill. I remember those words which I hope will go down as one of those immortal phrases. I hope that we do not have a black pudding removal Bill for this Bill when we have gone a few months or years down the road.

I hope and pray, although I am fearful that it will not be so, that we will not have a re-run of the Dangerous Dogs Act or the War Crimes Act—all measures which were introduced on a tide of public opinion fuelled by media interest. I do not say that that is wrong, but I say that it is wrong to go down that road without due consideration.

On poll tax, I seem to recall saying in my maiden speech—I have not looked it up to see what I said—that a law that was not fair and was not seen to be fair would fail. That is something that we do with our unwritten constitution which may well be subject to the hot brand of some other jurisdiction. I do not feel that we can necessarily accept—I do not feel that I can necessarily accept—the argument of a democratic superiority in relation to another place when in this House we are promised all the time that is necessary to debate while in another place the proceedings are the subject of a guillotine.

It goes on from that that we cannot claim due process if the expert report—in this case the very able and full report of Lord Cullen—is not followed to the letter, and, worse still, Parliament is not given time to debate that before legislation is introduced, and introduced without pause for breath, because the Bill was produced, and the Government's response was there before there was time to turn round and read the first 10 pages, I suspect, of Lord Cullen's report. That is a poor reaction, poor treatment and poor due diligence in respect of that report.

There is reason here—I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, wishes to do with his line of inquiry this afternoon—to have a clear statement that the provisions of the Bill fall short on wisdom, fairness and the proper balance to be struck. I say no more than that. But it would be wrong for the Bill to pass into law, as I am sure that it will, without that clear message going back to another place, and some Members of this House saying—I feel that my views are probably shared by many others—that, notwithstanding the procedures that have been followed through, we still have a poor piece of legislation going onto the statute book.

4.45 p.m.

Earl Peel

My Lords, I entirely endorse the remarks made by the noble Earl towards the end of his speech. It is far from clear to me whether the amendment will be helpful to those who may or may not seek redress through the European Court. That remains to be seen. I do not know whether they will do so. If they do, all I can say is that I wish them every bit of success and every bit of luck, because they deserve it.

These will be my last words on the Bill, but I have looked at the reasons why the other place decided to overturn all the amendments on compensation: Because it involves a charge on the public revenue … trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient". I suggest that that is not sufficient. That is a pathetic reason for not giving people compensation for livelihoods which will be destroyed by the Bill.

I am immensely disappointed that another place did not take into due consideration the lengthy and considered debates of your Lordships on this matter. I take the view—I abstained on the previous Division despite the very great respect I have for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—that we have gone as far as we can on this matter, and we should now abide by the decisions made in another place, even though I believe that its decisions on this matter are nothing short of disgraceful.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

My Lords, like the previous two speakers, I believe that this is a thoroughly bad Bill of which Parliament should be ashamed. This may or may not be the last word I shall say on it; I shall consider my position. I hope to be able to persuade the noble Earl, Lord Peel, to support the amendment even though he did not support the previous one.

This amendment is of course different in quality from the previous one. The other place has more right—if I may put it that way—to reject it out of hand, because it has to raise the money to pay for the financial costs. There is a qualitative difference if I may put it that way; but nevertheless I believe that the other place was mean-minded not to accept our amendment, because there are many people who will be adversely financially affected, and some will lose their business. I hope that this is not a breach of privilege, but I believe that the other place was mean-minded not to accept the modest amendment which was sent to it.

I have read the debate in the other place. One after another of the Members there instanced constituents of theirs who would be badly affected by the Bill. They repeatedly urged the Home Secretary to accept our amendment. I believe that they were right. Indeed, it is significant that 145 Members of the House of Commons voted in favour of our amendment. That is a large number and I believe noble Lords opposite should take it into account.

Finally, I wish to outline the reason that I shall support the amendment. It may or may not be well known that I am very suspicious of both European courts; namely, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. Nevertheless, I shall support the amendment because I believe that the House of Commons ought to have yet another look at the compensation provisions. So many ordinary people will be hurt, which is why I believe we should give the Commons an opportunity to reconsider what it has done and what it should do. The amendment, which would send the Bill back to the Commons, would give it that opportunity. It does not have to accept the amendment; it can table an amendment to our amendment. That is why I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, who I am sure is with me on this issue, will vote for the amendment. It does no harm to the Bill and will enable the Commons to reconsider the matter. It can then, if it so wishes, table an amendment to our amendment.

Lord Monson

My Lords, to deprive people of their livelihoods, and in many cases of their houses when they are mortgaged as security for their business overdrafts, not for genuine safety reasons but the purpose of gesture politics is immoral. But if pleas of morality cut no ice with the de facto Conservative/Labour Front Bench coalition, at least let them consider pragmatically a slowly but surely turning tide of public opinion.

A recent unpublicised MORI public opinion poll reveals that 55 per cent. of the population now believe that target pistol shooters will be unfairly penalised by the changes in the law. Only 40 per cent. believe otherwise, with 5 per cent. undecided. I suggest that the proportion of the population believing that it is wrong to deprive people of their livelihoods is even greater. Let the Front Bench coalition consider at the very least the consequence of flouting this majority public sense of what is just and fair and what is unjust and unfair. I urge your Lordships to support the amendment.

Earl Attlee

My Lords, I cannot match the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on European matters; the knowledge of property matters of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton; or the knowledge of the firearms trade of the noble Earl, Lord Peel.

However, during the passage of the Bill through Parliament the Government have referred to environmental and safety legislation and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned it today. I believe that the cost benefit analysis, if one has been carried out, is appalling. We have tragically lost 30 lives, including those at Hungerford and Dunblane, and as a result of the legislation we are to spend about £300 million. That is £10 million a life. If in respect of a road safety scheme or a hospital the idea was to spend £10 million to save a life, I suggest that the Government would not find that an attractive cost benefit analysis. That is why I believe that the Bill is appalling in terms of the use of taxpayers' money and the penalty to business, which will lose as a result.

It is important to debate the issue and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for returning to it. I support his motives, but my view on sending the matter back to another place is exactly the same as it was on the previous debate.

Lord Cottlesloe

My Lords, I shall be brief. I have some sympathy with the amendment, modest though it is, but, whatever the legal niceties, it is sad, to put it mildly, that we must resort for justice to the European Court of Human Rights. The Magna Carta has been around a good deal longer and states clearly: To no man will we sell; to no man will we deny justice". I fear that we are about to deny justice to many loyal, law-abiding, decent men and women. Nevertheless, I have sympathy with the amendment and I hope that it is acceptable. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that this will be my last word on the Bill.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I am tempted to follow the example set by the father of the little boy who persisted in asking questions. But it would not be in keeping with the conventions of this House; nor, I hope, would it be characteristic of me to be so rude.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, takes the view that the Government's proposals on compensation are not in accordance with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government simply do not agree with that view. It would be wholly improper to pass legislation with a view that it would be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, to make provision that it just might at some time in the future be challenged, and to take this moment to provide remedies in advance.

My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was right in saying that if we took that route on a Bill that we do not regard as being in breach of the European Convention, it would be importing provisions and anticipating what a future judgment of the European Court of Human Rights might be on a challenge yet undefined. That certainly would mean importing the interpretation of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the convention. I do not believe that we should go down that road. Therefore, what my noble friend said was entirely pertinent to the debate and not outside it.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that we need to introduce flexibility. This degree of flexibility would he absurd. Passing a Bill which we do not believe to be in breach of the convention, anticipating that it might be in breach of the convention at some time in the future against a challenge about which we know not, would be taking our duties too far.

If the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, were right in saying that there will be no compensation, I should have a great deal of sympathy with him. Indeed, I have a great deal of sympathy for the people on whose behalf he spoke because there will be some pain and distress as a result of the passing of the Bill. But of course there is a compensation scheme. People will be compensated for loss of stock, as will people who have guns but will not be shooting in future and will wish to surrender them. Therefore, there will be a generous compensation scheme which we believe will be administered efficiently and quickly.

The Government have considered the matter most carefully and we are satisfied that the proposals are in accordance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. We are satisfied that the Government have properly addressed the question of striking a fair balance, as interpreted in the cases referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, within the margin of appreciation which the Government enjoy for this purpose. We have undertaken to compensate dealers for their stocks of newly prohibited firearms and ancillary equipment. We take the view that we are not obliged to compensate dealers for business losses which flow from a control of the use of handguns under Rule 3 of Article 1.

The noble Lord raised specific questions about the application of the European Convention on Human Rights. He asked, first, whether the Government accepted that the business of registered firearms dealers is within the concept of property under Article 1. Ultimately, only the European Court of Human Rights would be able to give an authoritative interpretation, but we do not dispute that the goodwill in the business of a firearms dealer could be regarded as property for the purposes of the convention. However, we would not accept that the effect of the Bill on dealers will amount to depriving them of the use of their business in the sense meant by Article 1 of the convention.

The noble Lord asked me also whether the Government accept that the coming into force of the Bill will constitute an interference with the property rights of firearms dealers. It is implicit in all that I have said that the Government do not believe that it would be. It is clear that the implementation of the legislation will have an effect on the business of some registered firearms dealers, although the extent of that effect will vary between different businesses and cannot be predicted accurately. We would not agree that the effect of the Bill amounts to expropriation of the dealers' business. We consider that the measures are contained within the margin of appreciation which the Government enjoy to determine measures of control over the use of property in accordance with the general interest.

Another question posed by the noble Lord was whether the Government accept that the grant of licences to firearms dealers creates legitimate expectations that they would receive compensation as a result of the legislation. We do not accept that the granting of licences to deal in firearms created expectations that compensation would be paid if the value of the business were to diminish. Registration of a firearms dealer does no more than give that person lawful authority to deal in firearms.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked how a fair balance can be achieved between the general interests of the community and the individual rights of dealers without the payment of compensation for the loss of business in breach of their legitimate expectations. We do not accept the premise that legitimate expectations to compensation for loss of business will have been created by giving authority to persons to deal in firearms. We are satisfied that our proposals represent a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights.

We believe that it would be unfair and would not represent that balance if we were to establish a precedent which meant that compensation was to be paid for any loss of business which might result from legislative requirements imposed in the interests of public safety.

The noble Lord asked how the United Kingdom can justify the difference in treatment between the owners of handguns who are to receive compensation, and registered firearms dealers who are to receive no compensation. There is no difference in treatment. As we made clear all along, compensation will be available both to lawful private owners of prohibited handguns and ancillary equipment and to firearms dealers. The Government will pay fair compensation to dealers for their stock of newly prohibited handguns, just as we shall pay fair compensation to individual firearms owners for the weapons which they will no longer be permitted to hold.

The noble Lord asked how Parliament could ensure that firearms dealers were paid compensation in the event of one of them succeeding in establishing a breach of the European convention. He went on to ask that in the event of the European Court of Human Rights ruling in favour of a registered firearms dealer, would there not be recurring expenditure of public funds which would require specific legislative authority?

It follows from what I have said that we do not accept the premise of those questions. We are satisfied that our proposals are in accordance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Those questions and the noble Lord's amendment in effect invite us to speculate about what might happen in the future if a firearms dealer were to seek to bring a case; if the Commission were to entertain such an application and if, in that event, the court were to find that a person had established a breach of his rights under the convention. We do not believe that that will happen. If it does, the Government will have to reconsider the position. But we cannot anticipate now what might or might not happen in the future and what the government of the day might or might not do in that event. Even if the court were to find that a violation had occurred, we cannot possibly predict what the violation would be nor the conclusion that the European Court might reach or in what terms it might make such a judgment. Therefore, we cannot say whether any future ruling of the court would create a need for expenditure of public funds which would require specific legislative authority.

It would be strange legislation indeed that contained a provision which said, in effect, that if other provisions of the legislation turned out to be in breach of international obligations, then we should do something else instead. That would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment and I urge the House to reject it. When that has been dealt with, I shall move that the House do not insist on Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 25A.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask this. The matter was put before the House by the noble Lord as a probing amendment for information. The Minister has provided the information. Is that the end of the matter or are we now to have a Division?

5 p.m.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill

My Lords, I am probably the better person to answer that question. I shall do so in a moment. First, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting and important debate. I make it clear also that I have not been speaking against the Bill, as some noble Lords have done. I support the broad objectives of the Bill. I have been speaking on a narrow issue, an issue which is important to me. I am not a shooter although I was once a marksman in the Army during the time of my national service. I am not in favour of or against shooters. I take no particular position on the Bill. I believe that where businesses are blighted, however, by the operation of law, and where legitimate expectation has been created, Parliament and the taxpayer should pay the consequences.

I am indebted to the Minister for the care with which she has answered each of my questions. I listened very carefully to those answers. I made it clear that the main purpose in introducing the matter was to obtain clarification. I would bet the Bank of England to a blood orange that other noble Lords remain as uncertain as I am having listened to those answers as to what is the true position.

Of course, in the end, this is a matter now for a judgment at Strasbourg rather than a matter for the judgment of this House and another place. At one point, the Minister referred to the margin of appreciation, using Euro-speak, as being that of the Government. There I think she was in error. It is not a margin of appreciation enjoyed by the Government. It is a margin of appreciation allowed to Parliament. The problem is that Parliament is now enacting a law and all these debates and everything said by noble Lords and Members of another place will no doubt be relied upon by the Government and against the Government if those proceedings take place.

The good news, no doubt for shooters as well as for the Government, is that I shall not have the pleasure of taking part in those proceedings in view of the part that I have played in my parliamentary role. But it is unsatisfactory that this House has no authoritative way of finding out what are our international treaty obligations and what the implications of passing legislation are likely to be except through the kind of exchange which your Lordships have had to bear today with me attempting to put questions to the Minister and the Minister having the disagreeable task of having to answer those questions, some of which are highly legalistic. I do not mean that the answers are legalistic; the issues are.

One noble Lord referred to Magna Carta. Another provision of Magna Carta, chapter 39, says that no free man shall be disseized of his possessions. I am very sorry as someone who is generally pro-European that we alone in Europe have no constitutional guarantees of basic rights and freedoms, including, I believe, the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions. It is that gap which cannot be cured by my amendment or any other amendment today which gives rise to that problem.

I am afraid that we must now pass the question not to another place, because I agree with those noble Lords who have pointed out the futility of seeking to do that at this stage, and not passing it as it should be passed to another place and for a judgment of both Houses, properly informed. I fear that now there must be litigation in Strasbourg which will take six years at least. Heaven knows who will then be in power to pick up the pieces. However, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo)

My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

No.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, the Question is that the Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"—

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Content.

The Deputy Speaker

To the contrary, "Not content."

Noble Lords

Not content.

The Deputy Speaker

The Not-Contents have it.

Noble Lords

Content.

The Deputy Speaker

Clear the Bar.

5.9 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (Amendment No. 25B) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents,24; Not-Contents, 160.

Division No. 2
CONTENTS
Ailsa, M.	Harris of High Cross, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Harrowby, E.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Hooson, L.
Carlisle, E.	Hylton, L.
Clancarty, E.	Monson, L. [Teller.]
Congleton, L.	Munster, E.
Cottesloe, L.	Plummer of St. Marylebone, L
Devonport, V.	Saint Oswald, L.
Glasgow, E	Stallard, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]	Warnock, B.
Swansea, L.	Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.
Thurso, V.	Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Goschen, V.
Acton, L.	Graham of Edmonton, L.
Addison, V.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.
Aldington, L.	Haskel, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Hayhoe, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Hayman, B.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.	Hemphill, L.
Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.	Henley, L.
Ashbourne, L.	Hogg, B.
Astor, V.	Holderness, L.
Astor of Hever, L.	Hollis of Heigham, B.
Balfour, E.	Hooper, B.
Banbury of Southam, L.	Howe, E.
Barnett, L.	Hughes, L.
Belstead, L.	Ilchester, E.
Berkeley, L.	Inglewood, L.
Berners, B.	Jeger, B.
Birdwood, L.	Jenkins of Putney, L.
Blackstone, B.	Keyes, L.
Blaker, L.	Kilbracken, L.
Blatch, B.	Kimball, L.
Borrie, L.	Kinnoull, E.
Bowness, L.	Knollys, V.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Laing of Dunphail, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L.	Lauderdale, E.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Long, V.
Butterfield, L.	Longford, E.
Byford, B.	Lucas, L.
Campbell of Alloway, L.	Lyell, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	McColl of Dulwich, L.
Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Carnock, L.	Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Chelmsford, V.	Mackay of Drumadoon, L.
Chesham, L. [Teller.]	McNally, L.
Clanwilliam, E.	Marlesford, L.
Clark of Kempston, L.	Merrivale, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.	Mersey, V.
Cobbold, L.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Coleraine, L.	Milverton, L.
Courtown, E.	Monckton of Brenchley, V.
Cowley, E.	Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Crathorne, L.	Mottistone, L.
Crickhowell, L.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Cuckney, L.	Nelson, E.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Nickson, L.
Cumberlege, B.	Nicol, B.
Dacre of Glanton, L.	Norrie, L.
David, B.	Northesk, E.
Davidson, V.	O'Cathain, B.
Dean of Harptree, L.	Pender, L.
Denbigh, E.	Pike, B.
Denham, L.	Quinton, L.
Denton of Wakefield, B.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Dormand of Easington, L.	Rawlinson of Ewell, L.
Dubs, L.	Rees, L.
Dudley, E.	Richard, L.
Dundonald, E.	Romney, E.
Elles, B.	Rotherwick, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Rowallan, L.
Elton, L.	St Davids, V.
Erne, E.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Feldman, L.	Seccombe, B.
Ferrers, E.	Serota, B.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.	Shaw of Northstead, L.
Gallacher, L.	Sheppard of Didgemere, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Skelmersdale, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Stevens of Ludgate, L.	Tollemache, L.
Stewartby, L.	Trumpington, B.
Strabolgi, L.	Turner of Camden, B.
Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]	Westbury, L.
Sudeley, L.	White, B.
	Williams of Elvel, L.
Swinfen, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.	Wolfson, L.
Taylor of Warwick, L.	Wynford, L.
Tenby, V.	Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.19 p.m.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 25A.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 25A.—(Baroness Blatch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

27 After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—

COMPENSATION FOR CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS

(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996 were operating a target shooting club or association which as a result of the provisions of this Act will be unable to continue to operate.

(2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide payments in respect of loss incurred by persons who have responsibility for any debt, mortgage, lease or other liability in connection with the club or association.")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—

27A Because it involves a charge on the public revenue and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 27A.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 27A.—(Baroness Blatch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

34 Clause 19, page 10, line 3, at end insert—

("(2D) A small-calibre pistol delivered into police custody by virtue of a notice under section 18(2) above shall not be released to any person except on the authority of the chief officer of police into whose custody it was delivered. (2E) The holder of a firearm certificate relating to the pistol, or any other person who may lawfully have the pistol in his possession, may apply in writing to the chief officer for the release of the pistol (whether to him or to a person nominated by him). (2F) When such an application is made the chief officer of police may require such written statements, from any person, as he considers necessary for the purpose of determining the application.")

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—

34A Line 3, leave out 'section 18(2)' and insert 'subsection (2)'.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34A to Lords Amendment No. 34.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34A to Lords Amendment No. 34.—(Baroness Blatch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

40 Clause 20, page 10, line 16, at end insert—

("(3) A member of a licensed pistol club approved by the Secretary of State may, without holding a firearm certificate, use under the supervision of an officer of the club, for a period not exceeding 60 consecutive days, a small-calibre pistol and ammunition when engaged as a member of the club in, or in connection with, target shooting.")

The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu—

40A Page 7, line 26, leave out from 'premises' to first 'a' in line 27 and insert 'in connection with target shooting, unless the club is a licensed pistol club.

(1A) No licensed pistol club shall allow a small-calibre pistol to be stored or used on any of its club premises by any holder of'.

40B Page 7, line 29, leave out from beginning to second 'the'.

40C Page 7, line 35, leave out from beginning to first 'the' and insert 'Subsection (1A) above does not apply to—

1. (a) the storage on licensed premises of a licensed pistol club of a small-calibre pistol purchased or acquired by the responsible officer of that club for use only by members of the club in connection with target shooting;
2. (b) the use on licensed premises of a licensed pistol club of a small-calibre pistol by a member of the club who is permitted to have it in his possession by virtue of section 20(3) below; or
3. (c)'.

40D Page 7, line 40, after '(1)' insert 'or (1A)'.

40E Page 8, line 19, at end insert—

'( ) A licence may include limitations excluding or restricting the application of section 20(3) below to members of the club.'

40F Page 10, line 16, at end insert—

'(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, a member of a licensed pistol club who has not previously held a firearm certificate in relation to a small-calibre pistol may, without holding a firearm certificate, have in his possession a small-calibre pistol and ammunition on licensed premises of that club when engaged in connection with target shooting under the supervision of an officer of the club.

(4) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to a person after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the first day on which he has a small-calibre pistol in his possession by virtue of that subsection.

(5) The application of subsection (3) above to members of a licensed pistol club may be excluded or restricted in relation to the club by limitations contained in the licence.'

40G Page 11, line 36, leave out from 'any' to 'are' in line 37 and insert 'limitations or conditions contained in the licence of the club'.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 40, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40A to 40G in lieu thereof.

In accepting Amendment No. 40 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, at Third Reading, I undertook to explore urgently with the police and others whether a workable arrangement could be found which would allow a person to shoot at a licensed pistol club for a limited period of time without the need to hold a full firearm certificate.

The amendments tabled in another place in lieu of Amendment No. 40 are the Government's response. They make provisions for people who wish to take up target pistol shooting.

The general rule for small-calibre pistol clubs under the Bill will be that anyone who shoots there will have to have a personal firearm certificate issued by the police. However, we agree that it is unreasonable to expect people who are interested in the sport to obtain and pay the fee for a firearm certificate for a small-calibre pistol before even having a chance to try out the sport.

The amendments that the Government have now made to the Bill allow for the Secretary of State, when he issues a licence to a pistol club, to permit starter shooters to use small-calibre pistols without having a firearm certificate for a period of up to 28 days. The police expressed concerns about the length of time—60 days—which the original amendment would allow. We have taken that advice and have accepted that 28 days is a reasonable compromise. I commend the amendments to the House.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 40, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40A to 40G in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Blatch.)

Lord Monson

My Lords, we must be grateful for small mercies. I am truly grateful to the noble Baroness for having been able to persuade her right honourable friends of the need for an amendment along these lines.

I am not happy about the 28-day limitation. I had already reduced the trial period from 90 to 60 days in the belief that that was the period of time acceptable to the Government. Twenty-eight days may well be adequate—albeit barely adequate—for a beginner who happens to live within two, three, or four miles of a pistol club. That person could attend three or four times a week. But only a minority of clubs, as we understand it, will be licensed to accommodate what might be described as 28-day probationers. Moreover, the expensive security provisions that will be required in the absence of the disassembly amendment which was not carried will drive many pistol clubs out of business.

It therefore appears likely that the majority of beginners will be limited to practising once a week over a period of four weeks—four times in all. Realistically, although there was a lot of opposition in another place to the 28-day limitation from honourable Members on both sides, it is probably too late to do anything about the matter now.

However, another possible problem arises. In the other place two days ago the Minister, Miss Ann Widdecombe, (at cols. 817 and 818 of Commons Hansard) seemed to imply that a probationer who, after 28 days, decided that he would indeed like to take up pistol shooting would have to pay for the firearm certificate, backdated to the first day of his 28-day probationary period, even though it takes several weeks for a firearm certificate to be granted. If that were to be case, he would effectively be paying for about three months in all when he would be able to shoot only four or so times.

I had been advised, confusing though the Minister's statement was, that I had misinterpreted it and there was no need to worry on that score, and that any licence taken up will run from the day that it is issued and will not be backdated. Before we leave this amendment, will the noble Baroness be so kind as to reassure me on that score?

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I am happy to reassure the noble Lord about the position. The fee of £56 for the granting of a firearm certificate does not become payable until the certificate is granted. The certificate lasts for five years from when it is granted. The 28 days which the person spends as a starter shooter will not be deducted from that period.

For example, if a starter shooter began shooting on 1st February, he could shoot in that club until the end of February without holding or having applied for a firearm certificate. If he wanted to take up shooting, he should then apply for a firearm certificate. If the application was successful, and if a certificate was granted, for example, on 20th March, it would last five years from 20th March and he would pay the usual fee of £56 and no more.

Lord Monson

My Lords, I am entirely content with that. I thank the Minister.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

50 Clause 27, page 13, line 12, at end insert ("or a visitor's firearm or shot gun permit")

The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—

50A Page 13. line 12, after 'a' insert firearm or shotgun'.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 50. I commend the amendment to the House.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 50.—(Baroness Blotch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

79 Clause 35, page 19, line 10, after ("rifle") insert ("or muzzle-loading pistol")

The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—

79A Page 19, line 16, after 'club' insert 'or, as the case may be, muzzle-loading pistol club'.

LORDS AMENDMENT

84 Clause 36, page 19, line 27, leave out second ("firearm") and insert ("rifle")

The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—

84A Page 19, line 32, leave out firearms' and insert 'rifles'.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79A and 84A, as consequential amendments to Lords Amendments Nos. 79 and 84.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79A and 84A as consequential amendments to Lords Amendments Nos. 79 and 84.—(Baroness Blotch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

93 Clause 39, page 21, line 25, after ("11") insert ("or(Compensation scheme for firearms dealers)")

The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu—

93A Page 21, line 25, leave out 'section 11 above' and insert 'this Act'.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 93, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93A in lieu thereof.

This is a technical amendment. It ensures that any sums required to be paid for compensation under the Act shall be paid for out of money provided by Parliament.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 93, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Blotch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

96 Schedule 1, page 23, line 7, leave out ("purchased or acquired") and insert ("contracted to acquire")

The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—

96A Page 23, line 24, leave out from 'possession' to end of line 25.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 96. I commend the amendment.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 96.—(Baroness Blotch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

98 Schedule 1, page 23, line 36, leave out ("at a designated police station") and insert ("in police custody")

The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—

98A Page 4, line 24, leave out from 'from' to 'under' in line 25 and insert 'police custody'.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 98A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 98. I commend the amendment.

Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 98A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 98.—(Baroness Blatch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT

105 Schedule 2, page 26, line 39, at end insert— (".In section 38(8) (surrender of register of transactions by dealer) after the words "this Act" there shall be inserted "(or, if the register is kept by means of a computer, a copy of the information comprised in that register in a visible and legible form)".")

The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—

105A Page 10, line 1, leave out from 'him' to 'within' in line 2 and insert 'the register kept by him under section 21 below (or, if the register is kept by means of a computer, a copy of the information comprised in the register in a visible and legible form)'.

Baroness Blatch

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 105. I commend the amendment.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 105.—(Baroness Blatch.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.