Sitting of 16 October 1997

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Norwich): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Sandberg
Sir Michael Graham Ruddock Sandberg, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Sandberg, of Passfield in the County of Hampshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Swaythling and the Lord Harris of Greenwich.
Baroness Fookes
Dame Janet Evelyn Fookes, OBE, having been created Baroness Fookes, of Plymouth in the County of Devon, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Clifford of Chudleigh and the Lord Weatherill.

Car Safety Standards: MoT Scheme
3.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What changes they propose should be made in the statutory system of testing motor cars after three years on the road in order to improve safety standards and to protect the interests of car owners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, we keep the MoT scheme under continuous review. We have no plans to introduce major new items into the car test or to make any changes to the arrangements for carrying out tests, although we are planning to introduce more extensive checks on seat belts as from next February. We are also planning to introduce computerisation into the scheme over the next few years to enable the department's vehicle inspectorate to monitor testing standards more closely, to help ensure a high level of compliance and to improve consumer protection.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply which shows that progress is being made. Does she agree that there are two serious weaknesses at present: first, that some garages fail to discover important defects; and, secondly, that other garages overcharge customers by prescribing work not necessary for the test? As about a quarter of all the cars in the country of three or more years of age come up for the test in July each year owing to the popularity of new registration letters issued only in August, will the
546
Minister tell us when that system is to be changed to relieve the pressure on garages at one particular time of the year?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, to take the second part of the noble Lord's question first, we are looking, with the motor industry, at changing the system of the annual peak in car sales. We have reached the point where we have pretty well agreed that as soon as possible after the R registration expires we will introduce a six monthly system of change, which is what the industry was asking for, until the current alphabet expires. We shall then look at a new system for number plates which will also be on a six-monthly basis.
As regards the first point made by the noble Lord, we are looking at ways of ensuring that there are uniformly high standards among the many outlets that provide MoT tests at the moment. As well as the computerisation system, which will allow us to monitor results from individual garages, the vehicle inspectorate will shortly be introducing a new disciplinary system for dealing with bad testing.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, what plans, if any, do the Government have for testing emissions on older cars which pollute the air in London and other cities?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, emission testing is now part of the MoT test, and that is important. But, of course, the MoT test takes place only once a year. Noble Lords may be aware that we have introduced an experimental scheme of roadside emission testing that local authorities can undertake to target such cars, and the antisocial behaviour of people who are running cars with high emissions, on a fixed penalty basis. We are piloting that in six authorities.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the computerisation that she mentioned is fully picking up on a speedy basis, uninsured drivers and unlicensed cars?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Viscount that assurance at the moment because the system is not yet in place. We shall need to ensure that it interacts with the DVLA computerisation so that we have a check between the annual VED licence, the insurance status—I know that the insurance industry itself is looking at introducing a database on that—and the MoT test. When we can get those three systems talking to one another we shall have a much better enforcement system in place in this country.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the Minister give the House the assurance that she will not depend unduly on the results that emerge from the computer? Many of us would prefer her own judgment in these matters.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on policy matters, I can assure my noble friend that I do not intend to

547
step aside for the results of a computer. In terms of the information technology and the database, I am afraid that the computer's mind is better than my own.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, will the Minister explain further about the computerisation and where exactly it is to be installed? Many of us would hope that if computerisation is introduced to the system of testing it is not done in such a way as to put an extensive burden on small but honest garages so that they are unable to undertake the testing. That would also be to the detriment of many members of the public who have older cars and who wish to keep them on the road as essentials, not luxuries. Being able to have those vehicles tested locally is important.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord. Computerisation is not intended to be a particular difficulty for the many small outlets which, as he suggested, are undertaking tests at the moment, although, as the tests become more sophisticated, for example over emissions, some of the equipment that is necessary to ensure high standards becomes more expensive to install. It is important to recognise that the present paper system of testing is unsatisfactory in many respects, not least because of the possibility for fraud and theft.

Armed Forces: Recruitment of Ethnic Minorities
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Serotaasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to improve recruitment among ethnic minorities in the Armed Forces.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, it is the Government's view that the Armed Forces should better reflect the ethnic composition of the society that they seek to defend. All the services are paying particular attention to recruitment from ethnic minority groups. The Army initiated a campaign to that end on 13th October 1997. It includes a new complaints procedure, the formation of an equal opportunities inquiry team to work outside the chain of command on complaints of racism, and a specialist recruitment team made up of Army personnel from the ethnic minorities. A number of further measures are being investigated.
Baroness Serota: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank my noble friend the Minister for that encouraging reply and take the opportunity to congratulate the Army on this new initiative to grapple with racial discrimination and to promote equal opportunities for members of ethnic minorities who, until now, have formed some 1 per cent. only of our defence forces. Will my noble friend tell us what steps are taken by the other two services in that respect? Presumably it is through single-service campaigns.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the Army is taking the lead in these matters. The other services will of course be
548
hoping to learn from their advantages. One of the things that we believe it necessary to do before we are successful in establishing a local recruitment campaign is to ensure that the services have a presence in the communities from which they are seeking to recruit. That will be the objective not just of the Army but of the other services.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the decision to introduce one of the two pilot schemes into Sandwell has been warmly welcomed by the local community? While I appreciate that the mills of MoD grind slowly, can he tell us anything else about what is proposed and how we can help?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend who, of course, used to be my neighbour in another place for many years. We held exploratory talks with the leader of Sandwell Council, Mr. Tarsem King, and other members of the council on 26th September to discuss the possibility of a recruitment drive in Sandwell. I am glad to say that our proposals were met with considerable enthusiasm and that the local council is supporting our initiative. We are now looking for the best possible way to take that forward, involving senior members of the ethnic community, religious leaders, the local authority and the police.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the steps which have been taken this week by the Army, but does he agree that there is a long way to go? Does he recall that he gave me a Written Answer in July telling me that there were fewer than 10 representatives of the ethnic minorities serving in the Household Division and that two regiments had no representatives from the ethnic minorities? Does he further agree that any police force that had such a record would be subject to severe criticism? I therefore hope that the steps he has taken today will lead to a radical improvement in the situation.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. I do of course remember the reply which I gave him earlier this year. Indeed, I reflected upon it in preparing my answers today. He is quite right in what he said about the under-representation of ethnic minorities in particular areas of the services. One difficulty is that when one element of the services has, in the past, achieved a rather unfavourable name in those matters, it is difficult to persuade people to want to volunteer for those areas. However, I am fairly confident that before many months have passed, the noble Lord will see an improvement in precisely the areas which he has identified.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government's wholly admirable commitment to improving the representation of ethnic minorities in the Armed Forces extends not only to the creation of the multi-racial recruitment team which he mentioned but also to ensuring that individual personnel

549
from appropriate ethnic minorities are represented among recruitment staff wherever there is a large number of people from ethnic minorities among the population.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, first, it is my very pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord on his appointment to the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that he and I shall enjoy many years' jousting in the particular positions which we currently occupy. On the substantive point which he raised, that is indeed one of our proposals. We intend to include members of ethnic minorities in the service recruitment teams.
Lord Meston: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Armed Forces are drawing on the particular expertise of the Commission for Racial Equality not only to ensure fair recruitment but to ensure the retention of ethnic minority service men?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that intervention. We are very closely engaged with the CRE and always have been, as were our predecessors in that respect. I hope that that co-operation will intensify in the years ahead.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, while this measure has general support, will the Minister assure the House that ethnic origin will not take precedence over the aptitude and qualifications of people wishing to join the Army?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, there has never been any suggestion that people should be promoted if their abilities do not qualify them for that promotion. The sad fact is that there are many highly qualified members of the ethnic communities whom we have not yet succeeded in attracting to the Armed Forces, the kind of people who make very successful careers in the professions.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will it be a serious disciplinary offence for there to be proven abuse of a racial nature?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, that is already a serious disciplinary offence.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind the need to encourage members of the ethnic minorities into the Territorial Army, particularly where their premises are located in inner city areas like Lambeth?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, certainly it is part of our policy to encourage members of the ethnic minorities into all parts of the services which includes the Territorial Army as well as the full-time services. What is more, we intend to ensure that we not only recruit them but that we retain them and that they get a fair crack at promotion too.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, as a former Minister responsible for the Army, perhaps I may add my support
550
for the initiatives which are being taken. Will the Minister confirm that the senior levels of the Army are certainly very positive on those matters and that what is required is to extend that positive support right through the ranks of the Army?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his remarks. It is absolutely true that at the senior level of not only the Army but all the services, there is an absolute determination that racism shall not play any part in the every-day life of the services. I believe that the progress that has been made recently, and certainly our predecessors should share in the credit for that, has been extremely satisfactory. There was a time when the lower ranks and senior NCOs were not so seized of those matters. I am glad to say that that situation has now changed and it will be only a short time before we see a considerable improvement.

Early Years Education
3.34 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbredeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made towards integrated education provision for children under five following the ending of the nursery voucher scheme.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, all local authorities will draw up an early years development plan for implementation from April 1998. The plans will show how early education places for all four year-olds will be secured by September 1998. The plans will also examine how early education can be integrated with day care.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer and congratulate her department on its progress in meeting that manifesto commitment. I should like also to welcome the Prime Minister's recent statement about setting up a committee for the family which I believe will be chaired by the Home Secretary. Perhaps I may convey to my noble friend that I have heard concern expressed that that committee should have as wide a remit as possible and should not concentrate only on problem families, which is the fear of some people in the voluntary sector. I am sure that my noble friend is aware that ordinary families need the integrated support of childcare for under fives, flexible working practices and many other measures which that committee should have within its remit. I should be grateful if my noble friend would convey that concern to the Home Secretary.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his remarks about the speed with which we are dealing with our manifesto commitment to provide places for four year-olds in nursery schools or classes.

551
As regards the inter-departmental group to be chaired by the Home Secretary, I shall certainly convey to my right honourable friend that there is concern in the voluntary organisations about that. I am not sure that there is a need for such concern. I know that the group will have a wide-ranging remit and will look at all the issues which my noble friend raised. But in particular it will address the issue of how we can develop good parenting skills. I am sure that everybody in your Lordships' House will agree that it is enormously important that we should provide the help and support which parents need to be good parents. That is desirable both from the point of view of children's education, including young children, but also in helping to avoid juvenile crime.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is a bit late for some of us to learn how to be good parents. Will my noble friend clarify one matter in her original Answer? I believe that she said that by the start of the school year 1998 all four year-olds will be in some form of education. Will she define whether she meant those who are already four or those who will become four in the subsequent academic year?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend was learning how to be a good grandparent. I have observed him in that role and he is carrying it out very effectively. It is the Government's intention to have all children who are already aged four in nursery schools and classes by the autumn term of 1998: 79 LEAs are already able to meet that target. It will be more difficult for some LEAs to achieve the target but we are confident that they will succeed. Many of the children who will be starting will not be four years old when they start but will become four years old during the term in which they take up their place.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House how many places have been lost to the private sector and the pre-school playgroups sector for children under five? In the absence of that information, will she assure us that she will bring it to the House? I am referring to the past six months. Will the noble Baroness tell the House also what are the adult-pupil ratios which apply to state provision in mainstream schools for under fives and the pupil-adult ratio which applies to private provision and pre-school playgroups?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Baroness back to the field of education and employment. She and I have experience of sparring in such matters in the past when she was on this side of the House and I was on the other. I also express the hope that the mistake made by the Guardian yesterday, which described me as "Lady Tessa Blatch", will not be repeated by other newspapers which might describe the noble Baroness as "Lady Emily Blackstone". Such hybrids do not exist.
In answer to the noble Baroness's question, it has been said, although I cannot confirm such figures, that about 800 places have been lost in playgroups over
552
the past year. That is a matter of great regret. The Government value the work undertaken by playgroups. However, that is a direct result of the competition between different participants in the sector which derived from the introduction of nursery vouchers. We hope that the new spirit of partnership and co-operation that we are developing in the provision of early childhood education will alter the situation.
As regards the noble Baroness's final question about ratios of adults to children in different types of provision, I shall have to reply by letter because I cannot produce such figures off the top of my head.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the great satisfaction felt on these Benches, and indeed by thousands of parents throughout the country, over the Government's swift action in getting rid of the ludicrous voucher system? In view of what has been said—and I should like to congratulate my noble friend on the provision for four year-olds—can she say what opportunity there will be for the private and voluntary sectors to ensure universal provision for four year-olds, especially as there is such a wide variation in that provision among local authorities?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there may be an even more significant role for private providers of one sort or another in making available places for three year-olds. Approximately 35 per cent. of three year-olds are currently able to take a place in some form of state provision. So there is still a big gap to fill. Indeed, that is a gap that we would encourage playgroups to fill, and we hope that they will do so. However, there will also be a place for private sector providers as far as concerns four year-olds, as some parents want full-time places for four year-olds from perhaps as early as eight in the morning to as late as six in the evening; namely, those parents who are out at work and who need full-time childcare. The private sector will continue in partnership with the state sector to make such provision available.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as the Government believe that the voucher scheme was such a very bad idea and that their new approach is so much better, can the Minister tell the House why the scheme is continuing, in Scotland?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am extremely sorry. I am not able to answer the noble Baroness's question. To be frank, I was not aware that the scheme was continuing in Scotland. However, I shall write to her when I have consulted my colleagues in the Scottish Office.

Northern Ireland: Principle of Consent
3.43 p.m.
Viscount Cranborneasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the Prime Minister's recent visit to Northern Ireland and the debate over the movement of prisoners, they can assure the House

553
that they have no intention of weakening the principle of consent embodied in the last government's undertaking to the people of Northern Ireland known as the "Triple Lock".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs): My Lords, the Government remain fully committed to the principle of consent in all its aspects, in particular that any change in the status of Northern Ireland should only come about with the consent of a majority of the people there. We regard consent as a guiding principle in the negotiations now taking place in Belfast. We want those negotiations to produce a comprehensive agreement which is supported by unionists and nationalists, which secures consensus among the parties, is endorsed by the Northern Ireland people in a referendum, and is approved by Parliament. We thus remain firmly committed to the triple lock.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am more grateful than I can say to the noble Lord for the terms in which he has answered my Question. I take his response to be a very clear undertaking that the Government will in no way water down what the last Government understood by the phrase, "Triple Lock", in spite of some obvious wavering on the part of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the past. For that, I believe all citizens of the United Kingdom can be duly grateful this afternoon.
Can the Minister give a further undertaking that, when it comes to a referendum on any proposals coming out of the talks—which of course we continue to wish well—the referendum will have some chance of being conducted according to new rules which might have universal application to referendums held anywhere in the United Kingdom? The noble Lord will be well aware of some of the doubts expressed in the past about the way that the Government have conducted referendums since 1st May.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, as regards the noble Viscount's first point, there is no wavering on the part of any member of the Government; indeed, we remain firmly committed to the principles that I have enunciated. As regards the question about referenda and the precise procedures, the noble Viscount will understand that I cannot possibly define the method of holding referenda here. However, I shall ensure that the points he has made are shared with the other Northern Ireland Ministers in moving forward on the matter.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister on the terms of the triple lock which he has just explained to the House. The first lock of the three is the agreement of the parties in Northern Ireland, as enunciated by the previous Prime Minister. Does this mean—and it is best to be clear on such matters—the agreement of all the parties to the negotiations from Sinn Fein through to the DUP? Alternatively, does it mean—as I believe the Minister's words implied—the agreement of as many parties as can and will agree, and certainly embracing consensus
554
between mainstream unionists and nationalists as well as the Alliance party? Can the Minister say which of those it means?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord got it in his second version. Clearly, we would not want these talks to founder if one single party participating decided not to agree with the outcome. Therefore, what we are looking for, and what we see as agreement, is that the mainstream unionists and mainstream nationalists should give their support to the outcome of the talks.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that consent is implicit in the face of a divided Northern Ireland, that there can be no other way and, indeed, that no government, either on this side of the water or on the other, could impose such a decision? Consent is there and was recognised by Mr. de Valera. Will my noble friend further agree that raising the Question in this manner today—that is, in a questioning manner—might do more harm than good? It is not a questionable matter; it is there, and needs no questioning.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his contribution. Yes, I entirely agree that the principle of consent, as he described and as I said in answer to the Question, is absolutely fundamental to the process. As regards the usefulness of the Question today, that is not a matter for me to comment upon.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an assurance that there were no discussions between any Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, or any civil servant, and any so-called "loyalist" party about the transfer of Jason Campbell from prison in Scotland to a much more "cushy" and comfortable prison in Northern Ireland? If there were any such discussions, will the noble Lord inform the House as soon as possible as to who took part, giving names and telling us exactly what happened?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not aware of any such discussions having taken place. However, it is my understanding—anyone watching the television broadcasts would have seen this—that one of the loyalist parties was on record as having asked for the particular transfer of Jason Campbell to take place. That request was then retracted by the same member of that loyalist party. As I said, I am not aware of any discussions taking place. Communication took place, but no discussions.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, notwithstanding the implication of the noble Viscount's Question, is the Minister aware that by meeting Mr. Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, this week in Belfast, the Prime Minister was in some fashion resiling from the commitments of the previous government? The previous Prime Minister—it was a government of which the noble Viscount was a distinguished member—did much to establish the talks process. Indeed, the previous Prime

555
Minister was prepared to meet Mr. Adams and would undoubtedly have done so in fairly short order if it had not been for the intervention of the Provisional IRA with its outrage perpetrated at Canary Wharf. Therefore, the current Prime Minister deserves the overwhelming support enjoyed in this House and elsewhere by the previous Prime Minister for his excellent work.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not, of course, in a position to comment one way or the other on the internal deliberations of the previous administration. I do not have access to the kind of knowledge that the noble Lord has had. It is for noble Lords to comment on the remarks made by the noble Viscount who tabled the Question. It is a matter of public record that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the previous administration and his Minister of State had a number of meetings with Sinn Fein following the announcement of the IRA ceasefire in August 1994.

Public Processions etc. (Northern Ireland) Bill [H.L.]
3.49 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to public processions in Northern Ireland; to provide for the establishment and functions of a Parades Commission concerned with public processions and other expressions of cultural identity in Northern Ireland; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.— (Lord Dubs.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Plant Varieties Bill
3.50 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Plant Varieties Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 5 to 39,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 40 to 49,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 50 and 51.—(Lord Carter.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, it has been agreed between the usual channels that the House will sit at 2.15 p.m. every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday when there are three introductions. This means that the House will sit at that time every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday from Tuesday 21st October to Wednesday 19th November inclusive. Any further 2.15 sittings will be announced in due course. Sitting time on Thursday remains at 3 p.m.

Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Bill [H.L.]
3.51 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move on behalf of my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ministerial and other Salaries Bill
3.53 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Last year the Senior Salaries Review Body completed a major review of parliamentary pay and allowances. In addition to reviewing the levels of ministerial salaries, the SSRB made a recommendation (recommendation 14) on the way in which salaries should be increased in the future. This was in direct response to item (vi) of the remit which it was given by the then Prime Minister to consider,
"a linkage to provide the basis for annual uprating in future years without the need for Parliamentary decision".
The SSRB's recommendation was that the salaries of Members of another place, Ministers and office holders should be linked to movements in the senior Civil Service pay bands. The Bill follows on from the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1996, which put into effect the SSRB's substantive recommendations and was made on 23rd July 1996, and the Solicitor General's Salary Order 1997, which set the salary for the Solicitor General at the appropriate level for that Minister in the House. That order was made on 26th June 1997.
The linkage will increase ministerial and other salaries by the same percentage as the average of the movements in the mid-points of the nine senior

557
Civil Service pay bands. In the SSRB's own words, this mechanism should result in salaries not,
"leading or unduly lagging behind, general pay changes in the public sector".
This automatic annual adjustment has already been put in place for Members of another place, under the resolution of that House of 10th July 1996. This Bill provides exactly the same mechanism for Ministers.
The Bill will mean that an annual Ministerial and Other Salaries Order, with its attendant debate, will no longer be necessary as increases will be calculated by simply applying a standard percentage increase under an agreed formula. The Bill will not do away with the need to obtain parliamentary approval for special orders where a structural change is necessary, for instance, the 1996 Ministerial and Other Salaries Order or the Solicitor General's Salary Order this year. If, at some time in the future, it is necessary to change the formula which underlies this linking mechanism, it would be necessary for Parliament to approve a new order setting out a replacement formula. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Richard.)
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for the way in which he introduced the Bill. He will not be altogether surprised to hear that we welcome the Bill as we hope that it will at last bring some form of order to this delicate and difficult subject. Certainly we on this side of the House, with our recent experience of ministerial office, see no reason why Ministers should not be rewarded for what are after all long hours and sometimes, it seems, more kicks than halfpence. I am sure that with his experience the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal can at least sympathise with that observation.
We are equally aware that Ministers are quite rightly brought to account by Parliament and censured if they fail. It is one of the few remaining professions where there is little protection of employment legislation in force. We in no way suggest that such legislation should be extended to Ministers. I note that the principle of the Bill had the warm support of all sides of the House before the election. We were grateful to the Labour Party for that support and we reciprocate it now. We believe that in delicate matters of this kind it is important, if possible, to proceed on a non-partisan basis, even given the caveat that I well remember from another place that Back-Benchers should always beware when both Opposition Front Benches appear to be in agreement.
Far be it from me to venture even the gentlest advice to the Government in matters of this kind. However, I hope, if I may say so, that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will not allow his colleagues to wear hair shirts too publicly in a sort of competitive bidding for who can take the lowest salary increase. I am sure that all of us, whatever our political differences, recognise that Ministers work long hours; that we need to attract people of ability to politics; and that a proper level of salaries has an important role to play in attracting people
558
to serve the country in this way. I am not entirely convinced that this kind of public wearing of sackcloth and ashes either adds to the dignity of political life, which is an honourable profession, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, or indeed that the public are convinced by it. I am certain that this House would above all want to see the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal properly rewarded as he defends the privileges and the position of this House whether vis-à-vis another place or the public at large.
I wish to ask the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal one question. I wonder whether he will recall that during the course of exchanges on allied matters before the election he properly asked me what progress had occurred in the further investigation by the Perry Committee of salaries for Ministers and allowances for Members of this place. I know that is something he and his party feel strongly about. Can he take this opportunity—perhaps it is not entirely in order—to advise the House what the present position is and whether progress has been made under his prompting?
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the final point that he made which I also wish to make. The House will recall that when we debated these matters in November of last year, almost a year ago, one or two of us asked about junior Ministers' salaries and about the expenses of Members of this House. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, charitably and kindly agreed to refer those matters back to the Top Salaries Review Body. Subsequently some of us were asked to give evidence to that body. I was asked but could not attend because unfortunately I was in hospital. However, other people attended. Since then there has been total silence.
The Top Salaries Review Body having been asked 12 months ago to review a matter, it is totally discourteous to this House for it not to report back to the House. I do not wish to go over the ground. However, as in the previous Government, in this Government junior Ministers are working extremely hard, carrying great responsibilities of state, but being paid salaries which are less than those of Back-Bench Members of Parliament in another place. That cannot be right. An old trade union principle of paying the rate for the job should apply to Ministers who carry responsibility in this House or anywhere else. The matter needs to be rectified. With regard to the dignity of this place, it cannot be right for Ministers serving in this House to be so underpaid.
As regards our expenses, no one whom I have met wishes to make any profit from serving in this House. But allowances for Members of the House of Lords are inadequate. For example, one cannot possibly stay in a decent London hotel for the overnight rate that is paid. If one has a flat or accommodation, as some of us do, and has to take it for 12 months, it is ludicrous that it is empty for four months of that time; but one is expected to subsidise the country.
The position regarding secretarial allowances is even worse. This is an important new point. We now have more and more working Peers who require to undertake research. They require some secretarial assistance.

559
As noble Lords know, the more one works and the more correspondence one receives, the greater the need for a secretary. To be paid for one's secretary on only certain days of the week is ludicrous.
I support the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will ensure that the Top Salaries Review Body pays this House the courtesy of listening to our representations with great care and of replying to them.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say a few words in reply.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his general support for the Bill. Constitutionally and aesthetically, I am not inclined towards hair shirts. I do not think that they would sit well upon my chest. They would certainly be scratchy and rather unpleasant. I am not sure whether I am supposed to wear the sackcloth and ashes together with the hair shirt or whether those come separately, but I take the point that the noble Viscount makes.
As regards his other point, which was reiterated by my noble friend Lord Howell, I shall make sure that the representations and the inquiries made to this House get on to the appropriate desks. I shall ensure that they do so reasonably quickly. I hope that we shall receive a response as a result of this debate, also fairly quickly. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 14th October), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Fossil Fuel Levy Bill [H.L.]
4.4. p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Haskel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Supplies on which levy charged]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ezra: I had originally intended to move the amendment as printed on Sheet HL Bill 15(a). The purpose of the amendment was to use the opportunity presented by the present Bill to extend the sources of electrical power to which moneys raised via the fossil fuel levy could be applied by order. I had thought that this would be a reasonable amendment to make in view of the fact that the uses made of the fossil fuel levy had previously been modified in the Environment Act 1995. However, the Public Bill Office has advised me that in
560
its opinion the present Bill is so narrowly drawn that my amendment would be out of order. It did not consider that the amendment introduced into the Environment Act 1995 was a relevant precedent because that legislation was more widely drawn. It was suggested to me that by opposing the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, I should be able to make the points I had in mind and obtain the views of the Committee, as well as getting a response from the Minister. I wish to make it clear that I am not opposed to the present Bill. I support it and would like to get it through as quickly as possible. However, I have these points to make which I now wish to do.
The Government have, rightly in my opinion, made a commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. by the year 2010. This is very ambitious and if it is to be achieved much has to be done quickly. One of the means of doing so is to make use of the non-fossil fuel obligation to provide a stimulus to projects which can reduce such emissions and improve energy efficiency. However, as at present defined, the NFFO does not support heat producing technologies such as solar heating, community heating, anaerobic digestion and other similar processes. It does not support any general investment in energy efficiency. It does not support combined heat and power (CHP) other than when it is powered by energy from waste. It does not support solar photovolatics. It does not support cleaner coal technology. Yet all those will be vital to the achievement of an effective policy to tackle climate change.
The purpose of my amendment was to extend the system to include other projects of this nature where substantial savings could be made but some assistance was required to get the projects going.
In proposing to put forward the amendment, I had in mind in particular combined heat and power, where conversion efficiencies of up to 80 per cent. can be achieved. At present there are CHP schemes in the UK with a total capacity of around 3.5 gigawatts contributing only some 6 per cent. of the electricity supplied. The Government have proposed a target of between 10 gigawatts and 17 gigawatts by 2010—that is, three to five times the present amount. This will require great effort. I submit that the amendment that I had in mind would have helped.
I also had in mind cleaner coal technology, which would achieve substantial reductions in emissions and improved efficiency in the use of coal. This would give coal, which has suffered so much in recent years, a fighting chance to compete in the next century and not to be increasingly ruled out on environmental grounds. In the Second Reading debate on 18th July, the Committee will recall that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie—I am delighted to see him today—referred specifically to this issue and to the case for the use of the levy fund to,
"be extended to support the research and development of cleaner coal technologies".—[Official Report, 18/7/97; col. 1145.]
The proposed widening of the NFFO arrangements would of course be enabling. It would not oblige the Secretary of State to assist any particular project but would enable him to do so from a wider range of choices

561
than is at present possible. It had seemed to me that the Bill was an excellent vehicle for providing the Secretary of State with those wider powers, so that an increased impetus could be given to projects which could contribute to the carbon dioxide target but which required some degree of assistance to get off the ground. If separate government legislation was required to achieve such a widening, that could introduce a delay of something like two to three years, bearing in mind the pressure of government business in the present Session.
A whole range of measures need urgently to be put in place if the Government's target is to have any chance of being met. Widening the scope of the NFFO arrangements would be one of them. Indeed, that is specifically mentioned in the recently published report of the Government's Energy Advisory Panel. I therefore put it to the Committee, and specifically to the Minister, that if on technical grounds the amendment that I have in mind cannot be incorporated in the present Bill, some other way should quickly be found of achieving the objective. That means finding an alternative legislative route by which a widening of NFFO arrangements can be made.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: I support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, both in his initial amendment, which I am sorry did not pass the Table, and in this one, which he has devised in order that we can discuss the matter afresh.
I understand that the Bill is a technical measure to ensure that future support for the Government's programme of renewable power generation technology, such as wind and wave energy etc., will be levied from nuclear-generated electricity as well as from fossil fuel electricity.
One might ask: what of support for other energy efficient technologies, such as combined heat and power and clean coal technologies, to which the noble Lord referred. My noble friend realises that the Government have a commitment to reduce the United Kingdom's CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. by the year 2010; and energy efficiency must play a part in achieving that objective. In this regard, is there not a need to support clean coal demonstration power stations if the United Kingdom is to benefit from the security of supply and sustainability that United Kingdom coal reserves can offer. Only with clean coal technology can we meet our international obligations—and, importantly, help to sustain our coal industry.
The United Kingdom has now only 20,000 people directly employed in pits. The coalfield communities feel that they have already suffered too much misery, despair and mass unemployment due to Heseltine's cruel cuts in the pit closure programme. Now the industry is looking to this Government; it seeks new ideas from New Labour—renewed hope for our coalfield areas. Is the Minister aware that the Bill could he amended to give coal an opportunity to play its role in reducing CO2 and other emissions, and also advancing clean coal technology by benefiting from the fossil fuel levy?
562
Is the Minister further aware that there is now much unease in the coalfield areas? A lot of uncertainty is arising again about the future. He must be aware that a mass lobby is now being generated by the Coal Field Community Campaign, the Confederation of United Kingdom Coal Producers and Labour Members of Parliament, especially those in coalfield regions. I was pleased to note that during the course of the previous debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, also gave the industry his support. If the Minister could expand the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I have suggested, he could very well make a start, even today.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: I shall be brief as there is little to add to the remarks already made. I support very strongly the remarks made in opening by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The fossil fuel levy was always far too narrowly conceived, and it paid too much attention to rather glamorous ideas such as wind energy, regardless of the minimal effect that it is likely to have on our requirements. There is no doubt that the wide range of technological improvements outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, should be supported with maximum effectiveness by the Government.
It is ironic that the most important renewable energy source is not an energy source at all—it is the efficient use of energy that would do more to save energy than any number of windmills or whatever we care to introduce. I am happy to endorse everything that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and by my noble friend Lord Mason. I hope the Government will pay great heed to the comments made in this debate, especially by the other two noble Lords who took part.
Lord Moynihan: I hesitate to follow the noble Lord and immediately declare an interest as president of the British Wind-Energy Association! I echo many of the comments that he made in the context of the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. They were pertinent and worthy of support from all sides of the Committee. I accept that this clause, and indeed the Bill, deal directly with the scope of the fossil fuel levy as to the support that the levy provides for renewable energy. Nevertheless, I hope that the Committee will agree that, where the principle of hypothecation is concerned, the range of beneficiaries is worthy of brief comment,
I agree with the comments made regarding combined heat and power. It might be argued that, despite current government support for CHP technology, there is still insufficient will to provide the positive institutional framework required to promote widespread use of this technology. The development of CHP projects entails relatively high initial investment costs. Moreover, the construction of infrastructure necessary for the transport of heat is also costly. Investment in CHP projects is, to date, discretionary; and CHP technology is likely to be used only if a major energy user can justify the technology. Otherwise, while most companies will see CHP systems as desirable, they will be unable to utilise the technology without the benefit of special incentives.

563
Furthermore, initial capital investment costs may in some cases serve as a deterrent to sustainable exploitation.
It is against that background and in the context of this clause and the Bill that I wish to propose a few short options for consideration by the Government to encourage CHP in the light of comments made by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee. They are, first, to consider low-interest, long-term government loan stock for investment in CHP projects; secondly, to look at a premium for CHP export electricity, achieved by means of an obligation placed upon licensed electricity suppliers and supported through either a levy on consumption (for example, through the mechanism of the non-fossil fuel obligation mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra) or by balancing tax advantages/allowances for such suppliers; thirdly, to look at increased writing down allowances for new capital investment in CHP plant; fourthly, to consider a rating advantage linked to the thermal efficiency of industrial sites with installed CHP capacity; fifthly, to consider a requirement on all major energy users to undertake a regular review of CHP economics as an on-going condition of their on-going environmental authorisations; and finally, to consider the introduction of regulations requiring all new industrial plant (including generation) to be designed and constructed with a view to maximum thermal efficiency, utilising the BATNEEC principle.
I should not wish to disappoint noble Lords by not mentioning wind energy. I believe that it has an exciting future and that the prominent place for it is likely to be in offshore United Kingdom waters. The high wind speeds in the offshore waters in the United Kingdom could be exploited very effectively. The majority of offshore wind energy projects are likely to be large by onshore standards. Therefore it is likely that a smaller number of projects will win non-fossil fuel obligation consent.
Given the smaller number of contracts, it is very important that successful projects are commissioned—not least to prove the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, wrong—on the amount of electricity that could be generated by significant offshore wind farms. With this in mind, I would suggest that a stringent "will secure" test, possibly audited externally, is essential for offshore bids. I believe that, if one were to ask for more stringent criteria and thus treat offshore bids in a separate manner, it would make sense to create a separate offshore band in NFFO 5. Moreover, as these bids need more technical assessment, it might be sensible to allow more time between the announcement of NFFO 5 and the new offshore band, by creating, for example, an NFFO 5a or an NFFO 6 which would take place some three to six months later. This would have the added bonus of allowing the wind energy industry to draw up appropriate guidelines for offshore wind projects.
In conclusion on this clause, I believe that the current NFFO mechanism does little to address a key problem for the renewable energy industry as a whole, which is the fact that the industry is not compensated in price terms as a result of delivering electricity at the lower
564
voltage distribution network level. It may be that the liberalisation of the electricity market due in April of next year will help to ease this problem, but I hope that the Government will review the NFFO mechanism at this stage and bear this issue in mind.
We are today discussing the future of the electricity sector, the need to maintain support for the renewables and how to develop a better support structure for CHP projects. I remain one of the strongest proponents, as noble Lords on both sides of the Chamber know, of the need for these important measures, not least to achieve the ambitious targets laid down by the Government, which I support and which I hope they will achieve. I hope that all Members of the House and others will assist the Government in finding measures to ensure that these targets can be delivered.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench, if he is not already aware of the fact, that we support the Bill and have nothing against this clause in particular. However, in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, tried to put forward an amendment which failed to get past the Table, we should like to take this opportunity to indicate support in broad terms for the line that he wishes to see explored. We appreciate, of course, that if this were to be achieved fresh legislation in some form would doubtless be necessary.
We raised this matter at Second Reading. I am sure that noble Lords who participated then and perhaps others are aware that the exchanges that we had in your Lordships' House have attracted interest in the coal industry. I have received considerable correspondence from coal producers, anxious to see how this matter is to be taken forward.
I think their interest has become even keener in recent weeks. They had understood that this Government, perhaps instinctively, would like to show greater favour to coal than we did while in government. However, I think that, given a number of recent decisions allowing gas-fired power stations to proceed, there may be less confidence in the industry than there was on 1st May that that shift in policy will be delivered. It would be helpful to hear from the Government in the clearest of terms exactly what approach they propose to take in both the short term and the longer term with regard to the coal industry and the use of coal in our power stations.
The matter seems to me to have some urgency attached to it. The coal industry has a very crucial year or two ahead of it. More particularly, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mason, will certainly be aware that one of the major generating companies in this country already has a proposal to seek to apply a clean-coal technology to a generating plant in the north of England. It is clear that if that is to proceed they will need to know at the earliest possible opportunity whether any support will be given to it, whether as a result of the proceeds of this levy or otherwise.
What is of most concern to the industry is its belief that if this opportunity is not taken—and clearly it cannot be taken—to extend the range in the next round

565
to include clean-coal technology, it might be as long as two years before fresh legislation would be introduced. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that my personal worry is that such a delay would be simply too long for those who are at the present time looking with some enthusiasm and real skill at what technology might be introduced.
I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, withdrew his amendment and I shall not ask any of my noble friends to do anything other than listen to the Minister; but I hope, for the sake of the industry, that the Minister will be able to say in the clearest of terms what the Government's policy with regard to clean-coal technology is. At Second Reading he indicated that there was a review. I hope that that review is nearly over, if not already over, and that we shall shortly hear exactly what the Government propose.
Lord Haskel: I thank noble Lords for participating in this debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his proposals. He has a long and distinguished record as a champion of the more efficient use of fuel and energy and I am grateful to him for explaining to us his hopes for extending the scope of the non-fossil fuel obligation. The fossil fuel levy could be used to support a wider range of promising technologies than is currently the case. As he said, he tried to put down an amendment so that we could discuss his proposals in the normal way but the House authorities decided that his amendment was outside the scope of the Bill before us. The reason for that is that the Bill deals solely with the collection of the fossil fuel levy, which is provided for by Section 33 of the Electricity Act. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, however, contained proposals for how the levy money should be spent. That is the subject of Section 32 of the Electricity Act. I respect the decision of the House authorities, who have acted in their impartial way, and we all have to accept their decision.
However, I must tell Members of the Committee that I am disappointed by that decision. The Government are very sympathetic to the intentions underlying the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, explained to the Committee today. Yes, the Government have proposed a challenging target for a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 and I am sure that further progress on reducing other greenhouse gases will result from the Kyoto conference on climate change. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made the point very well: swift action is needed, as many noble Lords pointed out, if the Government are to achieve these goals. I agree.
However, the Government have not been idle on these issues. We have commissioned work to develop a strategy on how the limited financial and other resources available can be harnessed most effectively to meet these testing targets. The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry instituted as a matter of priority an examination of the options for harnessing clean-coal technology for power generation. As my noble friend Lord Mason said, this is a new and promising technology which has enormous potential worldwide. Here in the UK we recognise the importance of ensuring
566
that all the diverse fuels available to us, including coal, are able to compete in ways which are consistent with our environmental targets.
The review will examine the merits of supporting demonstration projects, as well as R&D, via support mechanisms such as NFFO-type schemes, tax incentives, grants and other subsidies. The review is expected to be completed in November. An announcement will be made about the outcome of the review when Ministers have had time to consider the review's recommendations.
As part of the review the Department is contributing to a £100,000 study by industry and universities as part of the Foresight exercise to prepare a detailed R&D strategy and technology targets for clean coal and power generation.
The DTI is also undertaking a review of new and renewable technology. The review will examine what would be needed to achieve 10 per cent. of electricity generation from renewable sources by the year 2010. That is a major initiative and represents a step change.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is undertaking a review of support for combined heat and power. A high level marketing campaign on combined heat and power, endorsed by the CBI, has been launched. The Deputy Prime Minister has written to industry leaders asking them to review the potential for combined heat and power. That is being followed up by conference on 22nd October. The Government are also considering further planning policy guidance on CHP which might be useful. The capital receipts initiative and the public/private partnership task force show the way forward for new opportunities for combined heat and power.
I turn to the question of renewables. The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry announced on 6th June in another place that the Government proposed to undertake a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources. The NFFO has been used to stimulate an initial market for renewable sources of energy. That is something which we have supported.
Projects contracted under NFFO 1 and NFFO 2 are generating about 324 megawatts of electricity at an annual cost to the fossil fuel levy of about £105 million. NFFO 1 and NFFO 2 contracts end during 1998, at which time their cost to the levy will fall to zero. Projects contracted under NFFO 3, made in 1994, are now being commissioned and the cost to the levy will rise from its current figure to about £4 million a year for 98 megawatts of generating capacity. Projects contracted under NFFO 4, made in 1997, will be commissioned in due course.
Gross expenditure in 1996–97 on the Government's new and renewable energy programme was £16.8 million. The support is used for a range of activities, including raising awareness, research and development and removing international barriers.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, spoke about the future of the coal industry. It is not the Government's intention to subsidise the coal industry; nor will we tolerate subsidies paid elsewhere which distort the market against UK producers. That is why we have complained

567
to the European Commission about the high levels of state aid paid in both Germany and Spain. So far, our initiatives have led to the closure of one subsidised anthracite producer in Germany who was selling anthracite into the UK market at below production cost. The Commission has opened an investigation into that and has now written to the German Government in strong terms asking them to explain that aspect of their aid regime. The DTI will also write to the Commission on the issue of steam coal subsidies in Germany. Recently, the DTI complained to the Commission about the state aid paid to Spanish coal producers.
There is a lot of work going on. We must look to the advice we receive as a result of all that work. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and other noble Lords who have spoken on this matter that the Government will not be slow to act when we have received that advice. I can assure noble Lords that if it means legislation, we shall legislate. If we must legislate early, we shall legislate the moment parliamentary time permits. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is content with those assurances.
Lord Ezra: I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I gained the impression that all those who spoke would have supported the amendment had I been able to move it, including the goalposts. It is very unfortunate that the Public Bill Office decided otherwise, but we must respect its views.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, whether he can give any assurance that the Government will seek a quicker means of legislating on this issue—that is, widening the scope of the NFFO—than would be assumed from the present legislative timetable. As mentioned not only by me, but also by other noble Lords, we feel that if matters take their course, new legislation would take at least two years, if not longer. Is there some other way in which this matter could be brought forward?
Lord Haskel: As I said when I responded to the noble Lord's first point, this Bill does not deal with the matter that he raises. The Bill deals with the collection of the fossil fuel levy. Any other aspects of spending the fossil fuel levy have to be dealt with in another Bill. In the same way that the noble Lord is restricted by the House authorities, so the Government also are restricted. I can only repeat what I said. If we must legislate early, we shall do so as early as parliamentary time permits.
I know that the Minister considers this to be a very important matter. We have commitments to reduce emissions by the year 2010. In itself that puts pressure on the Government to act.
Lord Ezra: I thank the noble Lord for that response. I should like to follow up with him the question of how quickly that could be done. In the meantime, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Mason of Barnsley, Lord Howie of Troon and Lord Moynihan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, for their support. I also
568
thank the Minister for the support that he has given. Certainly, I do not wish to hold up any further the passage of the Bill.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
4.38 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Prohibition of small-calibre pistols]:
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("the words "a small-calibre pistol" shall cease to have effect") and insert ("after the words "a small-calibre pistol" the words "which has a barrel length not less than 20.3 cm in length and which is incapable of holding more than one cartridge and is not derived from a multi-shot design" shall be inserted").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had intended to move Amendment No. 1 coupled with Amendments Nos. 9 to 12. On reflection, I have decided not to move that amendment today but to bring it forward again on Third Reading.
[Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
DISABLED PERSONS: EXEMPTION
(" .—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(1)(aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to whom subsection (2) applies to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (3) below.
(2) A person to whom this section applies shall be a registered disabled person who has a physical disability and is approved by the Secretary of State.
(3) A certificate granted under subsection (2) above shall be subject to the condition that—

(a) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State; and

(b) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which a shooting competition is taking place on such conditions as the Secretary of State shall specify.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the House will recall, we discussed one or two of these matters previously and had hoped that in the interim the Government would give consideration to some of the issues which concern us. I know that they have done so because I have been involved in some of the discussions. I cannot say that I am pleased with the outcome of those discussions but I am pleased with the way in which my noble friend Lord Williams and the Home Secretary accorded me the courtesy of a hearing. No doubt we shall discuss subsequently the conclusions that they reached. However, it is right to say that the points that some of us raised in the House were accorded the courtesy of consideration.
Amendment No. 2 deals with disabled persons' exemption. I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, is present. I hope that he manages to speak in the debate because we all remember the extremely eloquent and touching speech he made when we discussed these matters previously.
I do not want to go over the ground again—I am anxious to save as much time as I can. But my noble friend Lord Williams undertook at a previous hearing on this clause to pay regard to the strong feeling expressed in the House and to give it consideration. No doubt he will tell us the result of that new thinking.
I shall simply say a few words on the substance of the amendment. Shooting is one of the few sports which can be enjoyed by both disabled and able-bodied competitors. Both rifle and pistol championships have been won by competitors shooting from wheelchairs. Any of us with a knowledge of handicap games, particularly the old paraplegic games at Stoke Mandeville, and who have seen the tremendous pleasure unfortunate and seriously disabled persons have obtained from participating in those sports from their wheelchairs, would take a great deal of convincing that those shooters in those same wheelchairs are likely to endanger public safety—the proposal put forward by the Government.
As I have said before, I do not know of a single case where a disabled shooter has ever run amok to cause the slightest concern to anyone in the country—the police or anybody else. That is a matter of some importance. There are 450 sports clubs affiliated to the British Sports Association for the Disabled, most of whom are multisports providers—I estimate around 100 provide shooting as an activity out of those 450 clubs—and it seems to me inconceivable that we should not pay special attention to their situation. Indeed, if we grossed that up with the number of clubs and the number of disabled shooters, we are approaching around 50,000 people. That is not an insignificant number of British citizens of good repute with great physical handicaps who will be assisted by the amendment.
Each year there are five national championships in which 2,000 competitors compete and 5 per cent. of those 2,000 are disabled. They may be deaf, amputees, have restricted limb movement or in wheelchairs and now, too, blind persons participate in those handicap events. Indeed, I went to see some disabled games recently in Birmingham and was particularly struck by the courage of the blind participants and the great pleasure and thrill they obtained from being able to compete in those events.
Two years ago, with the aid of modern technology, we were able to introduce shooting for the blind. In April 1996 a blind team entered the Dutch Open Disabled Championships and won a team gold, together with first, second and fourth places in individual events. That makes the point why some of us are persisting to try to safeguard that joy and that opportunity for citizens who are not as fortunate as we are. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, perhaps I can offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on this amendment. The noble Lord rightly said that this is not the time to revisit all the arguments that have been exercised in the past and certainly, though this is the first time I have come to these debates, I do not want to revisit them.
As I said, I offer my support and I suspect the support of a considerable number of others on these Benches to the noble Lord should he wish to press this amendment. Having said that, I should stress that I do not see this as a party political matter, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Howell, does not. He sees it as a matter of considerable importance to disabled people. I should like to underline his argument that this is one of the few, if any, sports where disabled and able-bodied people can compete as absolute equals. As regards pistol shooting, there can be no difference between those in wheelchairs and those who are not in wheelchairs. They can compete equally.
Over the years I have had the honour of serving in a number of different departments with responsibility for disability matters—the Department of Social Security, later the Department of Employment and later on still in the merged Department for Education and Employment. In those various departments I played some part in the introduction of the Disability Discrimination Act, an Act of which we on this side of the House are justly proud. Having gone through bringing that Act in, it would be sad if the spirit of the Act could not be recognised in relation to Amendment No.2.
I hope therefore that when the noble Lord, Lord Williams, comes to sum up this debate, having listened to the arguments—most of which I imagine will be in support of the noble Lord, Lord Howell—he will be able to give it a sympathetic hearing. However, I am grateful that both he and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary have been helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in offering a number of meetings to try to resolve the matter. I hope that this afternoon he can go further. If he is unable to go further, I offer my support to the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
Lord Crawshaw: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of Amendment No. 2. Its simple intention is to retain as much shooting for the disabled as is possible, no more and no less.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was kind enough to refer to the contribution that I made at Committee stage. Again, I do not wish to go over all that ground again. I talked rather too much about the sport of archery and I shall keep off that subject today.
I am bound to say a little about the forms of firearms shooting which are possibly the most suitable. At the top of the list one is bound to say that pistol shooting is perhaps the most appropriate. In fact, more often I use a shotgun or rifle, but there is a problem in using those from a wheelchair. It is all a question of balance. Without talking about fulcrums, cantilevers and so forth, the simple fact is that to lift a fairly heavy firearm in front of one's body and keep it in the right place is

571
quite difficult, particularly if the muscles controlling the balance have been affected, as in many cases they have. The tendency therefore is for the end of the barrel to do a nosedive and if we are not careful the bullet or the shot will go into the ground in front. Therefore, to balance the pistol on the left arm—I am talking, of course, about a right armed shooter—or even to use the left arm as some form of brace is a good alternative, particularly when using a light calibre pistol.
The amendment mentions designated premises. I have been rereading the Committee stage debate. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is not present because on that earlier occasion he had a good deal to say on this subject. The amendment presumably means that disabled shooters would attend the mainstream places and not perform in isolation. That, again, would be very much in accordance with their wishes. According to the amendment put forward in Committee such centres would be spread around the country to include the well known shooting areas of Bisley and so on. I should like to include such areas as Stoke Mandeville near Aylesbury and Wakefield in South Yorkshire. Both of those areas are well attuned to the problems of disabled persons—those with spinal injuries and so on.
To me, the combined efforts of the Olympic movement, with its shooters and other personnel, together with those who support places such as Stoke Mandeville could produce some startling results. I have recently attended many large fund raising events for the Wheelchair Sports Association. On those occasions the events were lit up by the presence of Diana, Princess of Wales. Here we have an obvious choice or objective for some of the funds now being raised in her memory. I can foresee some startling projects. I hope that all this will be examined before we become involved in the various bans and, I am afraid to say, the destruction of some people's sport—in many cases people who do not have a wide range of choices. I am pleased to support the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. Indeed, I have put my name to it. I shall speak briefly. The amendment in no way undermines the central purpose of the Bill which is to ban for general use handguns. We are here talking about a very specialist and narrow point. We are talking about removing a therapeutic sport from unfortunate people. Before we do that we really ought to examine not only our minds but our hearts as well.
I say this to the House and to my noble friends. If we were thinking of taking away any other facility from disabled people, there would be hell to pay, and rightly so. If we wanted to ban people from engaging in archery, there would be hell to pay. Why then is there not hell to pay when we are removing a therapeutic sport from disabled people? I hope there will be a Division on the amendment. I shall certainly be voting for it. When people are deciding whether to vote for it, I sincerely hope that they will take into account what I have just said about the central purpose of the
572
legislation not being undermined and indeed the needs of the disabled people about which we all, I hope, care very much.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Howell. In doing so I pay tribute to him. For many years in another place the noble Lord sat opposite me. We had many lively debates on the subject of sportsmen and sportswomen and always agreed on the importance of promoting facilities and opportunities for the disabled, recognising that their excellence was just as outstanding in their given fields as that of able bodied sportsmen and women.
Everything the noble Lord said on the amendment deserves support from all sides of the House. It has been sensitively argued and has focused on the fact that as the Bill stands it discriminates against the policy of successive Governments who have sought to promote the interests of disabled sportsmen and women. It discriminates against the principles behind the work of those assisting in the development of Stoke Mandeville and in the development of shooting as a sport for disabled sportsmen and women.
In that context, and with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the work he has done in this direction, I for one will have the privilege and pleasure of standing with him in the Division Lobby should the amendment be taken to a Division. It is an important amendment. It secures and protects the rights of disabled sportsmen and women who are no threat, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out in his opening remarks, in the context of the Bill. If the amendment is not passed, deep and lasting damage will be done to the interests of a significant group of outstanding sportsmen and women who would lose the opportunity to enjoy the sport of shooting.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. Pistol shooting is a sport that disabled people can take part in. To remove them from competition would be a severe blow to them. We have had success in shooting at the paraplegic games. We have won prizes at every shooting championship held for disabled people. The amendment deserves your Lordships' support.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in rising to support the noble Lord, Lord Howell, perhaps I may also warmly welcome my noble friend Lord Henley to the Front Bench on this subject. It is a challenging portfolio and it is one which I know he will enjoy. I know that it is one which he will carry out with his usual consummate skill.
The arguments in support of the amendment are overwhelming. I know, from having sat on the Front Bench, that arguments in support of it have been produced from all sides of the House. I know also that the only thing standing in our way is the dogged determination of the Home Office simply not to give an inch. It sees this as a sign of strength. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Williams, well in taking the Home Office on

573
because I know from experience that it is no mean feat when you come out as a victor against people with such dogged determination that we should not succeed.
The Government's underlying concern is that there should be no threat to the community at large, particularly with regard to the example we had at Dunblane. However, if the amendment is accepted, it will represent no threat whatever to the community. We are talking about some of the most law-abiding citizens in our land.
My final point is this. There is a deafening silence from the one person who ought to be championing the cause of disabled people today. That is the Minister for the disabled. There is a real interest here for a group of people who have always been the subject of concern on the part of noble Lords. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will exercise what I know he is extremely capable of doing: taking on the giants of the Home Office. I hope that he will say that on this occasion, in the interests of the most law-abiding group of people, we should accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
5 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I support the amendment, which is entirely right. It is very bad that disabled people who should have the possibility of healthy, therapeutic exercise and a social life should be deprived of that opportunity. I fully support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will have the courage to go against his Government and will give way and support the amendment.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, like so many of us in the House, I was privileged to take part in the discussions on the Disability Discrimination Bill. It is a just and worthy piece of legislation which was supported by all parties and one which, like so many other laws, works best when continually reviewed.
That Bill set out to correct those who showed a misunderstanding of the needs of the disabled in matters of employment and leisure and in the very difficult and ever-present consideration of access and, of course, sport. The aim was to make those in society who are disabled congenitally, by syndrome, disease or accident, feel at home and at ease among the majority, the able-bodied in society.
Few of us have first-hand knowledge of what it is like to be disabled. I do. Since the accident that impaired my sight, I tend to move furniture around involuntarily and also unfortunately—for which I apologise—individuals. Most of the disabled take life by the scruff of the neck. They achieve anything and everything that most experts and friends would believe impossible.
We in this House praise and admire those who refuse to give in. The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, gave many examples of that in his speech during the Committee stage. The spirit of unquenchable and inextinguishable effort never manifests itself more than in those who compete in the Paralympics. As we are addressing a specific amendment, let us look at the gold and silver
574
medals won in pistol shooting events and international paralympic competitions. I have spoken of unquenchable and inextinguishable efforts and there are none more so than from those who are champion disabled shooters.
If noble Lords can bear with a repetition of facts that they may have heard already, I wish to read out facts and statistics. In 1994 the world shooting championship was held in Austria. We won two gold, two silver and two bronze medals—six medals. In 1995 the European championships were in Finland. We won one gold, two silver and one bronze medal—four medals. In 1996 the championships were in Atlanta where we won one gold and one silver medal. In 1997, at Lyons, we won two medals, both bronze. In 1998 it appears not to matter. We in this House and those in another place are, by this legislation, preventing our disabled from competing in a sport which, as noble Lords have heard before, all medical opinion says plays a very important part in rehabilitation, increasing self-esteem, enhancing co-ordination between eye, mind and limb and also allowing those who are medically unable to exert themselves a chance to enjoy a sport. As noble Lords have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, it is most therapeutic for the disabled to compete in competition shooting. Are we to deny them that therapy? Noble Lords have been asked the question and I repeat it.
This is a Government who have proclaimed themselves a government of the people who would not discriminate against minorities. What is this legislation if not discrimination?
As noble Lords can see from the statistics, shooting is a sport at which the disabled of this country can excel. The disabled are on a par, totally equal with those who are able-bodied. The Palace of Westminster, within two years of approving measures in the Disability Discrimination Act, has approved and, under pressure from the other place as well as from various Members of this House, has added clauses to the Firearms (Amendment) Act which will deepen the wounds of discrimination and make a mockery of the good that we have achieved with the Disability Discrimination Act. I support the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I speak entirely for myself on this subject. Listening to the debate I have found a tone which I have not liked of special pleading for the disabled and not equal rights. Most of the legislation we have before us and most of the debates on it have concerned giving those with disabilities of various descriptions the chance to compete on a level playing field, even if it means that they need a little help getting there.
I have always been upset at the thought of an Olympic sport being banned, but probably the pros outweigh the cons on this. Handguns of any description have their origin in being a man-killing weapon. That is an historical and unarguable fact. That they are not the most efficient of weapons does not mean that they do not have that capacity. The decision is not one which I have come to lightly. When noble Lords consider the matter I hope they will bear in mind that the disabled

575
have rights and responsibilities on equal terms with the able-bodied. If a group of able-bodied people is being deprived of a sporting activity and the majority has not gone berserk—those weapons are not ideal for going berserk; one would have to try a little harder—possibly the same responsibility also falls on those who are disabled. I do not particularly like saying that. I have probably never taken that line of approach before and will never take it again. But I ask the House to consider that it may be asking for something which is effectively tokenism.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, first I must apologise for not having been present at the beginning of the debate. I was detained. I rise partly in response to what has just been said. If I dare use the phrase, it seems to me to have been an astonishingly totalitarian attitude coming from the enlightened Benches of the Liberal Democrats. Here we are balancing responsibilities. Yes, we are asking for an exception to be made to a general rule. But surely the mark of a civilised society is that where a need is shown and where justice needs to be shown, the means by which we achieve that justice and meet that need should be provided.
What is certain is that the amendment meets the two targets: first, of being limited in its scope. It is not setting a precedent for any other extension of the right to use weapons. Secondly, there is the need not to cultivate any real or serious threat which would mean a serious breach of the aim of the legislation with which I agree as a whole. I hope that my noble friend, like me, will appeal to and remind all on these Benches who have fought so passionately and vigorously for disabled people in the past, to add their voices to those who have spoken in support of this amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, every speech in favour of this amendment has been both courteous and moderate, and those are historically the most difficult speeches to respond to. I am sorry that earlier in the week, when the noble Lord, Lord Henley, made contributions on home affairs matters, I had not realised that he had been translated in portfolio. I have made good my apparent discourtesy by subsequently writing to him privately. In welcoming him, perhaps I may say how fruitful the co-operation was that I always had with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We did not always agree, but I do not believe that we ever parted bad friends.
All the speeches made this afternoon have been much shorter than on the last occasion for reasons that are proper and which I hope to follow. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, on the last occasion was a moving one and I hoped to have responded to it by saying that the Government would give further reasonable consideration to the matter over the summer. I am grateful for the courteous way in which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, responded, both in correspondence and personally, and also for having the great scruple to say that he has had conversations with me and with the Home Secretary about this matter.
576
We are not able to accommodate what I recognise is a strong feeling in your Lordships' House. It is not because the Home Office is a juggernaut which cannot be altered. The merest scrutiny of the amendments marshalled for later this afternoon demonstrates that. In response to the reasoned arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on the last occasion, I have put forward a government amendment to meet exactly the point that she was making. I am not saying that as a partisan point, but that when I undertook on behalf of the Government, and particularly the Home Office, that we would think about things through the summer, that was not simply the usual palliative which is sometimes doled out on these occasions.
We have reconsidered the position with care over the summer. Our conclusions remain the same. We do not wish to allow a situation of exemptions to the general prohibition on handguns proposed by the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, who spoke from the Liberal Democrat Benches, made courageous points because he knew perfectly well that the stream in which he was about to swim was not one which others viewed with favour. I respectfully suggest that he made legitimate points despite the fact that they are unpopular. I am not unsympathetic to the points which are being put forward. I believe that I understand as well as I can the thrust of the points made.
We have looked at the matter with great care. I have to disappoint many of your Lordships. We looked to see whether there was an exemption that could be accepted consistent with the policy that we have stood for, which is to do away, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, with small calibre handguns. We came to the conclusion that we could not do it.
Perhaps I may make this one point which is one of objective fact. There is no attempt to disadvantage disabled shooters in this Bill; there is no attempt to discriminate against disabled shooters. The fact is that they will be treated in exactly the same way as any other target shooter. It is not discriminatory, but treatment of equality under the law. Any disabled shooter—
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he accept that the aspect of discrimination is that able-bodied people who are to be denied the sport are able to go away and seek another sport? In the case of disabled people they have no alternative. It has been a sport which they have perfected over the years and they have built up their skills. They have nowhere else to go for a leisure activity which is, in effect, a right arm to them.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not accept that. I was developing my point. I shall reflect with infinite respect on what the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, said both this afternoon and at greater length on an earlier occasion. The fact is that if the law stands unamended disabled shooters will still be able to compete in open competition using air weapons; they will still be able to use shotguns in open competition; they will still be able to use rifles in open, equal competition. The reason I referred to the contributions

577
of the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, both today and earlier is that he said that, having practised archery at, I believe, Oxford, he had then—and he reaffirmed it this afternoon—turned to other weapons; namely, shotguns and .22 rifles. I accept that shooting may well form an important part of rehabilitation, but I do not, with the greatest respect, accept that rehabilitation means only the use of small calibre handguns.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves on to the next part of his speech, I believe I heard him suggest that disabled shooters could find an alternative in air pistol shooting. That is not a practical solution at all because the Bill will close all pistol clubs in this country so it is impossible to see where disabled shooters will be able to take up air pistol shooting. In case the noble Lord is going to advance another suggestion that is going the rounds, which is that the disabled and other shooters could simply practise their sport in clubs which accommodate rifle and pistol shooting, that will not be so either. I have been given the very good example of the Ham and Petersham Rifle and Pistol Club in Surrey where, of its 800 members, only 24 are rifle shooters. So that club, like all others of its kind, will not exist in the future because its viability depends on pistol shooting. So I do not see how there will be any opportunity for disabled shooters to switch to air pistols.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not accept that those are necessary consequences in practice. I repeat, with great respect—because facts are important particularly when legitimate emotion is rightly in the background—that disabled shooters will continue to be able to shoot air weapons, shotguns or rifles.
We ought not to allow one group an exemption bearing in mind the over-arching principle of this Bill, which is a development of the Bill brought forward by the previous government in relation to larger calibre weapons. We have determined our policy and I hope to put that scrupulously. It is not intended to be dictatorial and I know that your Lordships will not take it as such. We have considered with infinite care all the arguments that have been put forward and we have to say, as governments sometimes do, that we are in the position where honourable people will honourably have to disagree. I know that will disappoint your Lordships and that in particular it will disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who has spent a good deal of care and time throughout the summer on this matter. I was going to ask my noble friends to withdraw their amendment, but I believe that that is probably unrealistic in all the circumstances. All I can do is say that for my part, bearing in mind that I know that this will cause hurt and distress, and may cause some disabled shooters to feel that the Government have been unthinking, we have been unable to agree.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for informing the House what I knew he would say as a result of discussions; namely, that he could make no progress with us today. One of the reasons put to me privately was that this was part of a manifesto commitment. I have revisited the manifesto. It says
578
nothing about competition shooting, the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games, and certainly nothing about the disabled games. I have also been informed, quite rightly, that this is a Cabinet decision. I am sure that it is. But I do not believe for a moment that the Cabinet spent any time considering these aspects of the matter. It has given just blanket support to the proposals of the previous government, who also got it wrong. That is why we find ourselves in the present position.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was quite extraordinary. He accused us of trying to do some special pleading or tokenism on behalf of the disabled. Having spent many years here, I have been under the impression that the whole of Parliament has been in favour of giving special consideration to the disabled. Bill after Bill has been passed to protect the rights of the disabled. How on earth does one protect the rights of the disabled unless there is special pleading on their behalf? I do not understand how that would be possible.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may try to assist the noble Lord. My noble friend said that noble Lords—myself among others—had spent a great deal of time trying to help disabled people to do things that able-bodied people could do, even if they required special help to do it. This amendment proposes that disabled people should be allowed to do what able-bodied people are not allowed to do.
Lord Howell: My Lords, of course it would enable disabled people to do what able-bodied people are not allowed to do. In the circumstances we are discussing—whether or not they should be allowed to enjoy their sport, which everybody else can do in this country one way or another—the only way in which to help disabled shooters is to adopt this proposal.
No amendment in which I have been involved since entering this House has been more responsibly drawn up. It gives the Secretary of State power to control everything. It provides that registered disabled people who would be able to take advantage of the amendment must be approved by the Secretary of State. Further, the latter half of the amendment provides that they must be subject to two specific and very close conditions. One could not be more responsible than that.
In conclusion, I appreciate the position in which my right honourable friend the Minister finds himself. He said that disabled gun shooters could change to rifles. I have read in the newspapers—whether or not it is true I do not know—a suggestion that there is to be another White Paper on the subject of restricting the use of rifles. If that is so, I hope that my right honourable friend will correct it so that these people can move to another sport for the time being. If that happened that would be the result. Whether or not it is true, I can only tell noble Lords that I have read it.
As far as concerns this amendment, I simply record my sadness and say that, as loyal as I am to my Government, my lifelong attempt to help the disabled in

579
sport compels me to ask the House to declare its wisdom on this matter.
5.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 101.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Leigh, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Liverpool, E.

Annaly, L.

Lucas, L.

Astor, V.

Luke, L.

Attlee, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Belstead, L.

McNair, L.

Berners, B.

Marlesford, L

Birdwood, L.

Marsh, L.

Blatch, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mersey, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Milverton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Molloy, L.

Brookes, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Burton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cadman, L.

Moynihan, L. [Teller. ]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Nathan, L

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Newall, L

Chesham, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Northesk, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Congleton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Courtown, E.

Prentice, L.

Cox, B.

Prior, L

Cranborne, V.

Rawlings, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cross, V.

Reading, M.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Denham, L.

Renton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Romney, E.

Derwent, L.

Rotherwick, L

Dilhorne, V.

Rowallan, L.

Dundee, E.

Saint Albans, D.

Foley, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Sandwich, E.

Haddington, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Halsbury, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Strathclyde, L

Hayhoe, L.

Sudeley, L

Hemphill, L.

Swansea, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Holderness, L.

Taverne, L.

Hood, V.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Howe, E.

Tebbit, L.

Howell, L. [Teller.]

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howie of Troon, L

Tollemache, L.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Vivian, L.

Hylton, L.

Weatherill, L

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wharton, B.

Ilchester, E.

Yarborough, E

Kilmarnock, L.

Young, B.

Kintore, E.

Younger of Prestwick, L.

Leicester, Bp.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

580

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Addington, L.

Judd, L.

Alderdice, L.

Kilbracken, L

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lawrence, L.

Berkeley, L

Leathers, V.

Blackstone, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L

Blyth, L.

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Borrie, L.

Lockwood, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Longford, E.

Calverley, L.

McCarthy, L

Carlisle, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

McNally, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chandos, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nelson, E.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Newby, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Desai, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Diamond, L.

Paul, L.

Dixon, L.

Peston, L

Donoughue, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Drogheda, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dubs, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Eatwell, L

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Fitt, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Gallacher, L

Russell, E.

Geraint, L.

Sandberg, L

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Serota, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Shepherd, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shore of Stepney, L

Gregson, L.

Simon, V.

Grenfell, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hanworth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Hardy of Wath, L

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hayman, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Walpole, L

Hoyle, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Whitty, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

[*The Tellers for the Contents reported 120 names. The Clerks recorded 119.]
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.33 p.m.
Clause 2 [Consequential amendments and repeals]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out lines 15 to 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to which I referred briefly earlier. The amendment, if it meets your Lordships' approval, will have the effect of making the compensation scheme arrangements for small calibre pistols subject to the same affirmative resolution procedure as was applied earlier this year to

581
the compensation arrangements for large calibre handguns. It will mean that a draft scheme will be laid before both Houses for approval.
Your Lordships will recall that an amendment to that effect was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in Committee. I explained—or ventured to—why I considered it to be unnecessary but promised to consider the issue further. The noble Baroness withdrew the amendment on the basis of that undertaking.
The Government have always made it clear that the compensation scheme for small calibre pistols and ancillary equipment would be based on the same principles as those which govern the existing compensation scheme for large calibre handguns, which was brought in by the previous government.
I said that we had given careful consideration to the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation but disagreed with the committee's conclusion that the compensation scheme should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The committee came to its conclusion on the basis that the compensation arrangements were controversial. I accept that the banning of small calibre pistols may be controversial, but the payment of compensation for those pistols, on the same model as used for large calibre handguns, is not.
A requirement to seek the approval of both Houses, under the affirmative resolution procedure, of a draft compensation scheme, will inevitably delay the implementation of the provisions of this Bill and will delay the arrival of certainty for those individuals who own small calibre pistols.
We have taken note of the strength of feeling in the House on this issue, not least the views of the Select Committee, which we respect. Because of that, although I remain heretically unconvinced, the Government are prepared to accede to the request to adopt the affirmative resolution procedure. I ask your Lordships to accept the amendment.
I wrote to the noble Baroness several weeks ago to inform her of the Government's proposal, and it is probably better if I inform your Lordships of a possible late amendment. We have received a number of representations for possible exemptions for certain types of slaughtering implements used in abattoirs. They are of .22 inch rimfire calibre. We are considering that issue. If appropriate, and the amendment is within the scope of the Bill, we intend to bring forward a suitable amendment. It may be of assistance to your Lordships to know that at this stage. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the name of my noble friend Lady Blatch is down to the amendment. Where my noble friend's name appears on the Marshalled List of amendments one should read "Henley" rather than "Blatch". Perhaps I may thank the Minister for the concession he has made following the moving of the amendment in Committee by my noble friend. I thank him for giving it such careful consideration and for coming back with an identical amendment. On at least one occasion the Opposition's drafting has been as good as that of the Home Office, simple though the drafting is, it merely being a matter of deletion.
582
I have just one small quibble with the Minister. He said that some of the matters relating to compensation were not controversial. I believe that they are still extremely controversial, as the feelings on the Bill which have been generated in this House and elsewhere will have shown. Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for what he said.
In relation to the final point made by the Minister about a possible further amendment, I note at this stage what he said. I should greatly welcome early sight, if possible, of any amendment that the Government might feel it necessary to put down so that I and my colleagues could take advice on it. It will be Third Reading when we come to that amendment. If the Minister feels that the amendment will be complex it might be necessary to re-commit part of the Bill for that amendment. I wonder whether he will give some consideration to that possibility.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course as soon as the amendment is in perfected form I shall send a copy of it to the noble Lord. It relates to captive bolt weapons used in abattoirs and I should not have thought—famous last words—that it would be difficult or controversial.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert:
("(3B) Payments made under this scheme relating to small-calibre pistols, or to equipment designed or adapted for use in connection with such pistols, shall be dispatched within 40 days of agreement of the valuation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a variation on an amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Blatch in Committee. That amendment was designed to ensure that compensation would be received within 40 days of agreement of the valuation. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, objected to the amendment partly on grounds of logistics. I do not accept that because the Prime Minister himself said that he believes that all debts should be settled within 30 days and that he is considering legislation on that subject. Therefore, I should have thought that even the Home Office would be able to cope with an amendment which suggests 40 days.
But the Minister objected also to the amendment—and I think quite rightly—on the grounds that it provided that the payment "shall be received". He suggested that the words "shall be dispatched" would be a better alternative. I believe that he used those words at col. 946 in Committee on 15th July as being more appropriate. We have therefore tabled this revised version of the amendment using the noble Lord's suggested words rather than those used by my noble friend in Committee.
I appreciate that the noble Lord was, as it were, speaking without warning in Committee and I appreciate that he is not a parliamentary draftsman. But he is probably one of the most distinguished lawyers to work in the Home Office for many years. Therefore, I believe that it is quite right for us to use the words that the noble Lord suggested in Committee as being an appropriate

583
variation to put forward on Report. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us whether, having followed the advice which he gave in Committee, we have produced an amendment which he is able to accept.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is an incredibly important point. I was present in the House yesterday when the Minister said with some pride that the response of the Home Office to MPs and the wider public is much improved and is better than it has been for a long time. That may be so. I do not wish to take issue with that except to say that there is one part of the department which is coming under very heavy criticism. If that has not been brought to the Minister's attention, perhaps I may use this opportunity to do so.
I have received a great many concerned telephone calls and letters from people who are complaining about the way in which compensation is being handled and about the delays in payment of compensation.
I telephoned the Home Office during the summer holidays. I did not say who I was and nobody asked me who I was. I telephoned on behalf of somebody who had written to me. He had handed in his gun at the beginning of the period and was extremely concerned that not only had he still not received payment but also that he found it difficult to contact the Home Office and when he did make contact, the officials there were extremely unhelpful. I cannot say that I had the most helpful telephone call with the Home Office. However, in the course of my telephone call I ascertained that the person for whom I was speaking had not been attended to, had not received his compensation but would do so within the next two weeks. That was more than a month ago and that person has still not received his compensation. He has now been waiting a good two months to receive compensation under a part of the scheme about which there is no quibble in terms of valuation.
I know that a large number of people are still waiting for compensation. In the course of my conversation with the Home Office, I eventually admitted that I was the Minister who had shepherded the previous Bill through Parliament. I told the young lady that in answering questions about payment being made as quickly as possible once a valuation has been agreed, the Minister was extremely encouraging. I told her that although the Minister did not accept that a provision should be written on the face of the Bill, nevertheless he gave every promise that the time limits for which we were asking in the amendments would, as far as possible, be adhered to. The person in the Home Office said that she had no knowledge whatever of deadlines or targets. Nevertheless, she made a promise that the person for whom I was speaking would be dealt with within two weeks.
This is a very controversial matter. It is discourteous not to deal quickly with people, particularly when there is no argument about valuation. Indeed, the amendment allows the Home Office to take as long as need be to reach a valuation and then dispatch payment within 40 days.
584
I have one particular question for the Minister. It is being said now that the police authorities are not parting with the money that is already agreed because they do not have it; the money is simply not there. I should like an assurance from the Minister that no payment will be delayed on the grounds of it not being met financially by the Home Office or whatever is the source of this money. The matter remains controversial. If the Minister is not aware of the situation then I think that it is important to take this opportunity to bring it to his notice.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I had a very similar case to that referred to by my noble friend Lady Blatch. The person concerned handed in his weapons early on and thought that he would be right at the front of the queue and there would be no delay in receiving payment. When, after, I think it was, six weeks, he had not received his payment he wrote to the Home Office and he was told that it was the police who were delaying matters. We have one of the most efficient firearms sections of the police force in the country. It is extremely efficient and pleasant to deal with. It is clearly not the fault of the police and it is disgraceful to suggest that it is. I do not understand why the Home Office should be blaming the police force.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot accept this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, was reading out the gratuitous legal advice which I had given, I was following it carefully. I read the small print. I do not believe that I was offering a solution but I was merely pointing out that as originally drafted, the amendment before the Committee was lamentably drafted. On that occasion I omitted the adverb because I was being more polite.
If there are any particular questions relating to specific instances, I am more than happy to have the details provided in writing. I have had correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and I hope that he can affirm the proposition that I wrote back to him as soon as I possibly could. I cannot deal with telephone conversations with a "girl in the office" because I have no knowledge of them at all. But if there are specifics with details that are provided to me, I shall deal with them as soon as I possibly can.
Perhaps I may tell the House that 13,000 claims have already been paid out at a cost of £10.5 million. The compensation money has been set aside by the Treasury and in answer to the specific question asked by the noble Baroness, I should tell her that there is not any problem with money. I stress that £10.5 million has been paid out.
The original amendment was defective, but I made it quite plain that that was not the reason for my objection. I pointed out the technical deficiencies but I outlined the main reasons for my objection, which I shall do again.
The majority of straightforward claims—option A or option B—will be dealt with quickly. Option C claims depend on individual valuations. They take longer for precisely that reason. There is a very large volume of

585
claimants. There are more than 60,000 claimants under this scheme and that in operation for large calibre handguns. It is simply not practical to set a specific number of days within which payments will be sent to individual claimants. Some cases will be processed before others; others may take longer. Sometimes there are perfectly innocent errors. A claimant may give incorrect bank details on a claim form. Such a person may well believe that it is Home Office obstruction or Treasury meanness which is causing the delay when that is not the case at all. It is simply that the claimant has not made a correct claim. In such a case it is not workable to have a 40-day obligation.
It is noticeable that sensibly, there is no similar time requirements in relation to payments under the compensation scheme for large calibre handguns. That being so, I respectfully suggest that there should not be one for small calibre pistols. I repeat that I am more than willing to deal with any particulars that are properly given to me in writing so that I can look into them. I say that because anecdotal accounts are impossible to check and, therefore, impossible to put right one way or another.
The amendment remains defective because it refers to payment being made,
"within 40 days of agreement of the valuation".
But I ask: what valuation and agreed by whom? It is not workable, apart from the fact, as I respectfully suggest once more, that it is not necessary. I should like to point out—and this was not the position as regards the earlier amendment upon which your Lordships gave a fairly robust rejection to the course which I proposed—that the proposal for a 30-day payment was considered by another place and defeated by a majority of 124. That is simply a part of the background to the discussions on the matter. As I said, it is unnecessary and, should the amendment be pressed, I invite noble Lords to reject it.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I appreciate the politeness of the noble Lord in dealing with the amendment and with a similar one on a previous occasion. However, I did not find his answer to be entirely satisfactory. On more than one occasion the noble Lord said that the amendment was defective, but I do not believe that he gave a proper explanation to the House as to why, other than to say that the words,
"shall be dispatched within 40 days of agreement of the valuation"
do not in some way make sense. I have to say that to my simple mind that seems to me about as clear as it is possible to be. We are saying that once an agreement has been obtained on the valuation, the Home Office should dispatch the money within 40 days. That does not seem to be the most onerous burden to place on the Home Office. Indeed, we are talking about 40 days and not the 30 days that many others have recommended for settlement of other debts.
Having said that and having made some small attempt, especially following what the noble Lord described as "gratuitous legal advice", to improve the amendment, I have no intention of pressing it tonight. However, I certainly reserve the right possibly to bring it back on Third Reading having reconsidered the matter
586
and perhaps taken other legal advice—not necessarily the gratuitous legal advice of the noble Lord—to see whether the alleged defects of such an amendment can be improved. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause:
COMPETITION PISTOLS
(" .—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5(1) (aba) of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession or to purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a pistol chambered for .22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges if he is authorised under the Act to possess, purchase or acquire that weapon subject to a condition which complies with subsection (2) below.
(2) A certificate granted under subsection (1) above shall be subject to the condition that—

(a) the pistol is used for training in shooting disciplines approved by the International Olympic Committee for inclusion in the Olympic Games; and

(b) the pistol is used by a person approved by the Secretary of State and on the recommendation of a recognised governing body of the sport: and

(c) the weapon is stored and used only at premises designated by the Secretary of State; and

(d) possession of the weapon outside such designated premises shall be permitted only for transfer to and use at premises at which a shooting competition is taking place on such conditions as the Secretary of State shall specify.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, is unfortunately unable to be here this evening to move his amendment and has asked me to do so in his stead. I am very pleased to be able to do so. The proposed new clause would establish national pistol shooting centres of excellence, to allow competition shooters identified by national bodies as suitable to train for Olympic disciplines to continue to train and compete for national and international .22 calibre pistol competitions. A certificate granted for that purpose would be subject to the most stringent conditions. In fact, the conditions are set out in the amendment and therefore I do not intend to go through them in detail.
If the proposed new clause is not accepted by the House, it will mean that Britain will be the only country banned from international pistol shooting competitions. The Firearms Act 1997 would at least have allowed our competitors to take part on the international stage in three .22 calibre events which are held in the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Howell knows a good deal more about this and will no doubt say so if he speaks to the amendment.
Our country has a long and honourable tradition in the sport of pistol shooting—a sport which Britain invented and has dominated for over 100 years. It is a sporting success story for Britain. In the past 10 years of Commonwealth competition our competitors have brought home 23 pistol shooting medals in the 22 calibre events alone.
On Second Reading and in Committee my noble friend referred to the fact that the Bill affects only three out of the total of 15 shooting competitions in the

587
Commonwealth Games. However, the vast majority of pistol shooters who reach international level are specialist pistol competition shooters. Many will have no interest in other disciplines and it is simply not true to suggest that a competition pistol shooter would or could convert to rifle shooting instead. Why should three competitions be barred to British shooters when it is perfectly possible to accommodate them through this amendment and by other means? Why should three competitions not be available to British sportsmen?
The men and women who represent their country in this sport do so with great personal commitment. A refusal to accept the proposed new clause would mean that Parliament is not prepared to trust this small number of highly motivated competitors who are identified as such at the end of a long process. They will not commit an outrage such as Dunblane. Indeed, a refusal would not only be implausible; it would be insulting.
The Government have declared their intention to ensure that the Bill will not be used in a way which would preclude the United Kingdom from hosting the Commonwealth or Olympic Games. As the host is required to provide facilities for those sports demanded by the IOC, not just those chosen by the host country, that must mean providing facilities for all the shooting sports and allowing all foreign competitors to come and take part without hindrance. There are several practical issues to be sorted out and the Home Secretary has committed himself to overcome them. The decisions emphasise the injustice of a situation in which all overseas competitors can take part but not UK citizens. How stupid can we get! The position has only to be stated to understand why so many people, not only shooters, feel insulted at the injustice and unreasonableness of the situation. Therefore, the next stage must be to find a way to allow British participation to continue. The proposed new clause, if accepted, would allow such participation to continue. I invite the Minister to get up and say now that he will accept it. I see a little movement but, alas, I fear it is not enough.
The provision of sites of national shooting centres would do no harm at all. No pistols will be held or used outside such designated sites. Each site would be approved by the Secretary of State for all Section 5 weapons, including dangerous guns. Therefore, the security would be of the highest level. A precedent for such a site already exists at Bisley where exempted historic firearms are to be stored and fired.
The proposed new clause provides that only those shooters can use a .22 at centres of excellence, first, if they have a certificate and therefore have passed the chief constable's vetting (and that is the difference between my amendment and that of my noble friend); secondly, if they have special approval from the Secretary of State; and thirdly, if they have been vetted by the shooting organisations that run Olympic sport. I should have thought that there were adequate safeguards in that respect. Such people would be able to fire a .22 only at a designated site. It is far fetched in the extreme to suppose that such a procedure represents any danger whatever to the public. It would permit the
588
national bodies to look at shooters who have learnt high skills and recommend them to the Secretary of State so that they can learn and practise the Olympic pistol disciplines in such defined places.
The Japanese have something similar to what this amendment proposes. If the Japanese can do it, why on earth cannot we? Are the Japanese so superior, so much cleverer and so much more responsible than we are? Of course they are not. This amendment must be accepted to protect our position in relation to the Commonwealth Games and in relation to our engagement in the Olympic sport of pistol shooting. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, as has been pointed out on earlier occasions, if this amendment is resisted Britain with its proud and ancient tradition of success in Olympic pistol shooting will be relegated to the bottom of the table. We shall become a laughing stock internationally. There are conceivable hypothetical circumstances in which one's country has to be a laughing stock for one reason or another but this is certainly not one of them. Acceptance of this amendment would pose no statistical threat to the public whatever, as the public would undoubtedly agree if the matter had been carefully explained to them. If the amendment is resisted, it can only be for fear of what some, not all, of the tabloids, might say. Those tabloids will ironically almost certainly change their tune the closer we come to the next Olympic Games. Fairness, common sense and the reputation of Britain all dictate acceptance of this amendment.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I support this amendment. I should point out that I shall not move Amendment No. 7 when we reach it. Amendment No. 7 is different from the amendment that we are discussing, as my noble friend has just said. In addition to the reasons given by my noble friend to explain that difference I should add that my noble friend's method of dealing with this dilemma is to ask for the approval of the International Olympic Committee and to ask the Secretary of State to act,
"on the recommendation of a recognised governing body of the sport".
In Amendment No. 7 I do not propose those steps. In that amendment I propose following a slightly different route. However, I believe that the House will not wish me to spend too long discussing these amendments and therefore I shall speak in support of my noble friend's amendment which concerns centres of excellence.
As I have said before, I am quite certain in my own mind that the reason we are in this position—I sympathise with the position of my noble friends on the Front Bench—is that a blanket manifesto commitment was given. This is not the time for us to discuss manifestos. Frankly, I do not know of many people who read manifestos. Therefore I do not have much sympathy with people who trot out the view that something that was included in a manifesto which no one read and few people understood should be viewed as the Holy Grail. I do not agree with that at all. However, my noble friend is perfectly entitled to say

589
that the provision was in the manifesto and he is perfectly entitled to draw support from that fact. However, that provision made no reference to any effect on the Commonwealth Games, the Olympic Games or the games for the disabled that we have been discussing. If we are to accept that the commitment that was given in the manifesto should take precedence in any circumstance, I believe there is an obligation on people who write manifestos for submission to the country, to refer to the consequences of the commitments in those manifestos.
It is quite clear that unless we take the action that is proposed in this amendment the chances of this country hosting the Olympic Games in the future are zero. That is my judgment. People may disagree with it, but it is a judgment based on no little experience. The same problems arise with the Commonwealth Games which are to be held in Manchester in the year 2002. The British Olympic Association is engaged in an interesting correspondence with my noble friend. My noble friend has responded courteously to that correspondence. In its letter dated 25th September the British Olympic Association stated,
"no account has been made as to how British athletes will be able to train to qualify for these events or, in the event of automatic host country entries, how British competitors will be able to compete on equal terms with other nations. There would be a national outcry if the British competitors were made to appear the laughing stock in front of a home crowd on the World's largest stage—the Olympic Games".
That is the situation. It is ironic that the Government are—I am delighted to say—supporting a bid to host the Olympic Games in this country. That is declared government policy. I believe it is the declared policy of the Opposition too. We are all united in that. Why, therefore, do we undermine that bid by imposing conditions which the British Olympic Association informs us will make us a laughing stock? I have made my next point before. Having been much involved in the bidding process for these events, and knowing the great difficulties that Britain has experienced in that bidding process, why are we giving our opponents a free kick at goal? Every time the bidding begins to host the Olympic Games at least five or six cities get up to all kinds of mischief not only in promoting their own candidatures but also in downgrading other people's, particularly that of the British who always play by the rules in the bidding process, as we do generally in sport. There is no doubt in my mind that if we cannot say that at an Olympic shooting event British shooters will compete on equal terms with everyone else, that will be held against us. However, we cannot say that that will be the case.
There is another important consideration. If we are not to hold any further shooting events in this country—and that will be a consideration in the judging of bids—if we bid successfully to host the Olympic Games, from where shall we obtain the 200 or so officials to judge such competitions and to marshal and steward them? That will be an important factor in the Commonwealth Games at Manchester. Those people are rapidly disappearing because gun clubs are closing down. We shall not have any qualified judges, stewards and security people. There will be real problems in
590
Manchester. I do not know what the good people of Manchester will think, and what the people involved in the Commonwealth Games will think, if we have to pay foreigners to adjudicate our contests in this country. That is the situation that we have been put in as a result of the failure to understand the intricacies of this policy. All I am hoping is that even at this late stage the Government will at least take heed of the experiences of some of us who know what we are talking about. I say that, I hope not immodestly. It is an important factor to be taken into account.
My noble friend Lord Williams responded to the British Olympic Association, as we would expect, in a totally open, forthright, honest manner. He stated:
"We accepted that it would effectively end the sport of cartridge pistol shooting in this country … we concluded that a complete ban on handguns was necessary … We fully accept that this is likely to make it difficult for British shooters to reach the standard necessary to qualify for and compete in Olympic pistol shooting events".
Nothing could be clearer. The Government now understand—it is of great sadness to me—the great harm that they are doing to the sport of pistol shooting and. therefore, to the Commonwealth Games which will be held in Manchester and to any future bid to host the games in this country. That is now understood by the Government; and anyone voting for the Government today can be under no illusion about the situation.
It has been suggested that those shooters can practise abroad. But at what expense? Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man will not have those restrictions placed upon them. I understand that they are not part of the United Kingdom. That adds to the ludicrous nature of the situation: shooters from those countries can train and participate but not shooters from the mainland of Great Britain.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble Lord might like to add Northern Ireland to that list.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. My special remark on Northern Ireland is to this effect. How on earth can we proceed down this path? If we pass the amendment, perfectly legitimate shooters would be subject to the most stringent restrictions which are totally in the hands of the Secretary of State who can say, "That cannot happen". For many years guns in Northern Ireland have been declared unlawful but with devastating effects, as we know, where we have been unable to control the situation.
I believe that the case is overwhelming. I support the amendment. As with disabled sports, I have spent a lifetime furthering the interests of the British Olympic Association. Perhaps I should decare an interest since I am a life member of that body. We support our Olympians around the world. I want the Olympic Games to come in this country. They are the greatest show on earth. I do not wish us to do anything which prevents the games from coming here. Although I shall probably not be here to enjoy them, I like to think that in the next century others who have supported sport in all its aspects will have that opportunity.

591
At this late stage, I beg the Government to consider the matter again and to say that they do not wish to harm the Olympic Games movement and the possibility of having the games here; that they do not want to confront the British Olympic Association; and that they do not want to make a farce out of the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002. If that requires them to have a little more wisdom than perhaps they have shown and to consult people who have practical knowledge of the situation, I hope that they will do so. I have no high hopes that that will occur but I still urge it upon my noble friend.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, from these Benches, I offer our support for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
I wish to make one point, and address it to the noble friends of those two noble Lords. Much has been made of the Labour manifesto. I gained the impression from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that he did not pay quite as much attention to his own party's general election manifesto as I am sure the Chief Whip and others within his party would recommend.
Lord Howell: My Lords, that is quite right, but I pay even less attention to the manifesto of the noble Lord's party.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is a good point. I suspect that it would be true to say that we all pay little attention to what goes into manifestos and in particular those parts which are of no great concern to us.
However, I asked one of my noble friends to take the trouble to obtain the relevant part of the manifesto. I should remind the noble Lord and his noble friends of what the manifesto says on gun control. It makes it clear that there will be legislation to allow individual Members of Parliament—I presume that that means Members of this House as well; we are Members of Parliament, after all—a free vote for a complete ban on handguns. Therefore those noble Lords in the party opposite who feel that they are under the iron hand of their Chief Whip can rest assured that they have it on good authority, from the Labour Party manifesto itself, that they can vote according to their consciences on this matter. I hope that they will do so and will consider following the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, myself and others into the Division Lobby on the amendment.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, the issue will have a serious effect on British participation in international competition. If representatives of Great Britain are not allowed to take part in British competitions, it would be a serious blow to our international standing. Even if they have the money and facilities to train overseas, it would be extremely expensive to travel backwards and forwards to train regularly.
592
The Commonwealth Games will come to Manchester in 2002. We have been told that competitors from other countries will be able to bring their pistols into this country but that our own nationals will be unable to take part in those competitions. The same will apply to the Olympic Games if we ever have them again in this country, which is now doubtful. We shall be made the laughing stock of the whole world. I support the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is not correct to say that the prospect of this country having the Olympic Games in future is zero. That is not the view of the British Olympic Association.
As my noble friend Lord Howell said, I have discussed these matters with him during the Recess and I have not been persuaded by any arguments put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, assisted my noble friend on the Northern Ireland point. It was a point raised earlier. I make the same rejoinder, if I may. Northern Ireland has always had separate firearms legislation and considers—I dare say it will further consider—firearms control separately.
My noble friend Lord Howell correctly cited my letter. But it was not a case of the Government coming slowly, reluctantly and lately to that conclusion. At col. 960 of Hansard of 15th July, I made it quite plain in your Lordships' House that the Government accepted that the introduction of the Bill into law would effectively mean the end of cartridge pistol shooting in this country. The Home Secretary has said that time without number. It is not, therefore, right to suggest that the Government have come late to this understanding. We have always said that that was the inevitable consequence. It may well be a regrettable consequence, but the Government's view unambiguously is that a total ban on handguns is necessary in the interests of public safety. The exceptions to the ban, which are already in the 1997 Act, introduced as a Bill by the previous government, are largely occupational; and they should remain. We do not accept that any other group of shooters should be exempt from the ban.
There is room for argument. The arguments have been rehearsed until there is little left to rehearse. Some noble Lords take the view that this measure is too draconian; we take the view that it is appropriate in the interests of public safety. It is quite plain that there will never be a bridge between us.
Perhaps I may deal briefly with the Commonwealth Games and any future Olympic or Paralympic Games. It is important not to be alarmist. The contract is already signed for the games in 2002 in Manchester. The contractual arrangements can be broken only if there is a natural disaster or lack of proper organisation. The Home Secretary can use his powers under Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, and they are important powers. They entitle him to grant special dispensation to competitors to take part in shooting competitions here. The Home Secretary has indicated that he will view with the utmost favour any application for a dispensation for Manchester; and I respectfully remind the Committee that it is understood that the Greater Manchester Police are content and satisfied that suitable arrangements can

593
be put in place. These are important points to remember. Alarmist assertion, not always based on fact, is likely to do those games great harm.
We know already that the Home Secretary has used his authority under Section 5 of the 1968 Act. He was faced with an application relating to the 14th European police and pistol championships at Bisley. Overseas competitors needed the authority under Section 5. The Home Secretary, after appropriate consultation, granted that authority. It was not necessary at that time to grant authority to British competitors as the competition occurred in September, before the 1997 Act came fully into force.
It is not right to suggest that Britain can never again host an Olympic Games. There are various events in the Olympic Games in which this country does not compete. It has never been suggested that the fact that we do not compete in baseball, basketball, handball and softball will be a disincentive to a successful application for the Olympic Games in future.
We need to bear in mind that of the 28 Commonwealth shooting competitions the Bill affects only six; of the 15 Olympic shooting competitions the Bill affects three; and of the 15 Paralympic shooting competitions it affects only two.
We have reached the conclusion that a complete ban is the only safe way to deal with handguns in this country—
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he explain why this country is considered by the Government to be the only one in Europe where it is necessary to ban pistols for reasons of public safety? Are we more vicious than people in other parts of Europe?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we are not more vicious than people in other parts of Europe. We have had a recent experience in a small Scottish town which may be different from experiences in other parts of Europe. We have come to the conclusion—I do not mean "we" as a Government, but overwhelmingly "we" as a nation—despite what others elsewhere may choose to do, whether on the continent of Europe, North America, South America or wherever, that this is the way in which we wish to protect the public safety.
When a similar amendment was considered in another place, the voting was 328 to 159—a majority of 169. It is not a case of suggesting that the British temperament is unduly vicious. It is a case of coming to the conclusion that this is the proper way to safeguard public safety. I readily accept that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I will never agree on that matter, any more than the noble Lords, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and I will agree—although in some ways we start from similar premises. But we come to different conclusions. I respect the libertarian basis from which they begin. But the Government reach the conclusion that sometimes, when liberties clash, the liberties of some must give way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate for the very
594
important points that they made. My noble friend Lord Howell is an expert in this matter and ought to be listened to with the utmost respect. His view carries a lot of weight in this House, outside this House, in sporting circles at home and indeed in sporting circles abroad. He has had a lot of experience. I hope that noble Lords will listen to what he says, particularly in relation to the possibility of this country being able or not being able to host the Olympic Games in future years.
My noble friend mentioned our manifesto commitment. I remember very many Labour Party manifesto commitments. The one that I remember most is the glossy one that stated: "We believe in Britain". If we believe in Britain, we ought not to be preventing our sportsmen from competing for Britain. I hope my noble friend and other noble Lords will remember that. We do not want our country and our shooting sportsmen to be laughing-stocks, as my noble friend suggested they would be. We want them to be highly regarded, highly respected and highly successful. But they cannot be successful, because they will not be allowed to compete. How ridiculous it all is! It is possible within the context of a complete ban on handguns to accommodate the sport through this amendment or one which the noble Lord might care to bring forward himself.
As my noble friend said, British shooters will have to practise abroad, even if they are allowed to shoot—which they will not be. Many of them will be tempted to revoke their British citizenship and become French, or perhaps German, in order to be able to compete in the Olympic Games.
I was very interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. Obviously the noble Lord read the Labour Party manifesto more closely than I did. I did not realise that I was permitted, by the nation no less through the manifesto, to have a free vote. I am most obliged to the noble Lord for reminding or perhaps informing my noble friends of the manifesto commitment to give them a free vote. I note that my noble friend Lord Carter is in the Chamber. I am quite sure that he will take what was said very much to heart.
I listened very carefully to the reply of my noble friend the Minister. However, I am afraid that he did not convince me at all. Some Members of the Committee seem surprised. I am surprised that they are surprised. What I felt was so pitiful was his remark that the prospects of Britain hosting the Olympic Games were not zero. What does that mean? Are they just above zero? Finally, he said that a total ban on handguns is the only means of ensuring public safety. That is not so. The best way of ensuring public safety is to get handguns out of the hands of criminals.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, that is the priority; and that priority is being missed. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will support this amendment, which I intend to press. It is with some regret that I do so against my own party and their advice, but nevertheless I have to do so in the interests of justice and of the future of this country as a sporting nation. I ask the opinion of the House.
6.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 77.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hylton, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Annaly, L.

Kintore, E.

Astor, V.

Liverpool, E.

Attlee, E.

Long, V.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Luke, L.

Berners, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Blatch, B.

McNair, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Marsh, L.

Brookes, L.

Mersey, V.

Burton, L.

Milverton, L.

Cadman, L.

Molloy, L.

Carnegy of Lour. B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Monson, L.

Chesham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Moynihan, L. [Teller.]

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Newall, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Northesk, E

Colwyn, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Congleton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L

Cottesloe, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Courtown, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cranborne, V.

Renton, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Rowallan, L.

Cross, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Denham, L.

Seccombe, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Shrewsbury, E

Dilhorne, V.

Stallard, L.

Dudley, E.

Stewartby, L.

Dundonald. E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L [Teller. ]

Erroll, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sudeley, L

Gainsborough, E.

Swansea, L

Haddington, E.

Swinfen, L.

Halsbury, E.

Teviot, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Tollemache, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Wilberforce, L

Hayhoe, L.

Wilcox, B.

Hemphill, L.

Yarborough, E.

Henley, L.

Young, B.

Howe, E.

Young of Darlington, L.

Howell, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dubs, L

Banbury of Southam, L.

Eatwell, L.

Berkeley, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Borrie, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gladwin of Clee.L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Chandos, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gregson, L

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Grenfell, L.

Daviesof Oldham, L.

Hamwee, B.

Desai, L.

Hanworth, V.

Diamond, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Dixon, L

Harris of Greenwich, L.

596

Haskel, L.

Nelson, E.

Hayman, B.

Newby, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Nicol, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Paul, L.

Hoyle, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Prys-Davies, L.

Challanger]

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Rea, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Redesdale, L.

Judd, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Kilbracken, L.

Russell, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Serota, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Simon, V.

Lockwood, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

McNally, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mishcon, L.

Whitty, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:

REVIEW OF COMPENSATION SCHEME
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall undertake a review of the operation of the compensation scheme approved under this Act and shall report to Parliament the results of the review together with any recommendations for compensating all persons affected by this Act.
(2) The report under subsection (1) shall be presented to both Houses of Parliament within 6 months of this Act coming into force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small amendment to provide for a review of the compensation scheme. It is limited to the compensation scheme under the present Bill—that is, .22 calibre pistols originally permitted under the 1997 Act. This is the only amendment that I have been able to get in to order on this Bill. However, the problems arising from the Bill will be similar to those arising from the 1997 (No.1) Act and it seems probable that any recommendations made by a review for this group of shooters should also apply to those shooters previously affected.
The present plans will lead to gross injustice. The Bill provides for compensation for .22 pistols on the same terms as for higher calibre guns. The injustice of the scheme currently operated under the 1997 Act will apply to this Bill but is much worse. Clubs and businesses which might have been able to continue to operate with .22 pistols will no longer be able to do so. In other words, the opportunity for survival is no longer available. The same is true for many businesses. They will face costs not only to the value of the guns themselves but all the other costs and financial obligations involved in closing down their businesses.
Many clubs will be hit by the Bill. Many of the worst hit by this Bill will be ordinary club members who have pitched together to run their club or range. Many of those individuals will remain liable for long-term

597
mortgages and leases for clubs and ranges which will be forced to close under the Bill. That is dreadful. Parliament should not allow it.
A survey of 139 clubs showed that 71 per cent. would not reach the Government's requirements for security under the 1997 Act. At that time, 126 clubs gave details of their expected losses. It was possible to calculate that their losses would come to over £64 million. That relates to individuals. The new Bill makes the situation even worse. All pistol clubs will now close, the 71 per cent. will be 100 per cent. and the loss for which no compensation is paid to clubs could be £100 million.
There is also the matter of businesses. Compensation is offered for stock but not for loss of business. Many dealers will lose their livelihoods completely as a result of this Bill. This situation is not just an occupational hazard. It is a sudden imposition by law, which will take away so large an amount of that trade that the enterprise could become unviable.
Moreover, there is the loss of employment within the industry, which is another serious consequence of the Bill. It is expected that 3,000 jobs will be lost.
The Bill affects ordinary people who have conducted what has been up to this point a proper, lawful and well regulated business activity. For example, an ammunition manufacturer, Roger Curtis, built up his own business supplying ammunition to shooting clubs and the police. He took a £30,000 bank loan and sold his home in order to raise a further £36,000 to start his business, which had a projected annual turnover of £75,000. He has now been forced into liquidation and has lost everything. Is that what we want to do to people? Surely not!
The Government say that public policy is public policy and that there are precedents for what will happen under this Bill. They say that it is what usually happens when governments pass new Acts: some people are bound to be hurt. But why should anyone be hurt by a change to public policy? If the public wish to change policy, they should fully compensate any persons who are adversely affected by that change. If that were so, perhaps we should not have so many ill-conceived and unfair Bills, such as this one. If the public had to pay the full price, it might very well be that we would more deeply reflect upon legislation and bring forward decent legislation which is properly drafted.
But, as I pointed out at Committee stage, there are precedents for compensation for loss of business. If agreed, this new clause would allow those to be looked at. Other countries are willing to compensate properly and fully those who are adversely affected by the new laws. The Australian scheme is well known. Indeed, it was set out at Committee stage and therefore I do not wish to describe it again.
Finally, I very much regret that a Labour Government—a Labour Government!—should bring forward this spiteful piece of legislation, which will not guarantee that there are no future Dunblanes, which will deprive innocent people of their legitimate sport, while demonising and punishing them for an act by a criminal madman, and will leave thousands of handguns in the possession of crooks. This new clause, if agreed, will at least ensure that the Government, within six months,
598
will again have to confront the gross indecency of the financial mayhem that they will have caused to many people because of the rigid and uncaring stance that they have adopted. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, not for the first time the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has spoken so well and so comprehensively that there is little that I can add in support. The analogies cited on earlier occasions by the Government, with other examples of businesses suffering financially in consequence of past public safety legislation, are not really valid; first, because in reality this is more a question of public relations than genuine public safety; and, secondly, because the degree of financial suffering involved is very much greater.
Take the case of Mr. Bruce Rainford, joint owner of the Nottingham Shooting Centre, who laboriously built up his business by working 15 hours a day until it had a value of £400,000. It is now worth £1,000. In other words, he has lost 99¾ per cent. of his assets. If Mr. Rainford had established his business in Australia, he would have been very much more fairly treated. Why cannot Britain behave as fairly and decently to law abiding citizens as does Australia?
All this amendment does is permit—not oblige—the Secretary of State to think again, after reviewing all the evidence, if he so chooses. Nobody can possibly complain that that violates any part of the Labour Party's general election manifesto. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I also offer my support to the amendment. I take the opportunity to raise one related matter, which is not directly related to this particular amendment but is particularly important. I should be grateful if the Minister could give some consideration to it and possibly write to me between now and the next stage of the Bill. It is a matter which does not relate to this compensation scheme but, because the word "review" came in, I thought it right to raise it now. We might want to come back to it, depending on the scope of the Bill, at Third Reading.
The Minister might be aware of a case in the Cambridge Crown Court which came before His Honour Judge Haworth in an appeal of Reginald Butland. The judge gave his verdict on 11th September. It inferred that an applicant for a certificate had no right of appeal against a condition or conditions imposed by the chief constable. It had been my understanding and that of others that there had been such a right of appeal since 1920 or even since the 1968 Act. We now seem to infer from that particular case that the Home Office—I should be grateful if the noble Lord can comment on this point—has been advising the judges, courts and chief constables that no such right exists.
I am sure the noble Lord would agree that when such an issue arises in which there is no right of appeal, very serious consequences can follow to the individual which might relate to his employment or whatever. Certainly in this matter, it would mean that, for example, chief constables could impose impossible conditions on the certificate without satisfaction.

599
I should be grateful if the noble Lord would give some consideration to that point. I appreciate, having raised the matter now without notice, that it may not be right or directly relevant to this specific amendment. However, I should be grateful if he would consider the matter between now and the next stage. Having said that, and having said at the beginning that I support the amendment, I offer the support of myself and my noble friends on these Benches for Amendment No. 6.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, perhaps I may speak briefly. I intended to raise the same point as the last speaker raised. I understand that there is no right of appeal. The only resort is to a judicial review which is far more expensive and time consuming. My understanding is that some chief constables—I hasten to say, not my own—are using (dare I say "misusing") that fact to perpetuate injustices in certain police areas. It is therefore a matter which should be looked at with some urgency.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the last two points first. If the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would write to me with the particulars of the background of the problem, then I shall undertake to have researches carried out as soon as possible to reply to him and send copies to other noble Lords—I know the noble Lord, Lord Burton, may be interested—as appropriate. Without knowing the background, the problems and the specific focus, I cannot respond now. I cannot imagine that the Home Office would give advice to a judge in those circumstances. But it is perhaps best if I make inquiries in the usual way.
Amendment No. 6 is the same amendment as my noble friend Lord Stoddart put forward at Committee stage, withdrawing it on the basis that the Government would reconsider. We have. I am of the same view. We are not persuaded of the need for the new clause. A statutory requirement for a formal review and a report of the operation of the compensation scheme is wholly unnecessary.
My noble friend, as always, quite candidly said that the purpose of the review was to reopen the question of compensation all over again. I do not recall that such a review was called for as regards the compensation scheme for the larger calibre pistols and ancillary equipment. However, I recall—it slightly surprises me that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is offering support—that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was firm, doughty and unyielding in saying that there would be no wider compensation for the owners of large calibre weapons or of ancillary equipment or for those persons who had shooting ranges, wherever they may be situated.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. That scenario was very different. I was resolute, as the noble Lord appears to be being now. The owners were compensated. We are talking about businesses that may be affected by the
600
Bill. Under the original Bill, businesses could continue; shooting clubs could stay in place, albeit under stringent regulations as set out in the Bill, and some of those businesses could have continued. The difference is that this Bill is a wholesale demolition of the sport and of those businesses. It is a completely different scenario.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the Minister replies, can I ask him if it is not also true that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, moved an amendment to improve the compensation offered under the previous government's Bill which was carried by a substantial majority of the whole House? Therefore, the point remains for the noble Lord to answer.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, is quite right. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, put forward that proposition. I must whisper the next part of my response, otherwise the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, and my noble friend Lord Stoddart will be extremely cross. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, put forward that amendment on the basis of European rights.
The fact remains that the former then incumbent government set their collective face against any wider compensation scheme. For some businesses there would have been significant detriment. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, produced the precedent—rightly, I believe—to show that there would be no compensation.
This is a device—I use the word neutrally—to reopen the compensation question. On that basis we find it unacceptable and I invite your Lordships not to follow the rather seductive piping of my noble friend Lord Stoddart.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in the debate and I listened carefully to what my noble friend said. He said exactly what I expected him to say; that is, that he would not accept the amendment and did not see any need for a review. Again we differ.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, was right to say that we went through this matter on the No. I Bill, if I may so describe it, and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, moved his amendment. He did it successfully with a huge majority and, if I had had my way—unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would not go along with me—we would have insisted on our amendment and put it to the vote. The House, too, did not go with me.
I hope that the House will change its mind today and go with me on this amendment. We have got a listening, caring and giving government. I therefore expected my noble friend to give me something on this amendment. As he has not, I fear that I must—again regretfully—press the matter to a vote.
6.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 68.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Hemphill, L.

Annaly, L.

Henley, L.

Astor, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Attlee, E.

Kintore, E.

Blatch, B.

Lawrence, L.

Bridgeman. V.

Luke, L.

Brookes, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Burton, L.

Milverton, L.

Cadman, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monson, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chesham, L.

Moynihan, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Newall, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Northesk, E.

Colwyn, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller.]

Congleton, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Renton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Courtown, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Cox, B.

Seccombe, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Stallard, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Dudley, E.

Sudeley, L.

Dundee, E.

Swinfen, L.

Dundonald, E.

Teviot, L.

Ferrers, E.

Wharton, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Wilcox, B.

Haddington, E.

Young, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howell, L.

Addington, L.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Berkeley, L.

Judd, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lestor of Eccles, B.

Chandos, V.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller. ]

Diamond, L.

McNally, L.

Dixon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Donoughue, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Molloy, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Eatwell, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Nelson, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Newby, L,

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Paul, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gregson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Grenfell, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hamwee, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rea, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal. ]

Haskel, L.

Russell, E.

Hayman, B.

Serota, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon, V.

602

Simon of Highbury, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Whitty, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.4 p.m.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Howell Lord Howell moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
REVIEW OF THE ACT
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall carry out a review of the operation and effectiveness of this Act as soon as is practicable after the expiration of 3 years from its coming into force and, in the course of that review, shall consider and have regard to the effect which the Act has or may have on the holding of the Commonwealth Games in the United Kingdom in 2002.
(2) The Secretary of State shall prepare a report based on the review and shall lay a copy before each House of Parliament as soon as practicable after it has been prepared.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall formally move this amendment in one sentence. It seeks to require the Government to review the Act within three years, which seems eminently sensible and does not need any further explanation. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: My Lords, I have one small disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, although I would otherwise very much like to support him. I feel that three years is too long. There are many anomalies in the legislation that was rushed through the House recently which require attention. Indeed, there was the one mentioned just now by my noble friend Lord Henley. I was going to apologise to the Minister—but I was told that I would be out of order—and say that in the case referred to by my noble friend he did not have the details. We tried to get papers before then but the court appears to have been very reluctant to release them. I hope that we shall have the papers shortly and that I shall be able to let the noble Lord have them.
On the question of the timescale, perhaps I may suggest that the answer might be that soon after the Bill passes, a committee of this House, where there is plenty of expertise, should be set up to look at all the firearms legislation. There are a number of anomalies. There is the question of transporting the ammunition and various other matters. A committee of the House might solve the problem and could try to put right some of the anomalies.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that I have already dealt with the final point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Burton. I have undertaken that when I have the particulars from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I shall cause inquiries to be made, so I cannot be accused of being guilty of discourteous conduct if I simply repeat that.
The amendment is not necessary. It is not customary to have a review after three years. My noble friend Lord Howell introduced the amendment with commendable economy. I hope to follow him and so I shall not go into

603
the ins and outs of the Commonwealth Games, or the 2002 Games, or any possible Olympic Games. My noble friend has not mentioned them. As he has not mentioned them, I shall not either.
There is no reason to have an examination of the Act in three years' time. We shall constantly keep the workings of the Act under scrutiny. We shall wish to see that all firearms controls are fully effective. Plainly, any responsible government will periodically review what happens if a Bill becomes an Act. There is no reason to single out this Act—no reason at all—any more than any other Act of Parliament. I therefore ask my noble friend not to press the matter to a Vote.
Lord Howell: My Lords, how nice it is to hear my noble friend calling on my good example and thanking
604
me for not mentioning this, that and the other, which I did not. Alas, he did not follow my advice in other areas. But that, I suppose, is the price we pay for being in politics. I accept the logic of what he has said and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In the Schedule:
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 not moved.]
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
House adjourned at eight minutes past seven o'clock.

  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly
  Referendums
  Referendums
  Domestic Violence: Ministerial Meetings
  Domestic Violence: Ministerial Meetings
  Northern Ireland: Forest Service
  Northern Ireland: Forest Service