Violent Crime Reduction Bill

moved Amendment No. 125:"Page 35, line 17, at end insert—" ““(   )   Before publishing regulations under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall consult— (a)   persons appearing to him to have an expertise in firearms; and (b)   such other persons as he sees fit.”” The noble Baroness said: Let us hope that the outbreak of consensus around the Committee continues with my Amendment No. 125. I am grateful to the Countryside Alliance for its support for this amendment, whose objective is to ask the Government why they have failed to fulfil their commitment to establish a firearms advisory committee. Clause 32 makes it an offence to manufacture, import or sell a realistic imitation firearm. Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide for exceptions and exemptions from the offence and to provide for further defences in respect of the offence. My amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to consult before publishing any regulations under that subsection. I ask that he should consult those people who appear to him to have expertise in firearms and I give him the latitude to consult such others as he sees fit. Our amendment is necessary to prevent further haphazard legislation of the kind that has plagued firearms law. Proper consultation is essential if this clause is to work effectively and appropriately. The Government stood down the Firearms Consultative Committee way back in 2004. That committee proved an invaluable mechanism for consultation with all interested parties, but its replacement, the firearms advisory committee, is still nowhere to be seen. The Government’s consultation paper in May 2004, Controls on Firearms, stated on page 9:"““Consideration is currently being given to the remit and composition of a two-tier body to advise the Secretary of State on firearms matters. This body will replace the Firearms Consultative Committee which was allowed to lapse at the end of January 2004. Membership will include people with a technical knowledge of firearms and those with a wider interest in gun issues””." I thought that it was a bit rich of the Minister to say that that Firearms Consultative Committee was allowed to lapse; it was killed off by lack of attention. My amendment would enable the Government to carry out their commitment. I am not being prescriptive about who should be on the committee. The amendment is not only constructive, it is also very necessary. When this matter was debated in another place, the Minister’s response was clearly unsatisfactory. The then Minister, Hazel Blears, said:"““The Home Office already has dialogue with the main shooting organisations, the police and other interest groups when particular issues arise. We are reconsidering whether a two-tier firearms advisory committee could be constituted once we have determined how to deal with the review of firearms controls””.—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B, 25/10/05; col. 257.]" But the problem is that the Minister did not explain what a two-tier system might be. She also rejected the essential point that we make—that changes should happen now. A consultative committee should surely be in place before consultation processes need to take place, not just at some time in the future. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.