Violent Crime Reduction Bill

The Minister says that the amendment is not necessary and that the Government will, of course, consult before regulations are brought forward through statutory instruments. He said that if the Government did not do that, there could be problems when the statutory instruments were brought before this House and another place. The difficulty is that the Minister says that against a background where, as we all know, the Government consulted on firearms matters. They have received 4,000 responses, the analysis of which we have not as yet seen, but they have introduced the relevant legislation as a pre-emptive strike, which has upset many responsible, legal holders of firearms. I was about to say that the Government had jumped the gun. That is so corny, but I have said it now. Therefore, it is a bit rich that the Government are now saying, ““Do not worry; of course we shall consult””. The problem is, it is not just consultation that matters, but rather listening to the results of that consultation, benefiting from the advice one is given and doing something about it. I am not convinced by the Minister’s reply but my amendment is not one on which I would divide the Committee. I agree with him that this is not the appropriate place for a statutory provision for such a body, but I still feel extremely disillusioned by the way in which the Government are ploughing ahead with legislation when they have not taken fully into account the consultation process that preceded it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.