Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Brady of Altrincham and Viscount Hailsham

Committee stage
Wednesday 19th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to move my Amendment 214A. I declare an interest as honorary president of the British Shooting Sports Council. Amendment 214A would amend the Firearms Act 1968 to reduce the administrative burden on the police, and it would do so with no risk whatever to public safety. It would remove the current requirement to apply to the police for a specific variation on a firearms certificate in order to purchase a sound moderator, a muzzle brake or a flash hider.

I hope to be brief because I believe this amendment to be so utterly uncontroversial. Indeed, I stand here seeking to be of assistance to Ministers because, in June, this Government published Firearms Licensing: Proposal to Remove Sound Moderators from Firearms Licensing Controls—Government Response, in which they recommended exactly the course of action set out in Amendment 214A. They have since indicated their intention to implement the recommendation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

This amendment is in scope for this Bill, it would help to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on police forces, and the Government want to do it. So I hope that the Minister, when he comes to respond, will commit to incorporating this measure at a later point in our deliberations on this Bill. It is clearly a benefit in reducing the drain on police resources. It is a benefit to those who engage in shooting sports and to the industry. As the Government themselves have accepted, it poses no threat whatever to public safety, simply removing what, in the instance of a sound moderator, is essentially an inert tube from a requirement to be licensed as though it were a firearm. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly support my noble friend Lord Brady’s amendment for exactly the three or four reasons he articulated. First, it is consistent with the Government’s response in June this year. Secondly, silencers themselves do not constitute a public risk. Thirdly, we are advised that this is a Bill that could permit the amendment. Fourthly, the licensing requirement imposes administrative burdens that we could do well without. These are all very good reasons for accepting the amendment. I declare an interest: I possess a silencer.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Lord Brady of Altrincham and Viscount Hailsham

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brady of Altrincham (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing my remarks so capably. I hate to disappoint him, but my intention is to speak briefly in support of my noble friend Lady Laing’s Amendment 67, not to move Amendment 90C in my name. I tabled it intending for it to sit with the earlier amendment that I proposed, which we debated at an earlier stage. My intention was to draw out a broader debate about the importance of a separation of powers. We heard earlier about the separation between the judiciary and the legislature, but we do not speak very often about the possible separation between the Executive and the legislature. That is the debate I was wishing to have, but it does not sit comfortably at this point in our proceedings.

I do, however, very strongly support my noble friend Lady Laing’s amendment, which serves quite an important purpose—and sits naturally with the avowed intention of the Bill. Most of us across the House recognise that the odd process of exempted hereditary Peers being chosen by by-election has become very difficult to justify. It has been widely said at previous stages that it had already really fallen into disuse and most people have been happy to see that there would not be future by-elections.

In dealing with what appeared to be an anomalous route for appointment to your Lordships’ House, it is very hard to see how the appointment of a Peer for life simply because they are being appointed to do a specific job for a specific period of time is not at least as anomalous.

I strongly support my noble friend in her intention. As she has said, it would increase the freedom of Prime Ministers to bring in people to act as Ministers from a much broader field or a much wider spectrum of life experience—and it would not have the unintended consequence of constantly swelling the ranks of your Lordships’ House.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to make two brief points. First, with regard to what has just been said by the noble Baroness, I strongly support the idea of time-limited persons in this House, whether they are Ministers, appointed for a particular short term or—my own favoured proposal—for fixed terms of, say, 10 years, which addresses some of my noble friend’s point.

Amendment 90C, which my noble friend Lord Brady does not intend to move, would be seriously bad news. If this House is to perform its function as a revising Chamber by scrutinising legislation, it is essential that the Government of the day are represented by competent Ministers who can answer questions from the Opposition or their own Benches. If my noble friend’s amendment, which he does not intend to move, was ever to find favour, the role of this House would be hugely diminished.