Firearms (Amendment) Bill — Consequential amendments and repeals — 18 Jun 1997
Mr Peter Mandelson MP, Hartlepool voted with the majority (No).
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, leave out lines 11 to 21.
The amendment would ensure that the compensation arrangements were brought back to the House after the Bill was enacted, as under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. It is essential because the Bill proposes a qualitative change from the 1997 Act that the Government themselves recognise in their business compliance cost assessment, which claims that gun clubs that cater solely or mainly for target pistol shooting will probably have to close. Given that admission, that qualitative change requires further debate.
I am sure that the Government's response will be that they want to enact the Bill quickly and effectively and that the scheme already exists as an ex-gratia scheme, but further debate is necessary because of that step change and because of its impact on business. I have not heard any significant and serious arguments why that impact should not be recognised in the Bill, and further debate would ensure that Opposition Members can have their say.
Question put, That the amendment be made:--
The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 305.
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Lab||305 (+2 tell)||2||0||74.1%|
|LDem||0||40 (+2 tell)||0||91.3%|
|Mr Harry Barnes||North East Derbyshire||Lab||aye|
|Mr Jamie Cann||Ipswich||Lab||aye|