---

4.30 pm

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Lord Cullen referred to airguns--so it is right that we should discuss them--but he made no recommendations about them. Airguns present some problems, particularly in urban areas, even though they are less likely to be involved in crimes or accidents than firearms. That is especially true on housing schemes in urban areas, where it is pretty difficult to satisfy the rules applying to airguns.

An airgun should not be used within 50 ft of a public road, a public footpath or in a public place. It is pretty unlikely that that condition will be satisfied in many inner-city areas. Therefore, the presence of large numbers of airguns on estates is undoubtedly a source of much anxiety. No one should deny that a problem exists, but it is a finely balanced argument whether we should proceed at this stage to embrace airguns in the licensing system on the back of this very important legislation.

We must consider also whether we should achieve that goal via the negative resolution procedure--the least satisfactory parliamentary process--which does not guarantee that the matter will be brought to the House or that any vote taken in Committee will lead to a vote on the Floor of the House. It is a very unsatisfactory parliamentary procedure, and should not be used to impose otherwise reasonable restrictions on individual rights.

I have two further anxieties about proceeding in this manner at this stage--I do not regard them as conclusive, but I ask hon. Members to consider them. First, there is a danger that we might overload the licensing system while we are adding new procedures to it. It is vital that the system be vigorous and effective in respect of firearms and shotguns. It would be unfortunate if efforts were diverted to the major task of licensing many air rifle users

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1058

at the very time when we are seeking to make the system in respect of firearms and shotguns totally effective by introducing new procedures through this legislation.

Secondly, there is at least some danger that young people in particular will have no incentive to pursue their shooting hobby using airguns instead of moving on to more powerful weapons--there is a huge difference between the relative power of an airgun and a firearm. Once it is necessary to have licences for both, a young person who wishes to learn to shoot might think, "Well, I might as well go for a firearm"--even if his interest might have been satisfied by airguns.

I return to Lord Cullen, who said:

"I make no recommendation on these matters but would draw them to the attention of the Home Office and The Scottish Office".

Therefore, it seems correct that there should be widespread consultation as to whether we should introduce new measures to deal with air weapons, both in the Firearms Consultative Committee--which has an important and useful job to do; I dissent from the line adopted by the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who appeared to disparage that committee--and more widely, in order to embrace the views of those in urban communities who are concerned about the misuse of air rifles and the fact that they are widely held by young people.

By supporting the new clause, Hon. Members may wish to give a signal to the Government to move on the matter. However, I think that there is a danger that we may divert attention from the primary purpose of the legislation.

Mr. Sam Galbraith (Strathkelvin and Bearsden): I support new clause 3, and I understand the Minister's argument. She again advanced the views of the famous Firearms Consultative Committee, which I think highlight its inadequacy. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) said that it was all very well having a technical committee to provide technical advice, but a committee that is dominated by the shooting lobby is not then in a position to give advice on how we should organise that activity in society. That is what the consultative committee is doing in its recommendations.

The Minister said that we could not, and should not, license airguns, because it would interfere with the legitimate rights of individuals to own airguns. That is not a matter for the consultative committee: it is for Parliament to decide what constitutes individuals' legitimate rights. It is not a technical matter, but a civil liberties issue of which Parliament is the guardian--not some Firearms Consultative Committee that is dominated by the shooting lobby.

The Minister also said that licensing would not reduce the misuse of airguns. Where is the evidence for that assertion? That is an opinion, not technical advice. It is difficult for sustain that argument. She is trying to limit the misuse of guns. We are trying to limit the use of guns. Our new clause tries to limit ownership and the use of air rifles by a similar mechanism.

I have heard the consultative committee, the Minister and others argue that air weapons are essential for proper training in shotguns. There are between 1 million and 2 million airguns in this country, but how many are used

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1059

as a stepping stone to training in shotguns? I do not believe that we have the figure, but I bet that it is very few indeed.

The majority of airguns are used to create nuisance, to threaten and to create public disorder in our society. They are not used as the stepping stone to becoming an Olympic gold medallist, and we should not perpetuate that idea any further. Even if we license airguns, it is still possible to get one and to train with it before going on to something else. Licensing would not stop that.

The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned paraplegics, and said that licensing airguns would limit their chance to take part in the Paralympics. It would not. We are not trying to stop their use for sport, for training and so on, but we are concerned about reducing the anti-social effect of airguns, the vast majority of which are used to intimidate, frighten, upset and abuse many people. They are dangerous weapons. Let me reiterate just how dangerous they are.

In this country, I have not dealt with any bullet wounds in the head--although I did when I worked in the United States--but I have looked after several patients with airgun pellets inside the head. I have seen two deaths and one patient was severely disabled--mostly as a result of pellets entering the orbit, where the bone is very thin--and required major surgery, at great risk. These were caused by .22 airguns. These are dangerous weapons on our streets. They are completely unlicensed. They are a social hazard. They are a threat to life and limb. I see no reason from the Minister why we should not go ahead and license them, so I hope that we will gain support for our new clause.

Mr. Salmond: I support new clauses 2 and 3.

On new clause 3, I want to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). The argument was that licensing would not be necessary if the police did their job properly. I have been suspicious of that argument throughout these debates, and I am suspicious of it now. Of course it is possible, particularly in retrospect, to look back and say that the police should have operated differently in some cases, but it is extremely difficult--it requires more than hunches or beliefs--to take action against an individual. The case of Mr. Richard Law, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, is a case in point.

Anyone who has met Mr. Law probably has a hunch and belief that he should not be in possession of a firearms certificate. It is one thing to have a hunch and a belief; it is quite another to make it stick in terms of existing legislation. It would be the same with air rifles and what the hon. Gentleman wants to do--

Mr. Frank Cook rose--

Mr. Salmond: I give way.

Mr. Cook: I was not seeking to intervene, but the opportunity is too good to miss.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Was the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) seeking to intervene?

Mr. Cook: I was trying to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak later in the debate, if I may.

Mr. Salmond: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He was looking at me expectantly, and, polite and civil as ever, I decided to give way to him.

4 Dec 1996 : Column 1060

I have nothing against Mr. Richard Law, although he said that he would stand for election in Banff and Buchan against me, but it looks as though he will be otherwise engaged. None the less, his is a case in point. Even where there seemed to be a clear indication, action taken against him was overturned by the courts, because more than a hunch or a belief is necessary. There has to be legislation. That is why the new clause on air rifles is important, valuable and worth supporting.

I was on a radio phone-in programme with a representative of the shooting lobby--not Mr. Richard Law, but perhaps one of the more responsible members of that lobby. A lady phoned the programme and said that she thought it important that her 12-year-old son should be educated in the use of a shotgun. The shooting lobby gentleman on the programme disagreed, and said he thought that the appropriate age was 13. It is argued that even relatively young children should be educated in the use of weapons, but most of us would say that the age at which that is done should be substantially more than 12 or 13 years.

The radio debate went on for some time; it showed that, even among people who were knowledgeable on the subject and were arguing the shooting point of view, there was confusion about the appropriate age. One of the benefits of the new clause is that it would put the confusion in the Government's court for analysis, so that they could produce regulations in which we could all have confidence about the age of those who could use such weapons.

---