| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Peter Brooke (Cities of London and Westminster): Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to reveal to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) that we are not yet in the last six months of this century?
Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes. It is surprising that one so numerically literate is 18 months out, and I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing that out. The new century does not begin until 1 January 2001, and it is about time that people realised that.
Mr. Maxton: Do we take it, therefore, that we have another 18 months to ensure that the millennium dome works?
Sir Patrick Cormack: I will not be tempted down that road--even if I could walk there on water, as the hon. Gentleman doubtless could. I hope that the Speaker has a splendid day next Thursday, and I am delighted to support the motion.
8.53 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I am sure that we all hope that the Speaker has a splendid day. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) made his point with courtesy, and he was wise not to object to the Speaker being away. Hon. Members are wise to remember the courtesies open to the Speaker. I take my hon. Friend's point--as I do that of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire(Sir P. Cormack)--about the historic nature of this measure, and I accept my hon. Friend's reminder as to whether we should take the matter under advisement. On this occasion, the House would be well advised to pass the measure speedily.
Air Guns (Safety)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
8.54 pm
Mr. Jeff Ennis (Barnsley, East and Mexborough): I am conscious of the fact that tonight's Adjournment debate is starting early, so I shall be happy to take interventions from either side of the House--although it looks as if we shall not hear from many Opposition Members.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House the important issue of the safety of air guns. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government need to take seriously incidents involving air guns. After all, we now have probably the tightest hand gun legislation in the world--and rightly so--since the implementation of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. The Government's actions in tightening up hand gun legislation were widely welcomed after the tragic events in Hungerford and Dunblane. The Government's actions have been more than vindicated by recent horrendous incidents on high school campuses in the United States.
I applied for this Adjournment debate because in recent months there have been two serious incidents involving the misuse of air guns in my constituency. The first, and by far the more serious, occurred in January in Grimethorpe. Adam Yoxall, a 10-year-old boy, was tragically hit in the eye by an air gun pellet while playing in a local wood. As a direct consequence, he has now lost the sight in his left eye, and surgeons have been unable to remove the pellet, for fear that, if they do, he risks losing the sight in his other eye. The problem is that the pellet is not lodged in Adam's eye but is floating around in the aqueous humour.
Adam has to attend Rotherham hospital every six weeks so that doctors can monitor whether any infection is present that might spread to his good eye. I can only imagine how distressed Adam's parents must feel about the situation. Since the incident, Adam has suffered from trauma attacks and receives professional counselling. I saw Adam's parents over the weekend, and they informed me that the incident has affected Adam's behavioural patterns and his educational progress. I am sure that the whole House will want to wish Adam and his family all the best for the future.
The second incident in my constituency happened in April, in Thurnscoe. A boy of 12 was left in agony after being shot in the back by a sniper. He was sitting on a bench when he was hit in the back by a pellet which penetrated his clothing and left him with a bright red and painful area on his back. He was taken to Mexborough Montagu hospital and allowed home after treatment. Police efforts to trace the sniper unfortunately failed to identify the culprit.
I am sorry to say that those occurrences are not isolated incidents. In 1996, the last year for which figures are available, 1,203 offences in which air weapons were used were recorded by the police.
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone):
As I understand it, air rifles come in two calibres--the .177 and the .22. The .22 is the more powerful, and I am told that a .22 air rifle can penetrate a metal sheet. Does my hon. Friend agree that the
Mr. Ennis:
My hon. Friend makes a valid point and I appreciate his knowledge on the subject. I am not an expert on air rifles, but I understand that, on certain weapons, the power of the mechanism can be adjusted. If people are stopped by the police when they are in possession of such weapons, they turn the power of the weapon down so that it conforms to the air gun legislation. As I said, I am not an expert, but I have heard of weapons with that feature and am obviously worried about them, too.
I noted earlier that the general trend is that the number of air gun incidents is falling, and I said that there were 1,203 such incidents in 1996. In contrast, there were 1,718 recorded offences in 1992, but even one recorded air gun incident a year is one too many, and we should not be complacent.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe):
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also an animal welfare element to this problem? The Cats Protection League has estimated that 10,000 cats a year are shot with air guns, and that is a source of considerable anguish to pet owners.
Mr. Ennis:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not want to embarrass him, but I intend to quote from the ten-minute Bill that he introduced last year on that very point. With my hon. Friend's permission, I shall respond to that issue later in my speech.
Air gun weapons are by no means a new scourge on society. About 20 years ago, I was a victim of an air gun incident. At the time, I was a teacher in the Hillsborough area of Sheffield. One beautiful summer's evening, I was driving up a steep hill towards the village in which I lived. The car slowed as it crested the hill, which was about a mile from my house. I had the window down, and suddenly felt a sharp pain in my chest. I wondered whether I was having a heart attack or an angina attack. I immediately stopped the car, and noticed a pellet in my lap. When I turned around, I saw a couple of youths running away across the fields with an air rifle.
Clearly, that could have been a very serious incident. If the pellet had hit me in the face I could have lost control of the car and skidded off the road, perhaps hitting a pedestrian or colliding with another vehicle. In many respects, I was fortunate. I raise my experience of being the victim of such an attack because I did not report it to the police at the time; I am sure that the figures that I cited represent only a fraction of the real number of offences committed each year.
What can the Government do to reduce the number of air gun incidents and the consequent distress caused to victims and their families? I looked at the current legislation, and, on paper, the controls appear quite tight, especially given that 4 million air guns are estimated to be in use in this country.
In January 1998, a ten-minute Bill, the Acquisition and Possession of Air Weapons (Restriction) Bill, was sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), who I am glad to see in his place this evening. That Bill attempted to raise the minimum age for
possessing an air weapon from 14 to 17, and to address the enormous problem that domestic animals and wild birds are often the target of air gun offenders. It also recognised that a huge amount of human suffering is caused by those offenders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe pointed out that, every year, large numbers of cats, dogs, horses and wild birds--including swans--are the victims of air gun attacks. He said that, every year, 10,000 cats are either maimed or killed by air guns. That is equivalent to about 30 cats per day.
I am not convinced that such a measure would reduce the problem significantly, however. Many of the incidents that occur involve children even younger than 14. I believe that there is a genuine need for better enforcement and better education. Better enforcement of current legislation by the police would certainly have an impact on the level of abuse and misuse of air weapons.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |