| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 6:
The noble Earl said: When the 1968 and 1988 Acts were passed we were still using imperial measure. Amendments Nos. 6, 83 and 92 are designed merely to incorporate into the legislation the exact measurements in centimetres. It is important that these measurements should be exact because it is illegal under the legislation as it stands for any barrel of any gun to be reduced to less than 24 inches.
With this group of amendments is Amendment No. 8 in the name of my noble friend the Minister. I should like to take the opportunity to ask her whether she is
Lord Burton: I wonder whether I might make one comment to my noble friend. I am not sure that it is right to suggest that the barrel lengths should be 60.96 centimetres or 101.6 centimetres. If one has that definition of the various weapons in the Bill it will ban various weapons which it is not intended to prohibit.
Some Members of the Committee may well have started to shoot with a folding .410. Those would be prohibited. Certain larger calibre rifles such as the double-barrelled weapons used for boar shooting or bear shooting on the Continent would be banned. A number of people in this country may well have those in their houses. Of course I do not expect a reply from the Government today, but it is yet another point which has reared its ugly head, which many Members of the Committee may feel should be looked at again.
Lord Monson: I declare an interest as a patron of the British Weights and Measures Association. I oppose the amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, may remember that, graciously, our lords and masters in Brussels allow us to use the mile as well as the pint, that airline pilots the world over measure the height of their aircraft in feet and not in metres and that we talk about 12, 16, 20 and 28 bore guns. Therefore, there is no reason why we should use metrication for the purposes of the Bill and I oppose the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I am confused about a matter relating to measurements and perhaps the Minister can help me. The .22 pistols are to be allowed but the .32 pistols are to be banned. However, .32 pistols have a great deal less power than .22 pistols. If necessary, I have documents from Birmingham proof house which illustrate that.
Baroness Blatch: I intend to address the amendments before the Committee and I hope that we shall not get into an argument about metrication versus imperial measures. Nor do I wish to return to the debate about the difference between .32 and .22 firearms, except that the Cullen Report refers to the distinction in terms of firepower.
Perhaps I may first address my noble friend's three amendments which deal with the vexed question of metrication and imperial measurement in the firearms legislation. I believe that the three amendments are unnecessary. The effect of the Units of Measurement Regulations 1995 is that references to imperial measures in legislation prior to 1995 shall be construed as though the indication of quantity in imperial were expressed in metric terms. I believe that it would be far simpler to convert these firearms references in the course of a consolidation of all the firearms legislation rather than in a Bill of this kind. The Government will consider the need for such consolidations after this Bill. Therefore, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
My Amendment No. 8 ensures that currently certificatable air weapons which fire pellets of 5.5 millimetre (.22 inch) or smaller can be treated in the same way as other small calibre pistols and be kept and used in licensed pistol clubs. These air weapons, although required to be held on a firearms certificate, are lower in power than .22 rimfire pistols and we believe that it is appropriate for them to be treated the same as small calibre pistols. Those air pistols which fire pellets of a higher diameter will become prohibited.
I therefore hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment and await consolidation. I invite the Committee to accept the Government's Amendment No. 8.
The Earl of Balfour: I am happy with my noble friend's explanation but I am intrigued that page 1 of the Bill refers to 30 centimetres and 60 centimetres instead of to 12 inches and 24 inches. That is the only matter than I am surprised about because we are muddling up the two measures.
Baroness Blatch: I am no expert but I understand that legislation made after 1995 must refer to metric measurements. There is a great deal of legislation on the statute book and there is a case for consolidation. That will be considered after the passing of this Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful for that answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I shall not move the other amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 9:
The noble Lord said: The Bill prohibits all calibres of pistol above .22. However, there is an important calibre which is used in international competitions, not in the Olympics but in the Commonwealth Games and other international events. It is the .32 wadcutter, which is a centre-fire cartridge fired from a semi-automatic pistol. The wadcutter bullet is square ended and punches a clean-cut hole in the paper target. That cartridge is fairly low powered being fractionally more than that of the .22 rimfire. The cartridge is generally loaded by the owner to a low velocity in order to produce the minimum recoil. The energy is just sufficient to operate the mechanism of the pistol. It is a very popular calibre and is used in international competitions.
If the cartridge is loaded with a round-ended bullet, that would project beyond the mouth of the case. However, the wadcutter bullet is seated so that the whole bullet is within the case and does not project beyond the end. A round-nosed bullet would project beyond the end and would exceed the dimensional limits laid down in the amendment. Furthermore, it would not function effectively in a semi-automatic target pistol for which it is designed. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: While I am reluctantly prepared to accept that .22 pistols are primarily for target shooting purposes, does the noble Lord agree that as regards larger calibre weapons their stopping power rather than their accuracy is the attraction?
Lord Gisborough: I understand that the .32 Smith and Wesson long target wadcutter cannot, without blowing up, be given the power to produce the same effect as a .32 Harrison and Richard magnum, which is a different weapon altogether. The Smith and Wesson can not be upgraded. I understand that the muzzle velocity energy is 115 pounds FP--whatever that is--whereas the .22 is 105 pounds and 140 pounds. The velocity is 710 pounds, which is less than any of them. There is a distinction between the wadcutter and the magnum, but the wadcutter pistol cannot be made to fire the larger charge without blowing up, and therefore it is quite safe.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: The Winchester .22 magnum rimfire has a muzzle energy of 194 foot pounds and the .32 wadcutter has a muzzle energy of 130 pounds. The noble Lord mentioned stopping power, so that the actual penetrative power of the wadcutter is considerably less than the .22, which will be legal.
Lord Kimball: Will my noble friend the Minister consider holding out some hope to the shooting community? I suspect that one of the problems of the amendment is that it deals with a centre-fire bullet. My suggestion would mean adapting all pistols, but perhaps it may be possible for it to be a rimfire cartridge rather than a centre-fire cartridge. In that way, we may hold out some hope to the pistol shooting community. A rimfire version of the .32 wadcutter would and might be acceptable because that is the calibre that is needed for most international competitions. When you come to measure the bullet hole by tenths of a centimetre, you realise how important it is to have a really accurate hole. I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to give us some hope on that front.
Lord Monson: There are three important points about this amendment to which I have put my name. First, the muzzle velocity and range of a .32 pistol chambered in that way is no greater than that of the average .22 pistol. Other Members of the Committee have mentioned that and I believe that that answers the concerns raised legitimately by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. It is as dangerous as a .22, but no more so.
The second point is that the Government's own expert advisers confirm that there have been no recorded crimes of any sort committed with this weapon for at least 25 years and probably longer, although records do not stretch back any further. That is a very important point.
Thirdly, acceptance of the amendment would permit United Kingdom competitors in that discipline to take part in the Commonwealth and similar games. The idea that uniquely in the Commonwealth and Europe, British competitors cannot be trusted with those pistols is insulting in the extreme as well as being contrary to logic and common sense. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
Page 1, line 21, at end insert (", for the words "24 inches" there shall be substituted the words "60.96 centimetres" and for the words "40 inches" there shall be substituted the words "101.6 centimetres".").
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("; or
(b) an air pistol to which section 1 of this Act applies and which is designed to fire .22 or smaller diameter ammunition."").
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("; or
(b) a pistol chambered for use with a centre fire cartridge which is not more than one inch in length inclusive of the missile and which uses a missile not more than .32 inches in diameter."").
6 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page