| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I support the amendment. At Second Reading I addressed the issue of small gun clubs which have difficulty in finding premises. That is the reason they are threatened with closure. Therefore, if gun shop premises could be used for storage it would be most helpful. Other premises might be able to be used. I am not sure whether that is precluded by the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Amendment No. 42 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 45 and 46. For the convenience of the Committee it may be sensible for me to limit my remarks at present to Amendment No. 42 as no noble Lord has spoken to Amendments Nos. 45 or 46.
Amendment No. 42 in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel deals with the definition of "licensed premises" in Clause 12. That definition does not prevent a registered firearms dealer's premises being specified in a pistol club's licence as the place where small calibre
pistols may be stored. As my noble friend Lady Blatch sought to make clear previously, that depends on the precise circumstances of the registered dealer's premises and the club premises.It is impossible to say in advance whether a specific set of premises will qualify as a club, and for guns to be stored there. That requires to be determined once the facts are known. It all depends on the individual circumstances. On the basis that as presently drafted Clause 12 does not preclude it, the Government remain of the view that the amendment is unnecessary and may be counterproductive. On that basis, which I hope I have made clear, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Peel: I thank my noble friend for that reply. One or two items are still a little unclear from his answer. However, I wish to consider the matter, and perhaps return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause--
(" . No club shall allow the use on any of its club premises of targets made to bear any resemblance to a human form.").
The noble Earl said: Before moving the amendment, perhaps I may say this. I believe that there is a substantial popular moral movement in this country which wishes to see the end of handguns in their entirety. However, the purpose of Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 is to ensure that the residual pistol shooting sport allowed in the Bill never approaches the accusation of "practising killing people". I recognise that that may be somewhat over the top and unfair. However, at Second Reading I said that I believed that handguns had only a lethal or quasi-lethal use. The adoption of the two amendments would provide an antidote to my argument about there being only a lethal or quasi-lethal use of handguns. It would confirm that bull's-eye style target shooting is a sport in itself and hence is not practising to kill people.
It is wholly appropriate that the Armed Forces and the police should train themselves to reduce the enemy to incapability of response. The activity of military shooting must be seen as a wholly separate activity. The Armed Forces and police must practise the accurate use of their weapons under as realistic conditions as possible; and they must build up skills in weapon handling, change of firing position and tactical movements.
It is not the role in any way of the private civilian handgun owner or user to train himself in that respect. If private handgun owners and their sport are to be tolerated in our society, they must be able to
Earl Attlee: Perhaps I may remind the Committee that I have previously declared an interest in this matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, raises an extremely important point. I, too, have some difficulty with what is called combat shooting but I do not know much about it. Great emphasis has been laid on the problem by the Minister and her right honourable friend. Why has it suddenly appeared as a problem? What studies have been undertaken? The Minister has yet to reply to the questions that I posed at Second Reading. I understand that the Firearms Consultative Committee has studied the matter in passing but has not published any findings.
Having said that, I have grave misgivings about competitions where among the skills being tested are the ability to reload, change or select fire positions, or to make ready and fire quickly. I repeat that I do not know the answer; it is a matter that the FCC needs to look into.
There is also the slightly different problem addressed at Second Reading by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. We currently provide effective personal protection services but only overseas, not within the United Kingdom. I believe that the training used to take place at a "club". Perhaps reputable organisations in this field will be able to obtain a Section 5 authorisation in due course.
The noble Earl's second amendment addresses the same problem and is useful as an illustration of the matters to be debated. However, it is flawed because of the difficulties of definition. Some styles of military clothing are fashionable. The provision is unnecessary and denies shooters a suitable supply of good quality clothing. Apart from that, the proposal is quite good. There is one more problem. I should not be able to attend a shooting meeting wearing my TA uniform, even on MoD land.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for tabling these amendments. I look forward to the comments of other noble Lords and to the Minister's reply.
The Earl of Balfour: In our consideration of the legislation in principle I feel that most of us who were taught to shoot, in order to kill vermin, pheasants and so on, were so very strictly trained that we never, ever pointed a gun at anybody, even if it was unloaded. Today, that same training is not being given to people. I raised this matter at Second Reading. I am not sure that the drafting of these amendments is in any way acceptable to the Government. However, there needs to be a clear distinction. On the whole, I should be much happier if the position taken by the noble Earl, Lord Mar
Lord Swansea: As Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are grouped with this amendment, I intend to speak to Amendment No. 45.
Baroness Blatch: If my noble friend will forgive my interrupting him, we are discussing Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 form a pair of amendments that will be discussed when debate on this amendment is completed.
Lord Monson: I have mixed feelings about Amendment No. 43, but Amendment No. 44 goes way over the top and should be resisted, partly for the reason given by my noble friend Lord Attlee, partly because of problems of definition and partly because a matter of so trivial a nature is unsuited to statute law. I do not know whether they still exist in the south of England, but certainly in the north institutions called army surplus shops still exist in great numbers. The clothes sold there are cheap and hard-wearing; they do not show the dirt easily and are comfortable. They are, for instance, worn frequently by beaters on shoots. Would such clothes be banned? Would forage caps, for instance, worn by some people for obvious reasons, be banned? I have a cotton safari jacket which I wear whenever I visit tropical countries. It is cut in a military style. Would that be banned? One has only to raise such questions to see how nonsensical Amendment No. 44 is.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I suggest that Amendment No. 44 is a somewhat illiberal proposal.
Lord Marlesford: Amendment No. 44 is clearly a non-starter by any test. However, according to my paper, Amendment No. 43 relates only to pistol clubs. Does the noble Earl intend it to apply also to rifle clubs?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I may reply to those points. I take the point about the proposal sounding illiberal. I am happy to say that I should like to see the ban on shooting at human style targets cover all forms of firearm.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: It is obvious from the contributions of all noble Lords who spoke on these two amendments that the issues that lie behind them give rise to a difference of view. That serves to illustrate my main point; namely, if there is a case for regulation of the targets used at pistol clubs and of the clothing used by those who attend such clubs, it is better that that is not done on the face of the Bill but that it is prescribed in regulations, as set out in Clause 22, upon which the Government will take the advice of the Firearms Consultative Committee before the regulations are laid.
The Government firmly believe that such restrictions, if appropriate, should be dealt with by regulations, which may be amended if necessary in the light of experience. I hope that, given the assurance that the
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page