| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he agree that Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are simply not workable in any event as they do not contain the necessary consequential sanction which is available under Clause 22 of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his assistance. There are a number of sound technical and legal objections to the amendments. I happily adopt his support on this matter. The better way is to leave it to regulations if such restriction is appropriate.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am impressed by the co-operation between the Labour and Conservative Parties. Perhaps it will continue.
I agree with Members of the Committee that Amendment No. 44 is capable of being described as trivial. However, Amendment No. 43 attracted some degree of sympathy. It is important to make it quite clear--this is a moral rather than a legislative issue--that there is a substantial difference between military and civil shooting. That was one of the reasons I was very keen to table the amendment.
In response to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, I believe it is important that people are taught how to shoot. If animals are to be shot, people should have practice in shooting at animal targets. For example, there is a need in Scotland for a cull of 100,000 red deer. Clearly there is a need for people who are not practised in shooting live red deer to shoot at red deer targets. I am in favour of the use of animal style targets, merely not human ones.
I am heartened by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate about such provisions appearing in regulations. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Criteria for grant of licence]:
Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 45:
The noble Lord said: this is a probing amendment. It seeks clarification on the proposed security requirements for clubs.
At the moment, members of gun clubs face uncertainty about the future of their clubs. Many will have considerable sums invested in premises which might be forced to close under the terms of the Bill. That uncertainty should be addressed by the Government so that gun club members can make decisions regarding their investments.
The Government's response to Lord Cullen's report, published on 16th October 1996, contained an indication of the arrangements that clubs might be expected to implement as a result of the Bill. These included:
This delay does not help those who currently have investments tied up in club premises. There is no apparent reason for withholding such information, which would go a long way to ease the anxieties of those whose assets are at risk and enable those clubs that can meet the strict security standards to make the necessary improvements quickly. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I support my noble friend in his amendment. It is very difficult for the clubs if they do not know what they will have to do. They do not know whether they will be able to stay open or whether they will have to close. They must be given the information as soon as the Government can provide it, which I hope will not be long delayed.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I fully accept that there must be a measure of uncertainty on the part of pistol clubs as to what the future holds for them. But the import of Amendment No. 45, which my noble friend Lord Swansea has spoken to, is that it would place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State not to bring into force the provisions for licensing pistol clubs until the criteria for the grant of such a licence have been published.
The Government fully accept that such criteria should be published and made familiar to the members and office bearers of gun clubs before they are put in the position of having to apply for licences. However, I do not believe that this kind of common sense administrative matter requires statutory regulation.
I can assure your Lordships that the criteria and guidance for licensed pistol clubs are under active consideration by officials and Ministers. We hope that a first draft of the criteria for the clubs and the security standards required will soon be placed in the Library of the House. I hope that that undertaking serves to answer the probing amendment, as my noble friend Lord Swansea described it, and that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Swansea: I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. As I said before, this is simply a probing amendment. I hope that clubs will take account of what he said and wait for the guidance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 46:
The noble Lord said: Clubs depend on a regular intake of new members. Those new members may or may not have previous experience of shooting; they would like to have a go. The Bill proposes that all members of a club should be in possession of a firearm certificate. One cannot expect a prospective member to have a firearm certificate. He probably will not have any firearms himself, and he may or may not wish to carry on shooting after he has had a go. The amendment allows for that situation. I believe I am right in saying that the 1968 Firearms Act caters for the contingency by allowing newcomers to go to a club and have a go on the range under close supervision following which they may or may not stay with the game. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: I support the amendment. Pistol shooting is, after all, an Olympic sport. At the moment there are members who can compete. Unless something like the provision contained in this amendment is included in the Bill, there can be no question but that in a few years' time some old people will be shooting but not a single young person. The sport will disappear. It is essential that this amendment or something like it should be accepted in order to allow new entrants to the sport. I am certain that if somebody aged 18 goes to a club and wants to start shooting he will not obtain a firearm certificate just because he thinks he would like to start pistol shooting.
Earl Attlee: The noble Lord raises an extremely important point. For many shooters there is no need to own their own handgun or rifle; they can use a club weapon. If we encouraged ownership of club weapons and discouraged personal ownership, that would go a long way to reducing the ownership of rifles and handguns. I have no hesitation in supporting the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Monson: I am in some difficulty here. The Committee will notice that Amendment No. 46 is identical to Amendment No. 47 in my name except that Amendment No. 46 appears in Clause 15 while mine appears in Clause 20, which I am advised by experts is the clause where it should appear. I had understood that on those grounds the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, was not going to move Amendment No. 46. As he has moved it, it seems only sensible that I should speak to the identical Amendment No. 47 and spare the Government having to reply twice.
This matter is very important in respect of new or probationary club members. At the present time any member of a club may use a pistol. However, if special permits are required, new members will not be able to fire a pistol on even one single occasion without a licence. In addition, it is unclear whether existing members who have licences will be able to use another member's gun when theirs is out of commission or to try other pistols.
The need for either Amendment No. 46 or Amendment No. 47 is increased because of the arrangements proposed in Clause 8 which make transport so difficult. Visiting shooters may prefer to borrow a pistol when they arrive for a competition rather than have to obtain a special police permit.
The amendment follows the precedent of the current law which has been in operation for rifle clubs since 1920 and which was continued in the 1968 Act. It will enable a newcomer to be introduced to a .22 pistol before he or she obtains a firearm certificate. After all, people want first to try out a pistol and see whether they enjoy shooting and are any good at it. It is quite different from rifle shooting. They may decide, after trying it only once or twice, that they do not want to do it and give up the whole idea.
As my noble friend Lord Attlee said, it is much better from a public safety point of view for there to be club pistols for people to use rather than a greater number of individually owned ones. I would have thought that the Government very much agreed with that point.
In Standing Committee in another place on 20th November last, the Minister, Miss Ann Widdecombe, tried to justify the Government's position "on grounds of public safety". How on earth can public safety be jeopardised by someone trying out a .22 pistol under the close, expert supervision of an experienced club official when someone of any age can fire a .22 rifle at a ping-pong ball bouncing on a jet of water at a fun fair? I rest my case.
Page 8, line 40, at end insert ("and section 42 (3) of this Act shall not apply in respect of this Part of this Act until such guidance has been published").
"reinforced walls to ensure that thieves could not break into a club building; safes in which guns and ammunition would have to be stored; strong perimeter fences; burglar alarms linked directly to the police; access control, including metal detectors, to prevent guns being illicitly removed".
The Government conceded that, "Very few, if any, existing gun clubs will meet these security requirements". The Government said that, after consultation with the police, the arrangements would be published in guidance.
6 p.m.
Page 8, line 40, at end insert--
("(3) A member of a licensed pistol club approved by the Secretary of State may, without holding a firearm certificate, have in his possession a firearm and ammunition when engaged as a member of the club in, or in connection with, target shooting.").
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page