| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Marlesford: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I fear that it is yet another attempt by the Home Office to say, "Don't interfere on our patch". If the new system were to meet my criteria, well and good. I am not saying that it should not go ahead. Perhaps I may give Members of the Committee one example. If someone were to be convicted of a crime which would disqualify him from being issued with any certificate for a firearm--a shotgun, pistol or rifle--and if that crime were committed outside the area in which the convicted person had already been granted a licence, there is no machinery whatever, unless it is a very serious and notorious crime, whereby the police force in the area which had granted the licence would be able to revoke it. It simply would not know about the case.
I am proposing something which is very simple, very modest and very easy to carry out. It is essential that it is done. I do not have enough confidence to leave the matter to Home Office assertions that it is dealing with it because it has been saying that for a long time. I would very much like to test the opinion of the Committee.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether my noble friend heard the Minister say that she was in negotiation with the chief officers of police with a view to establishing just the kind of system that he has in mind?
Lord Marlesford: I did hear that and I was delighted to do so. I hope that, if the amendment is carried, that will be an additional spur for them to do so. However, I do not accept that it is not appropriate for the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I do not wish to discourage my noble friend from pressing the amendment, but I would
rather he did not. He cannot press it at this point. It is Amendment No. 66 which was grouped with the previous amendment. Therefore, my noble friend will have to be patient and press it in the appropriate chronological order.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
[Amendment No. 50 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 26 [Expanding ammunition etc.: supplementary]:
Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 50A:
The noble Earl said: I can understand the need to ban the sale of expanding ammunition, with certain exceptions for humane killing reasons. That will have the effect of reducing its availability and thus, if there is a further disaster, there is less likelihood of expanding ammunition being used. The problem is that Clause 26 removes the previous exemption for collectors. It also includes ammunition that is inert, as even the actual bullets themselves are caught. As no handguns larger than .22 calibre will remain in private hands one asks what a ban on collectors will achieve. It should be remembered that if in future illegal ammunition is obtained non-expanding projectiles can easily be converted into expanding projectiles by means of a hacksaw, a pair of pliers, a lathe or even a humble electric drill. It is even possible to reload a cartridge with a bullet that is put in back to front. My amendment will replace the exemption of collectors and enable them to retain expanding ammunition under Section 5A by a collector's clause on their firearm certificate. Of course, there would be a limit placed on the number of each type or calibre as agreed between the collector and the police. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Amendment No. 52 in my name is part of this group of amendments. The purpose is to clarify the wording of Clause 26 which leaves open to doubt the position of agricultural tenants who, depending on the terms of their tenancy, are normally responsible for pest control on their holdings and have statutory rights to control hares and rabbits under the Ground Game Act. I hope that my noble friend will agree that those farmers should continue to use expanding ammunition in appropriate cases and where authorised by their firearm certificates. To achieve this, I believe that it is necessary to amend the clause to confirm that the concept of estate management covering tenant farmers is that contained in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 and the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995. The amendment does not in any way disturb the balance of interest between landlord and tenant but merely ensures that farm tenants will not be inadvertently restricted in future from lawful access to ammunition required for safe and humane wildlife control.
Lord Burton: It was as recently as 1992, when the United Kingdom came into line with European law, that
The Earl of Shrewsbury: I apologise for arriving late in the Chamber. I speak to Amendment No. 51 which is to do with practising with expanding ammunition. Several attempts have been made to cover the point that people who use expanding ammunition legitimately in the humane killing of animals need to ensure a high degree of accuracy to avoid pain to the animal and achieve a quick destruction. The Government have suggested that the words "in connection with" cover the circumstances in which the shooter needs to zero his pistol or practise with or test the ammunition. The wording is acceptable for zeroing; it is doubtful, however, whether it covers practice in shooting at inanimate objects in order to achieve the necessary standards of accuracy. The amendment attempts to provide for such circumstances. For instance, when stalking it may be necessary to dispatch an injured animal which is on the move as quickly as possible. The shooter needs to be able to practise at the discipline known as running deer. All shooters of such quarry need to be aware of the main areas to aim for, with allowances being made for distance, wind speed, trajectory and so forth, in order to afford the quickest and cleanest dispatch of the quarry. I believe that the amendment strengthens the purpose of the clause and makes the effects more efficient in practice.
The Earl of Balfour: Once one has a gun properly tuned in--I am referring to a .22 or .243 rifle--it pays every time to use expanding ammunition. One is then much more likely to kill and not wound an animal. The trouble with a solid-nosed bullet is that it can make a neat round hole through whatever one is aiming at. The poor creature then crawls away and dies in a hole or in the bushes. On humane grounds I hope that there will be no restriction on the use of both types of ammunition. One uses solid ammunition to home in on the right position of the target and then hollow-nosed ammunition to go out and kill an animal. It is important that both forms of ammunition are available to farmers, landowners, gamekeepers and so on.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to all my noble friends and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for raising these important points which are the subject of Amendments Nos. 50A, 51 and 52. I have considerable sympathy with Amendment No. 50A, tabled by the noble Earl. The effect of the amendment, as he has explained, would be to allow collectors of expanding ammunition to continue their collections without the need for the Secretary of State's authority. A government amendment was successfully tabled in another place which would have had the effect of preventing collectors of ammunition from keeping expanding ammunition in their collections. We have since received representations from some collectors who have pointed out that typically only one or two rounds of a wide
I believe that the amendment to Clause 26, tabled in the name of my noble friends Lord Shrewsbury and Lord Peel, is unnecessary. The present wording of the subsection which deals with a certificate or permit condition in relation to expanding ammunition uses the words "in connection with". That is the wording used elsewhere in the firearms legislation to cover related matters. The Bill has been carefully drafted to cover not only the actual use but also the preparatory stages that may have to be followed to ensure that the certificate holder is able to shoot the animal humanely. That includes allowing the certificate holder to zero or adjust the gun sights, as well as general testing and practice. If we refer to those matters expressly here we could cast doubt on the wording elsewhere in the legislation. If it helps to ease my noble friends' concerns, this is a point which we can include in guidance to the police.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley for raising the possible effect of Clause 26 of the Bill on agricultural tenants. I understand his concerns that the term "management of an estate" should apply to those agricultural holdings which are managed by tenants. However, the clause as currently drafted will already include the kinds of holdings and tenancy arrangements to which my noble friend refers. The present term "management of an estate" is sufficiently broad to include all manner of legal forms of occupation and management of land. To state on the face of the Bill that certain arrangements are included may imply that other arrangements are excluded. When issuing guidance to the police on the application of the clause we will ensure that this point is properly addressed. I therefore ask all my noble friends not to pursue their amendments.
Page 12, line 15, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page