| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House now resume and in moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again at twenty five minutes past eight.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I rise because we are always willing to be accommodating in these matters but our principal spokesman for the next business is not yet in the Chamber. Perhaps we could continue to deal with this legislation for another five minutes.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I withdraw the Motion which my noble friend sought to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 65:
Before Clause 34, insert the following new clause--
(" . In section 22(4) of the 1968 Act (possession of air weapons by minors), for "fourteen" there is substituted "eighteen".").
The noble Earl said: This amendment and Amendment No. 72, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, are both aimed at the better control of air guns in our society. That is briefly touched on in the Cullen Report at paragraph 9.118 and may also have been supported indirectly by the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough.
I am grateful to the Minister for drawing my attention earlier today to the briefing from the Firearms Consultative Committee. Those briefing notes were placed in the Library following consideration in another place of the issue of raising the age for air gun use.
I believe that the age of 14 is unnecessarily young for involvement with air guns and, indeed, other weapons; and I believe that 18 represents an age of increasing maturity and residual suitability. That is an argument
In their search of adulthood, young people have many other aspects of living in a community to master. Weapon use is the least of those and can be restricted safely to a threshold on the early years of adulthood.
In Amendment No. 72, which is the more significant of the two amendments, I see every advantage in there being a register of all air guns with their location and ownership recorded and updated. I see no advantage in not doing so and every advantage in knowing at least to where one may complain about the misuse of an air gun. Those air guns are not toys. It is possible to have a fatal accident with an air gun and it is possible to blind someone, not to mention the potential harassment of birds and animals.
I have no problem with real hunting for food or for a cull but I am far less happy when the killing of animals is for vicarious pleasure. I hope that the Committee will see the merit of knowing where every air gun is located and so support the amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I am concerned about this amendment partly for the reason that in Section 22(3) of the Firearms Act 1968, it states that a person aged 15 may use a shotgun provided he is accompanied by an adult who is over the age of 21.
While I have some sympathy with the proposal put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that 14 is too young, it might achieve something if he left the age at 14 but provided that for the first two years of possessing the air gun the person ought to be accompanied by somebody over the age of 21.
In respect of the other amendment, it should read Section 1(3)(b) not 1(3)(6). As I see the position, if I am correct, subsection (b) will read:
"an air weapon (that is to say, an air rifle, air gun or air pistol, not of a type declared by rules made by the Secretary of State under section 53 of this Act".
That would leave out the words "specially dangerous". I am not very happy about that, particularly as subsection (3)(b) applies the rules made by the Secretary of State in respect of the "register of transactions" for firearms dealers in Section 40 of the 1968 Act. However, I believe that air guns are fairly well protected under Clause 38 of the Bill.
7.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I rise briefly to add my support to that already expressed for the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on Amendment No. 72, which is also tabled in my name. I happen to agree with the noble Earl that some revision of the age limit for air weapons (to which Amendment No. 65 refers) is also desirable. However, as far as concerns Amendment No. 72, the noble Earl has correctly described it as making it possible for the Secretary of State to require a register of air weapons. I believe that that is a desirable aim.
Lord Gisborough: It is absolutely essential that youngsters, even those younger than 14, should be able to shoot air guns. However, it is equally essential that
they should only be allowed to do so if they are accompanied by a person of a proper age. There is no doubting the fact that there is a positive air gun menace in the countryside with everything being shot at on occasions. But to have a register would, I believe, prove to be a phenomenal task. I am not even sure whether air guns are numbered, and there must be hundreds and thousands of them in the country. Surely it would be an impossible task to try to keep track of them.
Lord Monson: On Amendment No. 65, I agree with other Members of the Committee that raising the age limit to 18 goes rather too far. There might be a case for 15 or 16, but better still might be the proposals put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, that 14 or 15 year-olds with air guns should be accompanied by an older person.
As regards Amendment No. 72, again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough. The bureaucracy implied by the amendment would be enormous. There is much misuse of guns. The point is that it is illegal anyway for the most part. The difficulty is catching the people concerned, and I do not believe that licensing would make any difference. Therefore, I believe that the noble Earl should think again about the matter.
Lord Swansea: I support my noble friend Lord Gisborough in his remarks because the prime objective is to teach the safe handling of air weapons. From there, one can progress to any other type of firearm. It is essential that the safe handling of air guns, or air rifles, should be taught at the earliest age possible. The youngster should be allowed to have his air rifle as long as he is accompanied by a responsible adult.
Earl Russell: I must declare a non-pecuniary interest in supporting my noble friend's amendment. The air gun menace to which the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, referred is not confined to the countryside; indeed, Brent is hardly that. However, one day my wife was standing beside the backdoor of our home when something with a loud thwack hit the wall within an inch of her head. We subsequently found an air gun pellet which had ricocheted into the house and come to rest under the radiator. I do not feel very happy about such situations. I agree with my noble friend that 14 is not always the most responsible age in a person's life. One way or another, I should like to see greater control on such potentially dangerous weapons.
Earl Attlee: Bearing in mind the well-known cruelty to cats, cattle and so on, I believe that the problem that we are now experiencing is lack of supervision. The actual age of someone using an air rifle--or even a shotgun or a firearm--is not the problem; it is the lack of supervision.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The Government are well aware of public concern over the misuse of air weapons by young people. Indeed, as Members of the Committee have already said, the matter was raised in another place. Following that debate, the issue of air
weapons and young people was placed before the Firearms Consultative Committee, which was asked to look at the issues involved. I understand that the matter was discussed at a meeting earlier this month and a paper in that respect has been prepared and placed in the Library of the House.The Firearms Consultative Committee concluded that it would be a mistake to change the current arrangements which have been carefully formulated over a period of time without a clear plan and identification of any major weaknesses. I commend that paper to Members of the Committee who are interested in the topic. I hope that it will reassure them that Amendment No. 65 is unnecessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, I should point out to him that I read the paper to which he referred because it was commended to us by the Minister. However, is the Firearms Consultative Committee (which is chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury) a truly independent body? Who does it represent and who are its members?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am unable, off the top of my head, to give the noble Lord details of every member of the committee. However, I believe that the membership is well known in the sense that details of it have previously been published. If the noble Lord wishes to be informed as to the detail of every member, I should be happy to arrange for him to receive such information.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is not what I am concerned about; I am concerned to know whether the committee is impartial. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has been active in promoting amendments to the Bill, which is entirely his privilege. My question is whether the FCC is a government organisation. I should also like to know in what way it is impartial and in what way the evidence which the noble and learned Lord has adduced can be treated as being impartial evidence on the issue.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page