|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): I have listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the problems of accidental discharge. Has he anything to say on the question of premature discharge?
John Thurso: That is not something that I have ever encountered; it may well have happened to others.
It is possible that a weapon may be accidentally discharged without intent. It is equally possible that if the said crofter was standing towards the edge of his property at the time of such discharge, the projectile would land outside his premises. The unintentional discharge would therefore not be reckless, because all the safety measures would have been in place. Albeit that that is a strange circumstance to have discovered, it can take place. Do we wish to create a criminal out of that person? I suggest that we do not.
It was helpful to look at the explanatory note on clause 27, which is note number 170. It clearly states:
''One type of air weapon misuse involves the reckless firing of an air weapon across the boundary of premises.''
So, in the notes themselves, the definition of reckless is used to indicate the Government's intention. I ask the Minister why, if it is required in the notes, it is not required in the clause. Would it not be useful to have that definition so that the Government's intention is clear: that reckless or intentional discharge, or both, would have taken place?
Mr. Djanogly: Without indulging in the gory details, I support what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have discussed the point in relation to previous amendments, but we believe that the inclusion of the requirement of intent or recklessness is important and obvious. The mischief that the clause is aimed at remedying would not have been committed in the absence of intent or recklessness. An honest mistake or accident should not therefore attract a fixed penalty.
Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): I wanted to put another scenario to the Minister. Not having the weaponry experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, I went on to the internet. On an
Column Number: 219
American blogging site for air weapon users, there was a discussion about how one blogger used them to kill spiders on his premises. Is it not possible that, whatever an owner was shooting at, he might simply miss? It would not be intentional or reckless but merely a bad shot. The bullets could ricochet. That is a possible scenario.
11.15 am
Ms Abbott: I wanted to speak about the problems that airguns pose in communities. I pay tribute to the Gun Control Network, which has worked hard to gather information on the issue. Although most publicity goes to the sort of urban gun crime that I am most familiar with, the problems, harm and danger caused by airguns are a serious issue in communities throughout the land. As we have heard, the most recent annual figures show that more than 14,000 offences involving airguns happened in England and Wales. Such offences are a significant proportion of total firearms offences—57 per cent. in England and 43 per cent. in Scotland.
In England and Wales the number of offences resulting in injury has increased by more than 50 per cent. since 1998. Every month, someone is injured in an airgun accident. In the past three months, two small boys have lost their lives in airgun incidents and many other victims of such incidents have been lucky to escape without serious injury. Many of the reported incidents involved young people who were using airguns without the required supervision, which suggests problems in enforcing even the existing law, because airguns are too easily available.
There are regular instances of emergency services personnel being targeted by young people with airguns. That was previously thought to be an urban problem, on big estates, but there are reports of its happening throughout the country. Investigations by journalists from several newspapers have shown how easy it is for under-age boys to purchase airguns in gun shops. Despite the existing law, inappropriate checks have been made by dealers. The investigation of airguns by the American Academy of Pediatrics shows how dangerous those weapons are.
Chris Ruane rose—
The Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, may I point out to the hon. Lady that she is straying slightly from the amendment. I have allowed her some flexibility, but I ask her to return to it.
Chris Ruane: A young lad whom I once taught lost an eye after being shot with an air rifle. Does my hon. Friend share my opinion that with 7 million air rifles in the UK there are too many knocking around in the hands of young lads?
Ms Abbott: I entirely agree, and that is why I do not support the amendment. There are too many airguns in the hands of young children. I respect the civil libertarian arguments of Opposition Members and those advanced on behalf of people with big estates, and crofters, but I felt it important to set out the
Column Number: 220
general problem caused by airguns in many communities.
Hazel Blears: Despite wanting to make progress on the Bill, I could have listened to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for some time; he made his constituency sound idyllic, and I hope to get the chance to visit it. Unfortunately, there are no crofters in Salford, although there are lots of crofts, which are derelict areas where people play.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important question. The amendment would insert the words ''intentionally or recklessly'' into the definition of the offence that would be created by proposed new section 21A of the 1968 Act. Perhaps I may draw his attention to the wording. The proposed new section states:
''A person commits an offence if—
(a) he has with him an air weapon on any premises; and
(b) he uses it for firing a missile beyond those premises.''
In the debate on clause 1 about using a child to mind a weapon we discussed related issues; I think that the word ''uses'' denotes a degree of intention. It is difficult to see how it would be possible to use the gun in any other way.
We want to ensure that the provisions apply to people of all ages. At the moment they apply only to those under 17, so in a way what we are doing is a reversal of the process under previous clauses. We want to ensure that adults who behave in the manner in question will have committed an offence. A recent case involved two grown men who fired weapons across the boundary of other premises. It was not possible to prosecute them, and it would be helpful if that were possible.
One issue not raised by the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and for Huntingdon is that of a person shooting on one property who has permission to shoot in an adjoining field. I want to consider the matter further, so I ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross to withdraw the amendment but undertake to see whether we can come back with provisions to meet that situation. I am anxious not to penalise people who behave in a proper and responsible manner, but I am determined to ensure that people of any age who discharge weapons across the boundaries of premises are not allowed to do so in a manner that causes the kind of distress that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington so eloquently outlined.
John Thurso: I reiterate what I said at the start, which is that I am wholly in sympathy with intention of the clause. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington is absolutely correct; shooting across premises in urban areas is wholly unacceptable, and I totally support the Government in what they seek to do. The Minister has given me the answer that I suspected I would be given, and I am grateful for it. Highlighting the point in our deliberations gives guidance to those who have to enforce the law. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Column Number: 221
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Djanogly: We support the clause. I am pleased that the Minister said in her closing remarks that it may be problematic for airgun users who shoot across to adjoining land. I am pleased also that she recognises the need slightly to tighten the clause so that individuals who are not meant to be caught by the clause are not caught. The Opposition tabled a couple of amendments to that effect—I am sure that there were good reasons for them not being selected—but I am pleased to hear that the Minister will deal with the point.
Adjoining pieces of land would both be premises under the Bill, and in some circumstances it may be reasonable to shoot over the border—for instance, if the owner of the second piece of land had given consent to the shooter to fire into it. Under the Bill, however, that would constitute a strict liability offence, and I think the Minister agrees that is crucial to include words such as ''without lawful authority or reasonable excuse''. Such phrases are used throughout firearms legislation. The Government should also consider giving clear and unambiguous advice as to what would constitute lawful authority or reasonable excuse. We look forward to seeing amendments at a later stage.
Hazel Blears: I have little to add, except to say that I will look at the issue of adjoining premises. A range of strict liability offences already exists under firearms law. Purchasing ammunition, possessing or acquiring a shotgun and transferring ammunition without being a registered firearms dealer are all strict liability offences, so there is a good precedent for having a tough test—and rightly so.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Restriction on sale and purchase of primers
Mr. Djanogly: I beg to move amendment No. 196, in clause 28, page 29, line 39, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'(1) For the purposes of this section a primer is a cap type primer, UN numbers 0044, 0377, 0378 for use with metallic small arms ammunition and shall not include any fired or inert primers or any primers manufactured for use in equipment which does not fire a projectile.'.
Clause 28 restricts the sale of primers. Although we do not object to the general thrust of the clause, the devil again lies in the detail. Primers form an essential part of shooting equipment, and many members of the shooting community enjoy loading their own ammunition; it forms part of the overall sport. The Gun Trade Association Ltd. estimates that more than 30 million primers are sold every year in the UK, and sales of primers increase dramatically in the run-up to the shooting season. As it stands, the clause is flawed, so we have tabled various amendments.
After consultation with the many interested parties, technical difficulties became apparent, not least that a restriction on the sale of primers would catch distress flares, shotgun cartridges and even the air bags used by
Column Number: 222
the motor vehicle industry. I hope that it is not the Government's intention to criminalise everyone who buys or sells modern motor cars.
Primers are used for reloading a wide variety of cartridges, including those used in hunting, target shooting, research into heritage firearms, historical re-enactment and living history. Reloading allows for the production of custom-made ammunition, which enhances accuracy. That is an important animal welfare consideration, as it can increase the likelihood of instantaneous death when an animal is shot. Reloading is often the only way in which people who shoot vintage firearms can produce cartridges, as original ammunition is no longer manufactured. The forensic science service and other forensic examiners confirm that criminals rarely use reloaded ammunition. If anybody still doubts the Government's lack of expert consultation, this clause provides a clear example of the way in which they are whimsically legislating without first seeking proper advice.
It is necessary to define primers in subsection (1). After a certain amount of the sort of consultation that seems not to have been carried out by the Government, we think that the most sensible option is the United Nations definition relating to metallic cap-type primers. The UN numbers for primers for cartridges are 0044, 0377 and 0378. Those numbers are grouped within different hazard classification bands, and it is therefore logical to define primers within this Bill as cap-type primers UN numbers 0044, 0377 and 0378 for use with metallic small-arms ammunition. Such a definition would catch the potentially dangerous primers that are clearly intended to be caught by the Bill, but exempt those used for shotguns, security flares and car airbags. Also excluded in our definition are
''any fired or inert primers, or any primers manufactured for use in equipment which does not fire a projectile.''
That is particularly important for re-enactment societies, theatre companies and film producers, all of which use blank-firing weapons. Many war veterans have spent shells from the second world war and many blank-firing weapons are used in organised heritage fairs. The clause should be drafted so as not to cover such acceptable uses.
| 
