Clause 43 - Air weapons: age limits
Anti-social Behaviour Bill
10:45 am
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I am not aware of any evidence to that effect. I readily accept that some people abuse air weapons—of course they do—but as we discussed earlier, we have to decide what is the best way to deal with that. I am not convinced, and nor are the reputable shooting organisations, that raising the age limit to 17 will achieve our goal. My amendment is designed to deal with impact of the provision on young people—a problem that the Minister rightly seeks to address.
The third category is those people, mainly in the countryside, who use air weapons to control pests—rats, rabbits and the like. An air weapon is the entry-level weapon for learning about field craft, gun safety
and so on. For many young people who are training to be gamekeepers or general countryside managers, it is the only weapon that they can legally use for pest control at their age. However, under the proposals in clause 43, no one under the age of 17 will be allowed to carry and use any weapon—any type of firearm—without supervision. That will seriously jeopardise many young people who are learning the skills of their profession or trade.
As I have said, three of the amendments are directly aimed at returning us to the current position. Ideally, one would contend that the present age structure in the law is perfectly correct and it is not necessary to change it, but I recognise that the Government believe that there is a need to change the age limit. However, I strongly contend—I stand to be corrected, but I think that the hon. Member for Ludlow alluded to this point—that there are probably hundreds of thousands of young people, and certainly tens of thousands, who, as I did, use air weapons perfectly safely and responsibly on private land, which may or may not be farmland, and cause no problem to anyone else. Of course, if they shoot something that they should not shoot, they are guilty of one of the wildlife offences, but it is only right and proper that young people should be able to continue the activity that I have described.
The hon. Members for Cleethorpes and for Stockton, South referred, under an earlier amendment, to people firing from private property on to public property. I recognise that that issue needs to be addressed. Clearly, someone should not be immune from prosecution if they sit at their bedroom window and shoot at someone on a recreation ground. Logically, no one would argue that that should be legitimate. As I have said, there is an issue. That is why, in the course of proceedings on the Bill, I have tabled quite a lot of amendments, although I have withdrawn some. I have been trying to define a way around the problem and to table an amendment that addresses the issues but retains the ability of young people between 14 and 17 to use an air weapon safely on private property where they are not causing a problem, a nuisance or any other negative impact, which I readily accept may be caused in certain circumstances.
As I have said, there are three amendments in that vein. Amendment No. 249 is straightforward: using an air weapon on private property would remain an exception under section 23 of the Firearms Act 1968. Amendment No. 250 would achieve that in a different way, by inserting the words ''private property'' after the word ''gallery'' as an exception. Probably my favourite—the Minister may have different views—is amendment No. 254, in which I have sought to address the specific problems of it remaining legal for a young person between 14 and 17 to use an air weapon on private land.
Obviously, if the young person is doing something unlawful, such as using unlawful targets, that should remain unlawful. However, I have added that it should be an offence if the missile—the pellet—goes beyond the bounds of the private property. In other words, there is a double emphasis. The measure not only
emphasises the offence relating to the highways, to which I referred earlier, but makes it clear that if someone uses an air weapon on private property, they must make damned sure that the pellet does not stray beyond that property.
Clearly, ''private property'' does not just mean big farmland: it could mean somebody's back garden. I contend that using an air weapon to shoot at a target such as a tin can with a proper backstop is legitimate, but that people should not put the tin can on top of a fence, so that the pellet sails into the public yonder if they miss.