Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I put on record my thanks to the noble Earl for tabling the amendment, because it usefully enables us to spend a little time on the vexed question of air weapons. I will endeavour to explain as well as I can our general approach to this and deal with some of the points that have been raised. If I should miss any points, I undertake to try to perfect the answers we provide today. At present air weapons can be sold by any retailer from corner shops to car boot sales, as I am sure noble Lords will attest. They can also be bought fairly easily by mail order or via the internet, with little check on the age of the purchaser. This can all play a part in the unacceptably high level of air weapon misuse. It is worth reminding ourselves that in 2004–05 there were some 11,825 crimes in which air weapons were used, resulting in 1,502 cases of injury, including 143 cases of serious injury. I am also conscious of the fact that there have been a number of high profile cases of air weapon misuse, including the tragic killing of two year-old Andrew Morton in Glasgow. We have been looking very carefully, particularly with Scottish Ministers, to see what more can be done to tackle the problem. We have concluded that restricting the points of sale would tackle the problem at the source. I realise that it is a sensitive issue, and I fully understand that there are entirely—and this covers the majority of cases—legitimate uses of air weapons. Clauses 26 and 27 address the problem of misuse by requiring retailers to register with the police. In this way, retailers will be accountable to the police, the anonymity of purchasers will be removed, and casual sales will be deterred. Responsible shooters will still be able to purchase air weapons, but it will become harder for irresponsible people to do so. As I understand it, the amendment was entirely motivated by concerns about the impact that Clause 26 will have on shooting sports. I understand that. It is feared that the clause will deter retailers from selling air weapons, making it more difficult for people to take up shooting sports. I think that I can be confident in saying that we intend to address those concerns without needing to create the separate set of controls envisaged by the amendment. In a sense, we want to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, desires, which is to get the balance and burden of regulation and bureaucracy in the right order. The Government are clear that retailers need to register with the police, but we do not want that to be unnecessarily onerous on those retailers who deal only in air weapons. We will be making rules that will set out proportionate record-keeping requirements, and we will be issuing guidance to the police on a proportionate level of security. We will consult the trade carefully on both issues, and I recognise how important those issues are to it. I will work through some of the specific questions. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, suggested that we were attempting to slide in a policy of simply reducing the number of air weapons. That is not the intention of the policy. We are trying to reduce the potential availability of air weapons to criminals; it is not a back door way of getting at those who legitimately need to use air weapons for their sport. There was also the question about the national firearms licensing management system. I know that there are many in your Lordships’ House who share my view that it has taken far too long and that it is not the best advertisement for the implementation of important legislation. That system is close to fruition. It is concerned with certificate holders, and it will not apply to air weapons, so it is a bit of a red herring to enter that issue into the debate. We think that we have got the balance about right. We hope that we can work carefully with the trade, and we do not want to overburden it. Those retailers who are already registered as firearms dealers will incur no extra cost; other retailers will have to apply to the police for registration and pay a fee of £150. They will also incur some extra costs if they need to install security measures. I am sure that all would agree that that is important in itself but that they need to be proportionate and they should be minimal. That is our general approach. The question of Hazel Blears’s letter was raised by the noble Baroness. As I understand it, Hazel Blears did not commit, in her correspondence, to a time by which we would have consulted on this issue. But it is clear that we need to approach this in a rational way and that we need to ensure that the consultation takes place in the right order. It would perhaps have been wrong to have pushed that too fast and too far before your Lordships have had a decent opportunity to consider the matter as well. I entirely understand the approach adopted by the noble Earl. We want to deal with this in good time. We want to have a proportionate approach to record keeping. We will be sensitive in the way in which we consult the trade on this and it is not our intention in any way to damage or undermine the legitimate use of air weapons. I hope that, having heard that and with our commitment to consultation, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.