Violent Crime Reduction Bill

I accept that this clause cannot be described as draconian. It is certainly not as contentious as some other Clause 28s I can think of in past legislation. I listened carefully to what the Minister said before I decided to intervene. Above all, I was looking for evidence to substantiate that this clause had some credence. I am sure everyone would agree that legislation should be based on need and evidence, not on the simple notion that it might help to solve a problem or so that it looks as if the Government are going something. From the response that the Minister gave to my noble friend, I have to say that I came to the conclusion that that is what is happening. It seems faintly bizarre that the then Minister Hazel Blears stated in the Standing Committee on the Bill in the Commons:"““We do not say that increasing the age from 17 to 18 will of itself solve the problem,””.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 25/10/05; col. 215.]" Surely, that is another example of the lack of evidence. The Government have not been able to acquire the evidence to substantiate the need for this clause. Furthermore, I think I am right in saying that the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 raised the age at which a person could buy an airgun to 17 and the effects of that are still being monitored. That makes the provisions in the Bill premature. I was also amazed to read in the briefing that I received that in response to various Questions for Written Answer put down by my noble friends Lord Brougham and Vaux and Lord Glenarthur, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, admitted that there was no way of establishing on a centralised basis the difference in airgun offences committed by 17 year-olds and 18 year-olds and that there are no plans to collect data on the age of offenders. One can conclude only that the Government have no justification for introducing Clause 28. Importantly, the Government have several times made a firm commitment not to attack the sport of shooting. I suggest, in the absence of hard unequivocal data, that Clause 28 does just that. I can reach no other conclusion. I know how my noble friend and those in the firearms world have worked with the police and the Home Office, and I am quite convinced that had the Government produced statistics that showed conclusively that 17 year-olds were abusing their rights, my noble friend and all those with whom he works would have backed legislation to ensure that these abuses were removed. The point is that the Government do not have the evidence, and I hope most sincerely that the Minister can make a slightly better case for the clause.