Anti-social Behaviour Bill

Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2003.

Standing Committee G

Clause 42 - Possession of air weapon or imitation firearm in public place

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 122, in

clause 42, page 33, leave out lines 7 and 8.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 180, in

clause 42, page 33, line 7, leave out 'a loaded shot gun' and insert

'a shot gun (whether loaded or not)'.

Amendment No. 123, in

clause 42, page 33, line 9, leave out 'other'.

Amendment No. 181, in

clause 42, page 33, line 11, after 'an imitation firearm', insert '(whether converted or not)'.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

We come now to part 6 of the Bill, headed ''Firearms''. If I may, I shall set the scene as an introduction to my amendments to clauses 42 to 44.

The first thing that I want to make clear is that Conservative Members fully recognise that there is a problem with the misuse of air weapons. I do not want anyone to misunderstand our motives or to think that through our amendments we are somehow belittling the problem. I have some press cuttings with me, one of which, from a Teesside newspaper, reports that only a couple of days ago a man was held in what is described as an ''airgun horror''. The article reads:

''Police have arrested a man in connection with an airgun incident that could have cost a young boy an eye.''

Unfortunately, it then spoils it by stating:

''A Bill containing measures to prevent the sale of airguns to anyone under 17 and to prohibit their use in a public place is currently going through Parliament.''

It some ways that article underlines my point that there seems to be immense misunderstanding of existing law and of what is and is not legal where all guns, and air weapons in particular, are concerned.

I have been looking up the figures for air weapon involvement in crime: use of air weapons is increasing, but not as fast as overall gun crime is increasing. The most recent figures show that air weapon use in crime increased by 21 per cent., but non-air weapon use in crime increased by 35 per cent., which demonstrates that air weapons are accounting for a lesser proportion of gun crime than they previously did. It is important to note that 77 per cent. of all air weapon offences involve criminal damage—that is not to belittle criminal damage, but it is not the sort of consequence that most people associate with gun

crime—and that 84 per cent. of all air weapon offences resulted in no injury to anybody. We need to get some perspective on the seriousness of the problem.

Of course the misuse of an air weapon can blind somebody, as the article I quoted shows. There is a chance that air weapons can kill—that has happened in a few cases—but it is a remote chance. Do not forget that by legal definition air weapons cannot have a muzzle velocity of more than 12 ft lb. To put that into context, that is less than 10 per cent. of the muzzle velocity of .22 rimfire rifle, which is the smallest calibre of a proper gunpowder-fired rifle.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned criminal damage and attacks on people, but does he care to comment on attacks on animals? The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has some horrifying statistics on the incidence of attacks on pets and farm animals.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I shall certainly come to that issue. I assure the hon. Lady that I do not intend to omit anything from my analysis of both sides of the argument, but I was planning to address her point later because it is more relevant to the next group of amendments. This group of amendments relates to clause 42, which is headed, ''Possession of air weapon or imitation firearm in public place''.

It is important to recognise what is—or is not—being achieved under current regulations. It is worth recalling that, under section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968, which is the foundation of firearms legislation,

''A person commits an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on him) he has with him in a public place a loaded shot gun or loaded air weapon''.

There are no ifs or buts: it is already illegal to have a loaded air weapon in a public place. That ought to be adequate, and I contend that it is adequate. That is the law, and the penalty for breaking it is a fine of up to £1,000.

It is interesting that in the five years to 2001—the most recent year for which we have figures—the number of successful prosecutions fell dramatically. I am not using the figures in a partisan way. In 1996, there were 575 successful prosecutions for carrying a loaded air weapon in a public place; that number fell to 540 in the following year, and although 1998 saw a marginal increase to 589, the numbers fell to 458 in 1999, 383 in 2000 and 360 in 2001. There were more than 200 fewer successful prosecutions in 2001 than in 1996, and more then than in 1997.

The law has not changed, but the incidence of use has increased. We should therefore be looking for some other reason why the number of prosecutions has decreased. We do not necessarily need to change the law, which is what the Government propose to do under clause 42. There seems to be no justification for that, because the law is clear: it is an offence to carry a loaded weapon in a public place.

Young people are the subject of the next clause. Under section 22 of the 1968 Act,

''it is an offence for a person under the age of seventeen to have an air weapon with him in a public place, except an air gun or air rifle

which is so covered with a securely fastened gun cover that it cannot be fired.''

Let us put the two provisions together. No one under 17 can have a loaded air weapon—indeed, no one can—in a public place, but if someone does have an air weapon, it must be in a securely fastened cover from which it cannot be fired. The only people who will be affected by the Government's proposal are those who can manage to fire an unloaded weapon from within a secure gun case. It is as simple as that. There is no real logic in changing the law when it is, rightly, already so tight.

We also need to consider the evidence of whether banning reduces crime. Anyone who has looked at the statistics on gun crime, and practically every Member of Parliament, knows that the proportion of gun crime committed using handguns has rocketed in the past few years, despite the fact that the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 banned all handguns. It is impossible to draw an analogy between the availability of legally owned guns and their use in gun crime.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Is not the point that my hon. Friend is making a good illustration of the fact that legislation is not always the answer to a problem? There can be risks to thinking that it is the complete answer when, in fact, we might take our eye off the ball of other issues that need addressing.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend is entirely right. When I referred to the dramatic decline in the number of successful prosecutions for firing a loaded air weapon in public, I was tempted to extrapolate and say why that might have happened. The obvious factor is the number of police officers available, not notionally in the country's police forces, but actually out on the streets patrolling. That is a serious issue, but you might well call me to order if I went too far down that road, Mr. O'Brien. The evidence shows that the number of successful prosecutions has fallen dramatically, yet the law has not changed during that period. Therefore, to suggest that it is the law that is wrong is a non sequitur.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

I wonder what the hon. Gentleman would say to residents of Lower Morden ward in my constituency—especially the residents of Aragon road. They are not known for voting Labour—it is a Conservative-voting local government ward. Their lives are made a misery by young people shooting airguns indiscriminately at their homes and pets. Would the hon. Gentleman like to tell them that banning airguns would not alleviate the situation that they are experiencing?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am unsure whether the hon. Lady was present when I started my remarks, but I made it absolutely clear—and I hope that she will pay me the courtesy of listening to my reply—that we recognise that there is a serious problem with airguns. The question is whether the proposed changes in the law will resolve that problem.

The hon. Lady used the phrase ''banning airguns'', but that is misleading. The Bill does not ban airguns. As I reported, the Teesside Evening Gazette stated that there is a Bill to ban airguns, but the Bill does not do that. Clause 42 simply deals with the carriage of airguns in public places, and later the Bill deals with age limits. I have made it clear that it is already illegal to carry a loaded air weapon in a public place; it is not illegal to carry one that is not loaded, but someone under 17 must carry such a gun in a securely fastened cover. Therefore, the offences that the hon. Lady describes, which are occurring in many parts of the country, are already illegal. I contend that it is not necessary to change the law to address the problem.

When we come to the part of the Bill that deals with age limits, I will go into greater detail about whether young people are to blame for the problems. At present, we are simply discussing changing the law about the carriage of air weapons in public places. It is already illegal to carry or to fire a loaded air weapon in a public place, or to fire one into a public place. Given that the problems that the hon. Lady describes are already illegal, I suggest that we should be looking for another way to deal with them. Simply changing the law will not deal with them. The law exists; changing it will not necessarily benefit her constituents in the way that she and I want.

All of us who are interested in the shooting sports want an end to the problems because they do a lot of damage to the vast majority of people who use all forms of firearms in sport legally, safely and responsibly. I have tried to encapsulate my overall concern about the necessity of the measures in the light of existing law. Current law on the carriage of air weapons in a public place is strong and adequate. The Government should be directed to consider ways to ensure that the law is enforced, rather than simply changing the law. Changing the law in the way that clause 42 proposes does not change the force of the law, so I cannot see it having the benefit that people want without significant enhancement of enforcement measures.

I have some sympathy for the Minister. All Home Office Ministers suffer because their Secretary of State wants to make a pronouncement every week without thinking through the consequences, and Ministers then have to produce some form of legislation. I recognise his dilemma: he rightly feels that he needs to do something to substantiate the commitments on this issue that the Home Secretary gave in the autumn.

I will not oppose the clause. Although I strongly doubt that it will make a jot of difference, it does not do any harm: it is a piece of Government window dressing. The purpose of my amendments is to draw from the Minister one or two of the implications of his proposals, especially the separation in the clause of ''a loaded shot gun'' and

''an air weapon (whether loaded or not)''.

Carrying a loaded shotgun in a public place is illegal for everybody—

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Thank God for that!

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Of course it is right. No loaded weapon of any kind should be carried in public. Let us put that clearly on the record.

The Government have, rightly, said nothing about shotguns, which are involved in only a minute proportion of crime these days. There has been a dramatic reduction from the days—when some of us were children—when sawn-off shotguns were all the rage in criminal circles. I understand why the Government did not want to go down the road of changing the law on carrying shotguns in public places. Nevertheless, I am concerned that by saying that airguns should not be carried in a public place even if they are unloaded, the Government are drawing a distinction between shotguns and air weapons. Why is an unloaded air weapon dangerous? If people may carry an unloaded shotgun, why may they not carry an unloaded air weapon? That is an illogical conjunction.

Section 19 of the 1968 Act provides for a ''reasonable excuse''. As the law currently stands, if somebody carries a shotgun or air weapon in a public place with a ''reasonable excuse''—for example, they are taking it to a gunsmith or to a place where they can use it legally—that is a perfectly good reason for doing so. I want the Minister to reaffirm that that reasonable excuse remains in law. My understanding of the amendments to the law that the clause makes is that it does. I am, however, unclear about the impact on the carriage of air weapons in public places of the insertion of the provision that people cannot even carry one that is unloaded. There may be some room for dispute about what is legal and what is not if a part of the law refers to

''any air weapon (whether loaded or not)'',

but not to reasonable excuse. If that were the case, it would need some clarification.

There is also the matter of carriage by young people. I shall jump ahead, if you will permit me, Mr. O'Brien. In clause 43 the Government remove the exemption in section 22 of the 1968 Act that allows young people aged 14 to 17 to carry an unloaded air weapon in a securely fastened gun cover. The Minister is aware that there is great concern that the removal of that provision will have a serious impact on young people, especially those involved in competitive and international target shooting—

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. I hope that we are not going to debate clause 43 now. I accept that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make his case, but I do not want to dwell on clause 43 at this stage.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I have no intention of doing so, Mr. O'Brien, not least because I want to return to it. My point about clause 42 is that it is unclear, and therefore worrying, whether the impact of banning the carriage of an air weapon, whether loaded or not, will lead to a subsequent ban on a young person carrying one in a securely fastened cover. The juxtaposition of the two measures in successive clauses is a matter of great concern. I know that the Minister has received representations from Labour Members as well as Conservative Members. The hon. Member for

Reading, West (Mr. Salter) raised the question on Second Reading.

Many young people use air weapons perfectly safely as the entry sport for target and rifle shooting. The weapons are highly sophisticated and quite expensive. Those youngsters will not be able to carry the weapons from their homes or from the gun club to the competition. That problem needs to be dealt with. I am unclear about the juxtaposition of banning the carriage of air weapons in public with the removal of the right of young people to carry the weapons in a secure cover.

Firearms legislation is rapidly becoming a muddle. Rather than constantly amending other legislation, it might be wise for the Government to redraft the provisions that deal with where and when it is legal to carry a weapon in a public place. That, however, is not the question before the Committee. We are dealing with a number of proposals about air weapons. I have made clear my view that they are not necessary, and that they will make no difference to the level of abuse of air weapons. Indeed, it could make harder the legitimate and responsible use of air weapons by target shooters.

Imitation firearms come under the purview of the 1968 Act. I am relieved that the Government have resisted the clamour for more draconian measures on imitation firearms—proposals that they should be banned, that one should have a firearms certificate in order to collect them and a number of other proposals. Those suggestions founder on the question of what is an imitation firearm. Such firearms vary from the non-firing replica of a Smith and Wesson revolver to the child's cap gun or the cigarette lighter that is shaped like a pistol. Another is the antique weapon that has been deactivated.

Although the Firearms Consultative Committee, the Home Affairs Select Committee and many others have made many efforts to define imitation weapons in legislation, it has proved impossible. I concur with the Government's banning their carriage in a public place without reasonable excuse. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that that remains a criterion, so a genuine collector who is taking home a weapon that he has just purchased will have a reasonable excuse.

The Government have probably chosen the right way to deal with a serious problem. We all know that, when used in a crime, an imitation gun is no different to a real one except that it does not kill. It can sometimes result in the death of the person holding it, because the police are tragically not in a position to tell the difference, but it is just as threatening as a real gun to the person being apprehended, as he does not know whether it is genuine. The Government have found the right proposal, and we support it.

I remain concerned about air weapons. I do not believe that the Government's proposal will impact on the number of prosecutions. I fear that it will have undesirable side effects on law-abiding, responsible users of air weapons. I realise that the Government need to do something, and that they want to be seen to be doing something, so I shall not oppose the clause.

However, I hope that the Minister can allay the concerns that I have described. Those concerns are not mine only; they are the concerns of virtually every shooting organisation in the country. They represent the interests not only of today's shooters but of those young people who will want to shoot in future.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I oppose the amendments that are considered to be appropriate by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). I also have serious reservations about clause 42.

I know that, at present, carrying a loaded air weapon in a public place is illegal. My concern is that, in my constituency, the majority of the accidents, and one fatality, have occurred in private places. Therefore, it is appropriate at this time to acknowledge not just that air weapons have the potential to be lethal, but that they have been lethal.

One afternoon, Matthew Sheffield, a 14-year-old boy, was playing with an air weapon in a garden with his friends, and by the end of the game he was dead. His four friends were mortified—none of them will live a normal life again. All four of the young men with Matthew Sheffield feel extremely guilty and profoundly unable to cope with the incident. One of them—also 14—was taken to court. It was found that he had committed an act in accident but that it was none the less an act of manslaughter. It is important for the Committee to acknowledge that such incidents have occurred, and could occur again. I have reservations about clause 42, because I believe its controls to be insufficient.

I remind the Minister, with whom I have had many discussions on the issue, that the serious accidents that have occurred must be acknowledged. The Department must not simply say, as the Association of Chief Police Officers does, that there are 4 million such weapons, and that consequently it would be impossible to license them. It is important for the Minister to accept that a licensing regime should operate controls on private as well as public places. The Cleveland police believe that to be an appropriate way forward.

I accept that the problem is a difficult one, but if we do not start somewhere such fatal accidents will continue to occur. Therefore, I ask the Minister to take account of the concerns that I mentioned earlier. A regime which requires legal ownership by a named person and a system of safe-keeping is appropriate. I do not see that that would be problematic for people who enjoy the sport of target shooting. They, too, want controls to be imposed, so that they are not defined as potential culprits. Only through a licensing regime will we achieve some control.

I take the opportunity to say to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that last week, in my constituency—he will no doubt have seen the report—a young child nearly lost his life when such a gun was used. The gun was fired into a public playing area from—it is believed—a private garden. The boundaries that we are discussing are not easy to define.

My reading of the article in the Teesside Evening Gazette was different from that of the hon. Gentleman: it did not seem to me that the writer believed that the Bill proposed a ban, even if he or she thought that a ban was appropriate. The Teesside Evening Gazette has campaigned on the issue and has supported my determination to persuade the Home Office that the action that I outlined earlier is appropriate.

I could say so much more, but will resist doing so because I have made my point. I have had one fatality of a 14-year-old boy, and one child who had a near miss when he lost his eye—a little higher and it might have been his brain, which would have been another loss of life. In Sunderland, there has been a number of near fatalities. Across the region, there is a catalogue of problems, and it is only humans who are at the end of air weapons. The number of letters that I have received on the dangers to animals and older people is staggering and unacceptable.

The argument has been factually proven that air weapons have lethal potential. They are serious and dangerous. A licensing regime is appropriate, and we should start one knowing that, although it be may difficult for the police to handle, ultimately there should be a statement of responsibility that someone who has bought an air weapon is responsible for its usage in any public or private place, and that there is a regime for its safekeeping. I want to bring those facts to the attention of the Committee and my hon. Friend the Minister, because, without doubt, the clause undermines the Bill.

As a final note, I should say that my concerns about air weapons are well known in my constituency. Last week, when the press announced that I would be making statements in Committee, my office window was shot at. It has bullet-proof glass, but damage was done nevertheless. These people will go to any length to frighten us to try to ensure that we do not change the law. A change in the law is well overdue, and I ask the Minister again to consider the concerns that I have brought to his attention.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I rise to support clause 42, but I shall also address the amendments. My concern is that clause 42 could go a little further.

I have been associated with campaigns on imitations guns and air weapons as a sponsor of two private Member's Bills introduced by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who is a colleague of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. I therefore want to be consistent. Although I do not represent an inner-city area, it is interesting that the matter is of huge concern in the Bournemouth-Poole conurbation. In my area, there has been target shooting at trains and cars, which can cause tremendous damage as well as injuries to animals and people.

The issue is important, and I would rather have belt and braces, even if it does duplicate what exists, so that we are seen to be doing something. We are talking about a minority of weapons, and a minority of offences, but the stress and upset that such accidents

cause—they are largely caused by young people who do not think everything through—injures everyone concerned. It is therefore important to take a stance. We should put something in the hands of the police so that they can go out and target the problem. At the moment, everyone is concerned about it, but not enough exists to have a blitz on it.

Amendment No. 180 would replace the words ''a loaded shot gun'' with

''a shot gun (whether loaded or not)''.

That is consistent with legislation. I note comments that that is not the fashion at the moment, but things change. If we cracked down on some of the replicas, we might see an upsurge, but from the way in which clause 42 is written, I am not even sure whether it covers an unloaded sawn-off shotgun.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Lady will find, if she reads section 5 of the 1968 Act that sawn-off shotguns are totally banned. People cannot carry or possess them.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information, but I would rather have belt and braces, so that everybody is clear about what is being proposed. I do not have a problem with repetition on this important subject.

Amendment No. 180 has been tabled because not to use the phrase ''whether loaded or not'' in subsection (1)(a) appears to be inconsistent with the other paragraphs in that subsection. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.

Amendment No. 181 refers to imitation guns. There have been problems in my local area, but I had my first real awakening about that subject when I went to a Metropolitan police presentation on Operation Trident. I was on a steep learning curve when I listened to that. They even showed a video of them being involved in conflict. They were chasing a group of young men when a gun was produced. There was the possibility that the police would shoot, but it was a replica gun. This is such a serious issue that—if anything—we should go further. I noted earlier comments that it is a difficult subject and that the measure might work, but other countries have done more. I want the Minister to assure us that we are looking at what is happening in places such as the Netherlands.

This is a very important matter. Ideally, production, manufacture, importation and sales on the internet would be addressed. I read the representation from the Mayor of London. He suggested that only a simple, transparent little toy which is clearly a toy should be allowed, and that everything else should be banned. That might be a view at one extreme, but more should be done about imitation guns. The increase in them is incredible. Operation Trident analysis revealed that 70 per cent. of the guns that were recovered were replica weapons. I want there to be more emphasis on those weapons.

Amendment No. 181 is simple. It adds ''whether converted or not''. However, again, I can hear colleagues saying, ''It is unnecessary.'' It opens the whole subject of how easy it is to convert some

weapons. The major importers put a voluntary ban on that, but it is not enough. I want the Minister to say whether we can do more on that in this Bill. Our amendment is a first suggestion. It is intended to flag up the issue and what other countries are doing about it, because this is an international problem. Many other countries have reacted strongly to imitation firearms.

Several hon. Members rose—

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. Before we proceed, the discussion is becoming similar to what we might expect in a clause stand part debate. Because this is a small clause and the amendment is narrowly focused, I am allowing that to go on, but there will be no stand part debate.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien, for that clarification. My remarks might be very general, as have been those of other Committee members in this interesting debate.

The issues raised by the amendments relate to clarification of the intentions of the clause and, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) said, to whether it needs to be strengthened. I have brought a dossier with me from the Evening Post in Nottingham. That newspaper also covers the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman) and for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell). It has been campaigning, along with many of us, for the law to be improved by tightening and strengthening it.

I have showed the dossier to the Minister, so he knows that it contains examples of fire crews who go out to tackle fires being shot at with pellets. Nobody is going to say anything other than that that is deplorable, but the question for the Committee is whether the clause, and the amendments to it, will help to tackle that problem. The honest answer is that it strengthens the law and sends out a stronger message that that will not be tolerated. However, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was right when he said that it is not about banning the weapons; it is about tightening the controls on them. Whether we accept the amendments or not, the issue hangs on whether the police, or those who are responsible, operate proactive policing in enforcing the law when they stop somebody who has an airgun or imitation gun. They have to demonstrate what ''lawful authority'' and ''reasonable excuse'' really mean. It is a difficult but fundamental issue. The police need to protect us by rigorously interpreting that power. Clause 42, for all its good intentions and its toughening of the law, will not achieve what we want unless it is accompanied by that rigorous enforcement and that proactive interpretation.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It is, as always, a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who has, as he always does on such issues, made a sensible and balanced speech. He has concentrated on enforcement. I should declare a constituency interest because, as the Minister and some hon. Members are aware, the facilities of the National Rifle Association at Bisley straddle the boundary between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). Those who were in the House last Thursday, when the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport made her announcement about the 2012 Olympic bid, will have heard me say that that causes particular pleasure in my constituency because the only venue used in the 1948 Olympics that will be used again if our bid is successful, as we hope it will be, is Bisley. It must be at Bisley—the only venue that we already know about—because it is the only place in the country where target shooting can take place because of current firearms law. Bisley is partly in my constituency, as is the NRA. An awful lot of shooters have chosen to move to my constituency or surrounding constituencies because they are very keen on shooting.

Shooting is therefore a huge issue in my constituency. We are talking about the legal use of firearms by experts. All those involved with the NRA and the other shooting bodies are very concerned about proper standards. They want to support the work of the police in enforcing the sensible laws that we already have. I strongly support what my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire says and several of the remarks made by the hon.

Member for Gedling because the changes, especially those in the clause, do not make any difference.

The Government, perhaps understandably for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), want to be seen and heard to be doing something. They want headlines like, ''The Government is toughening up the law''. The current Home Secretary in particular is so keen on that message. We have also heard that from the Prime Minister. They are always looking for ''eye-catching initiatives''—the phrase in the infamous memorandum from 10 Downing street that was leaked to the public.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I will, but first let me say that we all have great sympathy for all MPs who have to deal with the problems of firearms in their constituencies. We do not seek to belittle that. I am sad to hear that people have been shooting at the hon. Lady's constituency office windows. However, I must ask what the police in her area are doing if they know that the hon. Lady is making a big point about shooting and banning air weapons and that her office is a potential target. Why on earth are police officers not patrolling the streets of Stockton near her office to catch the people responsible? I do not want to criticise unfairly any police officer or police force, but the law is very tough.

The Conservatives introduced incredibly tough laws when we were in Government, especially after the atrocity at Dunblane. However, they are not being enforced, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, despite the fact that the problem is getting worse, as the hon. Member for Stockton, South said. We know that the problem is getting worse, but that the number of convictions is going down because there are not enough police officers, and the police officers that we do have are not enforcing the very tough laws that we have. However, it is not a substitute for enforcement to produce laws that can be publicised as if something massive is happening when it is not.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take my words in the sincere spirit in which they are meant. My police officers do a valiant job, but in the dead of night these people can do whatever they choose to do, and it is impossible for police officers to cover all ground, however many of them there are. I hope that he will also note that I object to his cynicism about eye-catching initiatives and headlines. There are no headlines to be made when one has met a family whose child has died. Instead, one meets with serious distress and a determination that something better should be done. I ask the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. That was quite a lengthy intervention. I ask hon. Members to refocus on the amendments.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Of course, Mr. Stevenson, but before I do so, I entirely acknowledge what the hon. Lady is saying. I am not cynical about her or about the passion with which she speaks. I have had a similar experience of talking to distressed families and have received letters from families whose pets have been shot. I

understand the distress that that causes. I do not seek to minimise the problem, but am cynical about whether the Government are entitled to tell the British public that the clause will achieve anything. If the hon. Lady is brutally honest and thinks about what the Government are doing, she will realise that there is no substantive change, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said. That is the problem, and that is why I am cynical.

The law is already incredibly tough, but is not being enforced. It would be one thing if the Government said that they were going to instruct chief constables to enforce the law and that each chief constable had a ring-fenced budget, and a certain number of officers had to be dedicated to going out and enforcing the current law. In that case, the Government would be able to say that they were taking action. However, producing a clause that improves the law only to the extent that makes it an offence to fire a weapon inside a sealed gun case will not achieve anything.

There are two very important points to be made. First, the issue is enforcement, or lack of it, as the hon. Member for Gedling has said. Unless the law is enforced, whatever this clause does or does not do, it will not have any effect. Secondly, we need to be aware that there is a responsible shooting community that supports the current law and its enforcement. If we are going to deal with those who are irresponsible, it is a matter only of enforcement, not of eye-catching initiatives.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I rise to echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South, who spoke very wisely. She mentioned some dreadful news stories and the loss of life that has occurred in her constituency. In my constituency, there are similar stories. We are not talking about isolated incidents—they are all too prevalent up and down the country, in urban and rural areas. The area that I represent is a combination of both urban and rural areas, and people in small villages are as concerned about the misuse of air weapons and imitation firearms as everyone else.

My local newspaper, the Grimsby Telegraph, ran a story on 30 April about a weapons arsenal that was handed in during a guns amnesty. The comments of the police officers involved were particularly telling. They said that they hoped that the amnesty would help to combat air rifle misuse—a serious problem in north-east Lincolnshire. The police said:

''We are particularly focused on targeting the nuisance factor caused by air weapons. This is an area of particular risk.''

We must bear that in mind during the debate. Much of our debate has focused on crimes, but we are discussing the Anti-social Behaviour Bill; we must focus on the nuisance factor caused by weapons as well on as the tragedies.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

First, let me make it clear that there is nothing to divide us on the problems. They exist. The issue is what is to be done about them. She is right to say that we are discussing the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, but could she go through every one of the incidents that have been referred to and say whether

any of them is not already illegal under existing legislation? The point is that the law is already adequate; it is enforcement that matters. She will find that the actions referred to are illegal anyway.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Not being a legal expert, I will not attempt to interpret the law. That is better left to those who are better briefed. I am attempting to demonstrate the serious problem that we face. After listening to the Opposition speeches, I do not see how the deletion of parts of clause 42 would address the serious problems in my constituency.

By chance, another news story echoes the story that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South mentioned. The incident happened a couple of weeks ago, in my constituency. The headline was, ''Air rifle girl could have been blinded''. A 12-year-old travelling in an open-top car with her mother was shot at, probably from private property, as they were travelling along a road in the direction of Waltham in my constituency. She was hit by the pellet, which grazed her forehead and she bled quite a bit. Obviously, the injury was not fatal, but that brought home to me that misuse of air weapons is particularly serious. There was another case last year in my constituency, in the Humberside police area. For certain reasons, I will not name the person concerned. A woman died after being shot with an air pistol. A life was lost and others were ruined because of the nature of the problem that we are dealing with.

Doctors in St. James's university hospital in Leeds say that the problem is serious. They are treating a large number of patients with airgun injuries, half of whom are under 18. Some of the children injured are as young as four. Let us not underestimate what we are dealing with. Perhaps I am getting a little emotional about the issue, but—and I have declared this as an interest—a while back I was shot with an air weapon. The shot was from a private place into a public place. I probably am getting emotional about the subject, because I understand what my constituents are going through. [Interruption.] I hear Opposition Members say that air weapons are still illegal; I repeat that I do not understand how their amendments to clause 42 will make the situation better. I simply do not believe that they will.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

How does the hon. Lady think that clause 42 as it stands will make the situation better, when the current incredibly tough law is not enforced? Clause 42 does not do anything.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

As I said—and I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South—we could perhaps do a little more. With our police forces, we have to deal with the issue of enforcement. As I have said in relation to antisocial behaviour orders, we must ask whether the issue is a priority and whether the police are willing to deal with those issues. From the quotes that appeared in the Grimsby Telegraph, it is clear that Humberside police and A division, which covers Grimsby and Cleethorpes, believe that air weapons are a serious issue. They believe that the nuisance caused by misuse of air weapons has to be addressed, and they are enforcing the law.

I am curious to hear the Minister's comments on the clause and the amendments. We all have to be clear that we have to deal with the issue, and I have no hesitation in saying that we should get tough. I am not saying that to grab a headline or because of some sort of initiative. I am saying it because too many of my constituents have been injured, some people have died, and I have been a target myself. We should toughen up.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

As most hon. Members have already gone over what I wanted to say, I shall be brief—but not that brief.

I have an urban constituency and I cannot understand either why anyone would want air weapons, or what pleasure they derive from them. However, I understand that there are people who use these weapons legitimately and who enjoy target shooting and so forth. I have to say that I am concerned about what such weapons look like and about their level of sophistication. I used to think that an air gun was a relatively unsophisticated bit of equipment, but I have seen adverts for some incredible things that look as if they come out of ''Rambo''. Perhaps we should give attention to their availability.

I understand the views on both sides of the argument. I am not entirely sure that our amendments will advance the case, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, the clause does very little. If there were a headline that said the Government are getting tough on airguns, that would send a message to a few people that they had better watch out, which would be great. However, I do not think that legislation is the way to do things if the provisions already exist. All the incidents about which we have talked are illegal, with the possible exception of accidents at home, which are not dealt with by Bill. Perhaps Government Members—maybe even all hon. Members—might consider tabling an amendment on Report to take things further. It is one thing to talk, but hon. Members should, if they feel strongly enough about it, table an amendment to toughen up the Bill.

I am concerned that some of my constituents will not see any change. I suppose that most hon. Members have constituents whose lives are being made miserable or worse by the illegal use of such weapons. The Minister is a powerful speaker; I always listen intently to him. If he can persuade me, I am ready to be persuaded. Indeed, I want to be persuaded, because I want something to work. It is about time something was done. The trouble is that it is difficult to legislate to give people a responsible attitude. That is true of the whole Bill. It is difficult for parents to be responsible for their children. It is also difficult for legislation to stop young tearaways doing terrible things that they think are great fun, but that cause untold misery to other people.

Unfortunately, I see too much of one thing: handguns. They are illegal and people should not have them. Going a few miles down the road from Uxbridge into Brent is horrific. If people outside those areas knew what was going on with gun crime, they

would be appalled. I am sure that that is true of lots of inner-city areas throughout the country. People see a little bit about that on television; they may hear something about it every day. Gun crime, however, is illegal—the guns are banned. We face the problem of trying to legislate to stop something that is already illegal. It is, of course, right that there should be something about responsibility—parents should not let children, even 14-year-olds, play with guns. Then again, I do not know whether that can be legislated against.

Perhaps the issue should be considered differently, but I have now exceeded my brief to be brief, so I shall sit down.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I shall try to be brief. I was not inclined to speak, but because there will be no clause stand part debate I shall quickly make my point.

None of the amendments work in themselves—that was not their point. They have, however, resulted in a general debate. I have a lot of sympathy with virtually everyone who has spoken. I suspect that the one really important part of the new clause is the adding of the words ''an imitation firearm''. That is a clear step forward, but very little of the rest of it takes us forward at all. Expectations about what the clause will deliver might be too high, but I am happy about banning the carrying of imitation firearms. That is a step forward, although a modest one about which we should not get too excited.

I am pleased to see that some steps are being taken in respect of the carrying of all sorts of firearms in public places. I have a different view about private land, which we shall discuss under the next clause. I am at one with the Government in trying to introduce tighter legislation on the carrying and use of weapons in public, which is where the problem of antisocial behaviour lies—that is, after all, what we are tackling. However, we shall soon part company when we come to discuss private land.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 11 years now. For a large part of that time I was a Whip and had to sit silently through a number of debates. However, I have rarely been as frustrated as I have been in this debate.

Some important issues are being raised, but misrepresentation and ignorance have been thrown into what has been said as well. The general demand from many parts of the Committee—possibly all parts—is to go much further. I understand that and do not deny that we are discussing a serious problem that must be dealt with. However, that frustration over how we should go further is reinforced—this is a little surprising—by the claim of the Conservative Front-Bench team that what we are proposing does absolutely nothing. The hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Surrey Heath suggest that we are not making any changes whatever. They imply that we woke up one morning and thought that we would grab a headline, and that that is what we are doing now.

Let me put what we are doing in context. The Home Secretary has already said that we need a far wider review of the firearms regulations. That needs to encompass the make-up of the Firearms Consultative Committee. Issues to do with complications have come out clearly in the debate this morning. However, if we are to make changes and simplify things—we are not talking about airguns only, but the whole of firearms legislation—we need good thought and good advice to ensure that we legislate not from a position of ignorance but from a position of fact. We must introduce a legislative framework that is more understandable not only to members of the public but to the police who must enforce that legislation. I ask hon. Members to accept that achieving that is not a simple undertaking, but a major task with many aspects. The Home Secretary is committed to achieving that goal. Questions about how much further we need to go so that we can deal with gun crime, airgun abuse and imitation weapons must be thought of in the context of that wider review.

In the meantime, are we trying to achieve anything? Does the clause do anything? The Conservative Front-Bench team seeks to reinforce the line that the clause does nothing at all and that we woke up one morning and decided to pretend to do something. We did not do that at all. I have personally been involved with the matter since this time last year. A considerable number of questions have been raised and answered in Parliament and delegations have been met. We consulted the Association of Chief Police Officers on what the police wanted. There are police officers who believe that we should do this, that and the other—any two police officers will hold differing views on a range of subjects. The FCC has also made recommendations concerning the clause. I have met the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Gun Trade Association, as well as delegations of Members of Parliament who have problems of the type that both my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South and newspapers the length and breadth of the country have highlighted over the past year.

Everyone says that this is an important issue, which is true to an extent, but my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling said clearly that we must give the police a tool that they can use ahead of the more general review of firearms legislation. That is what we are seeking to do with the clause and what I, ACPO and the FCC think that we are achieving.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire slipped the word ''loaded'' into the conversation as if we did not notice it. He said that it is already illegal to carry a loaded air weapon. If we expect the police to enforce the provisions in the way that we need to, it is no good saying that they should have a permanent guard outside MPs' offices. That is the nonsense we have heard from the other side. We must give them a useable tool.

Let me describe the current situation. If a police constable seeks to deal with the misuse of air weapons, what does he have to do? The scenario I have used on a number of occasions with people I have met is that if people are shooting birds on a canal towpath, the constable must be prepared to spend his time walking

along the canal towpath in the hope that he can do one of two things: catch someone discharging the weapon or catch them with the weapon loaded. If he does neither of those things, there is nothing that he can do.

So why does the constable bother to go along the towpath when he stands very little chance of catching the miscreants in the clear misuse that I would hope every member of the Committee wants to see him stop? We are trying to give him the ability to challenge the person who has already discharged the weapon—who does not have the weapon loaded at the time—and to ask, ''What are you doing with that weapon?'' and, if they do not have a good reason for having it in that place at that time, if necessary to arrest them and to confiscate the weapon. We are trying to do exactly what hon. Members want us to do: give the police a tool to make them able to enforce the legislation. Then we must hope that they will enforce it.

We are not doing nothing. To recognise that there is a problem, to allege that we are doing nothing and then to put nothing forward is an extraordinary position for the main Opposition party to take. The legislation will make a difference. The police want the provision. They do not want a registration system for reasons that I know my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South has problems with. A registration system would be very bureaucratic. I am sure that many members of the police force do not understand that and recognise the problem in their communities and want us to do the things that my hon. Friend advocates. That is true in Coventry, Stockton and other parts of the country.

However, the thought-out position of the police is, ''Please, do not impose this on us. We have other things that we need to do. We do not need to be policing a bureaucratic registration system. Give us a weapon that we can actually use: give us this clause so that we can confiscate these weapons without having to catch people in the act of discharging them or with them loaded with a barrelful at the time''. I wanted to put that in context and tell my hon. Friends and other members of the Committee that we have properly consulted on provisions that we think will make a difference, but we may need to look at some of the wider issues.

I turn to lower-level misuse, which is a huge problem, with animals, wildlife and so on. Over the past year or so, we have tried to encourage more organisations to become involved with the Firearms Consultative Committee, and I am surprised that more are not coming forward and doing so. I am a keen ornithologist, and I do not know why the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has not been prepared to become involved with it. I am grateful for the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, which represents some little organisations in the general pursuit of animal welfare.

Perhaps we need to change the qualifications that are required to sit on the Firearms Consultative Committee in order to make it easier for those organisations to become involved. They have a responsibility to become involved in the detail of legislation in a forum that is there to advise us on firearms legislation, and not just jump ahead and make

proposals when the Bill is in Committee. If they were to get involved in that more detailed, longer-term work, that would give us a better framework of legislation—not a more tight or less tight framework, but one that works and assists the police.

I hope that those general comments put what we are doing here in context. Perhaps it is an interim measure. We need a thought-out wider review further down the line that is not a reaction to problems that we know exist in our constituencies. We are doing something that will give the police a real, useable tool.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent response to the debate. The clause extends powers to the police relating to imitation and unlawful air weapons. That would be an effective measure. Where powers are extended in the Bill, how can we ensure that ordinary police officers on the beat know that they have those powers? People often do not know what powers are available to them when dealing with air weapons, unruly kids or whatever—not only police officers but councils and so on. What can we do to ensure that they know that they have those new powers, in order to do something about those problems that have been experienced?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

That issue has been raised in other debates—the balance that Government, Members of Parliament, local government and the rest need to find in ensuring that the laws that we pass are enforced. There is a particular problem relating to firearms regulations. They are enormously complicated. People can buy items at a particular age, own them at another and handle them at yet another. It is not easy for every police constable the length and breadth of the country to be fully aware of all the different powers that they possess in that area. That is one of the issues that we should address in the wider review of firearms legislation. Not only does it have to be enforceable and lead to improvements in the law, but it must be far more understandable if we are to be able legitimately to put pressure on the police to do the job that the law enables them to do. We cannot do that if we give them over-complex pieces of legislation.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I have let the Minister respond to his hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, but I would like to intervene on him regarding a point that he made earlier. I hope that he will correct his suggestion that I was advocating a permanent guard outside the office of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. I did not say ''permanently''. I said that the hon. Lady has a reputation for speaking out—perfectly properly—against the misuse of airguns, and where she has just done so the local police in her area might expect a revenge attack. That would have been a good night for them to be patrolling the streets of Stockton, to try to catch those who misuse the weapons.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman says that there is absolutely no need for any change here whatsoever. ''You are not making a change; you are pretending to do so. It is all about police numbers.'' We cannot go down that road. We would go far wide of the debate. We know the record of the previous Government. We know our record on police

numbers. Of course there are issues of enforcement, but giving people appropriate tools is exactly what we are trying to do.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I echo the hon. Member for Gedling's comments about the sincerity of the Minister's response. I am sorry if I was the cause of frustration. Can he explain why there has been such a dramatic reduction in the successful prosecution rate for carrying a loaded air weapon? He confirmed that it is currently illegal to carry a loaded air weapon in public. Why is he making it illegal to carry any air weapon in public without reasonable excuse, but in the subsequent clause making it especially illegal for young people, bearing in mind that the law already requires the weapon to be in a secure case?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I do not know whether to deal with that on this clause. Detection rates are not what they ought to be across the whole range of crime. We all know that. Part of the problem is that if we do not give a constable a useable weapon he will not enforce the law. At present it is extremely difficult for the police. They must catch the person in the act of discharging the weapon or with a loaded weapon to be able to take any action. Many young people in our communities know their rights in detail. They will challenge police officers and know how to walk right up to the line but not beyond it.

We have not yet provided the police with a useable tool. That is the aim of clause 42. It will enable the police to challenge an individual who is carrying a weapon in a public place, to confiscate the weapon and to arrest them if necessary. It will allow the person to go on their legal way, if they can convince a constable in the first instance, and a court in the final analysis if the constable gets it wrong, that they had good reason for carrying that weapon in that place. We want to clamp down on the misuse.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's explanation of the clause. I am now even more convinced that the Opposition's amendments will not assist the police, so I shall support the clause unamended.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I thank my hon. Friend. I have one or two general points to make before coming on to the amendments. I am sorry about how long this is taking. It is part of something that we need to deal with. It is repeatedly said by certain sections of the gun lobby, not the more responsible sections, that as handgun crime has massively increased since the ban on handguns it was all a complete waste of time and we should not legislate in this area. I answer letters arguing that all the time. The handgun ban was never meant to deal with illegal handguns. It was introduced because the massacre at Dunblane and the previous massacre at Hungerford were committed with legally held weapons. Those were the kinds of incident that it was trying to make less possible. They can never be prevented entirely.

It is quite cynical to argue that the increase in handgun crime shows that the handgun ban was a complete waste of time. Everyone knows that the handgun ban's raison d'être was not to combat gun

crime, but to stop people with legally held weapons committing atrocities. It is a difficult area to deal with. We do not wish unreasonably to clamp down on people who are involved in gun sports or who are using weapons in a reasonable way. However, we need to take the necessary steps to enable the police to take action against the unreasonable use of weapons of all descriptions.

On the face of it, amendments Nos. 122 and 123 are not unreasonable. They could be said to simplify what we are trying to achieve. They would make it an offence to have any sort of firearm, whether loaded or not, in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, if the person has with them ammunition suitable for use in that firearm. In the case of the Liberal Democrats' amendment No. 180, the possession of an unloaded shotgun would not be conditional on having suitable ammunition available.

So what is wrong with the amendments? First, we should remind ourselves that what we are trying to deal with in this clause is the misuse of air weapons and imitation firearms. We are not attempting to add restrictions in relation to shotguns, which is what the first three amendments would do. We should remember that anyone who has a shotgun is required to obtain a certificate from the police, who will not grant one if they are satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason, or would be a danger to public safety or to the peace. Anybody who subsequently uses their shotgun in a dangerous manner is liable to have their certificate revoked.

If there are concerns in relation to shotguns, hon. Members will be aware that we are undertaking a comprehensive review of firearms controls, and I suggest that those concerns will be best addressed by that comprehensive examination. My mail concerns the increase in gun crime and the increase in the nuisance of airguns, but not the misuse of shotguns. As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, sawn-off shotguns are lethal weapons and are banned. That should not come into the debate.

Secondly, the first two amendments would mean that somebody could carry an air weapon without any justification whatsoever, provided he did not have any pellets with him at the time. While that might address any problems caused by the malicious discharge of air weapons, it does nothing to address the nuisance where the intention is to use the gun to intimidate in the same way as with an imitation firearm. A police officer would not have to catch suspects with a loaded weapon, or firing the weapon, but he would have to catch them with the pellets. That would deprive police of the useful tool that we are trying the give them in clause 42.

Amendment No. 181 would make it an offence to have an imitation firearm without reasonable excuse in a public place, whether it has been converted or not. I understand the concerns that lie behind that amendment—much work is being done with manufacturers to ensure that certain types of blank-firing imitation firearms cannot be converted—but it is wholly unnecessary. Imitation firearms that are readily convertible into a real firearm are already dealt with by section 1 of the Firearms Act 1982. Anyone converting

an imitation pistol would effectively be in possession of a prohibited weapon. That is a much more serious offence, and, under our proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill, someone in illegal possession of a prohibited firearm would be liable to a minimum sentence of five years in prison. I ask hon. Members to accept that clause 42 provides the police with a useful tool, and I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I thank the Minister for his response. There is no doubt that he has clarified why the Government believe the clause to be a step forward. I repeat what I said about imitation weapons. I wholly support what the Government are doing. They are doing the right thing, so we obviously do not want the clause to be destroyed.

I was brought up using various firearms from airguns upwards from a very early age. I am one of countless thousands of my fellow citizens of this country who shoot and have done so responsibly and safely. Like them, I deplore and wholly condemn anyone who uses an air weapon or any other sort of weapon irresponsibly or unsafely.

Members of the Committee have given examples of weapons used to injure animals or people and even, in the worst cases, to kill. We do not dispute that such incidents are despicable and need to be resolved. They are wrong and, equally serious, bring the shooting fraternity into disrepute. I entirely condemn any such use of guns, as I know every responsible gun owner does, whether they are used against people, property or wildlife.

Handguns are not directly relevant to the clause, but the Minister rightly referred to them. They are, of course, a banned weapon, and I wholly support the new clause that will be debated on the Floor of the House this afternoon to increase the penalties for possession of banned weapons. That is a welcome step.

The clause, however, relates to air weapons, as does the next clause. I believe that plenty of offences are already available to the police. I understand what the Minister is saying, although I do not entirely understand the logic of having a clause to change the age limits and to remove the ability of a person under 17 to carry an unloaded air weapon in a secure container, while making it illegal for anyone to carry any unloaded weapon.

I agree with the Minister that the police need to be given the right weapons—his word—to deal with the problems, but he did not answer my question about why we have seen such a dramatic reduction in the number of successful prosecutions. The police already have that weapon, which, five years ago, was much more successful than it is today. The Minister needs to reflect on the reasons for that significant downward trend in successful prosecutions.

When we come to the next clause, I shall talk about a range of different offences that exist for the misuse of air weapons. I am aware that what the Government propose has the support, or at least the acquiescence, depending on whom one talks to, of virtually every shooting organisation and the police, as the Minister says. I am not speaking against the clause. My amendments, as he rightly said, are intended to be a

tidying-up exercise. Despite what the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) said, they do not reduce the power of the clause, which the Minister accepted.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The amendment would require the person to be carrying pellets.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I was just about to mention that. The Minister said that the juxtaposition of the firearm with ammunition in subsection (1)(c) was important. That was a new one on me. He explained the point for me, and I am grateful to him. On that basis, I understand why he opposes the amendments. I certainly share his view that there is no need to change the law on shotguns.

As the hon. Member for Gedling said, the amendment was purely exploratory. It enabled us to have the debate that we have had, and to try to understand the thinking behind the clause. It was never my intention to press the amendment, as I declared at the beginning. I hope that the Minister is right that he is giving the police an extra weapon to use in the fight against the misuse of airguns. Time will tell. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Air weapons: age limits

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 124, in

clause 43, page 33, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 249, in

clause 43, page 33, line 30, at end insert—

'(3A) In section 23(2) add

( ) he is using the weapon or ammunition on private property with the consent of the occupier in an activity which would be lawful other than by virtue of his age.'.

Amendment No. 250, in

clause 43, page 33, line 30, at end insert—

'(3A) In section 23(2)(b) after 'gallery', insert 'or on private property'.

Amendment No. 254, in

clause 43, page 33, line 30, at end insert—

'(3A) In section 23(2) add—

''(c) he is using the weapon on private premises or property with lawful authority but where a person has with him an air weapon on any premises or property in circumstances where he would be prohibited from having it with him but for this subsection it is an offence for him to use it for firing any missile beyond those premises or property.''.'.

p1Amendment No. 126, in

clause 43, page 33, leave out lines 31 to 34.

Amendment No. 127, in

clause 43, page 33, leave out lines 36 and 37.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

This, as I said several times during the opening debates on part 6, is the clause that deals with the legal age at which somebody can use an air weapon without supervision from the moment when it is bought. At the moment someone must be over 14 to do so, and the Government want to raise the lower limit to 17. The amendments in the group fit into two categories. The aim of the first set is to retain the status quo at the age of 14. The second set, which I shall come to, are an attempt to find a way round the problem that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) referred to—use on private land—which is the issue that causes the most concern.

I should like to spend a few moments reviewing current legislation on age restrictions, because there is a great deal of misunderstanding. I should have replied earlier to the hon. Member for Stockton, South. When I referred to the Teesside Evening Gazette having said that there was a Bill to ban air weapons, I was quoting from its website. If one is under 14, the law as I understand it says that one can use an air weapon only under the supervision of somebody who is over 21, or at a shooting club or gallery. One cannot buy or be given an air weapon, and it would be an offence for one to have an air weapon on anywhere at all on one's person. We have no dispute with that and the clause would not change it.

However, 14 to 17-year-olds can use an air weapon without supervision. They can be given one, although they cannot buy it, and they cannot have one in a public place unless it is, according to section 22(5) of the Firearms Act 1968:

''so covered with a securely fastened gun cover that it cannot be fired.''

I return to the concerns that I expressed earlier. By altering the age limit, the Minister is removing the opportunity for young people who are legitimately taking an air weapon from their home to a gun club or a shooting competition to move their weapons about. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has raised the matter because of her involvement with the international sporting fraternity through the Olympic movement.

It is clearly an offence to fire an air weapon in a public place. One of the exceptions to an age bracket quoted in the Firearms Act 1968 is somebody who fires any missile beyond specified premises. To do so is an offence for that person and for the person under whose supervision he is acting.

A huge panoply of legislation exists to prevent abuse. In the context of handguns legislation, the Minister said a few moments ago that one cannot guarantee that nothing will go wrong. However, criminal damage is an offence punishable by a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment or a fine of £5,000. A person under the age of 14 in possession of an air weapon or ammunition would face a fine of £1,000, as would a person under the age of 17 having

an air weapon in a public place and an adult supervisor of a person under the age of 14 making improper use of an air gun.

Another interesting offence, bearing in mind what Labour Back Benchers said, is that of discharging a firearm within 50 ft of the centre of a highway and causing injury, interruption or danger; that would attract a fine of £1,000, as would causing damage in such circumstances. Ill treating or causing unnecessary suffering to any animal, or killing an injuring any wild animal under schedule 5 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, would result in fines of as much as £5,000 or six months' imprisonment. A range of provisions is available to deal with the abuse of air weapons.

I recognise that the situations to which hon. Members referred are caused in part by young people—I readily accept that it happens—but it is not caused entirely by them, otherwise there would be no need for clause 42, which changes the law only for those aged over 17. There is clearly a problem in respect of young people; the question is what to do about it. We therefore need to consider whether simply raising the age at which they can use such weapons without supervision will reduce or eliminate such abuse, bearing in mind the existing constraints on their use.

I believe that the law already deals adequately with such misuse, and we should not assume that everyone between the ages of 14 and 17 is more likely to misuse an air weapon than those who are over 17. Clause 42 clearly deals with the carriage of firearms in public places, and the prosecution rates are clear evidence that the problem does not lie with the law.

Let us consider the impact that the change in the age restriction would have on those young people who use air weapons. First, it would affect the carrying of weapons to and from sporting events. Secondly, as I said earlier and as the Minister recognises, air weapons are the entry-level weapon for people who take the activity of shooting seriously. Target shooting can lead to international or even Olympic competition. Many people never go beyond air weapons, but continue to be proficient in target shooting with air rifles for the rest of their lives, whereas others progress to conventional firearms.

Laura Moffatt (Labour, Crawley)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that air weapons are often the entry-level weapon for those who choose to abuse them?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

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.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Listening to the hon. Gentleman's explanation about ''private property'' and gardens made me think that people need to have a large garden to pursue that activity. In many parts of my constituency, back gardens are very small. The hon. Gentleman is advocating that people in densely packed terraced houses could use air weapons, so long as they do not put the can on top of the fence.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am sorry that the hon. Lady should seek to make such a pathetic point. I recognise that many people do not have gardens of any size, let alone large gardens, but I do not think that people who have large gardens should be penalised for having them, which seems to be what she is saying. I am simply suggesting that people who have an air weapon should be able to use it on private property, so long as they do so safely and the missile does not go beyond the boundaries of the property.

It does not matter how big the property is. An adequate backstop, such as a concrete block wall, will prevent the pellet from going beyond the private property. However, if there is a thin wooden fence, fresh air, or wire netting, that will not stop the pellet, so an offence will have been committed. That is the simple position that I am adopting.

I am trying to help the Minister, who has been pressed from all sides in this debate. There is a widespread belief in the general shooting community and beyond that it should be legitimate for a young person to continue to be able to use an air weapon on private property, so long as it is done safely. I share that view, and the purpose of amendment No. 254 is to cover all the eventualities with regard to where it might not be safe to use an air weapon on private property.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Perhaps I can give my hon. Friend an example that I hope that he, the Minister and the hon. Member for Cleethorpes will find helpful. When my younger brother and I were growing up in an ordinary house on an ordinary housing estate, my father, who was a responsible shot who had done a lot of shooting in the Navy, converted a side passage in what was a relatively small back garden into a totally safe shooting range. A lot of people who grow up in ordinary small houses will be able to use relatively small pieces of land to practise safe airgun target shooting, if their parents are responsible shots. Therefore, my hon. Friend is right.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have made my case to the best of my ability. I do not believe that the abuse of air weapons, which all Committee members accept exists, will decrease if we simply say that young people aged between 14 and 17 should not be able to use them without supervision. However, if the Government are committed to the view that abuse will decrease—only time will tell if they are right—it is reasonable that there should be an exception to allow young people to continue to use air weapons as they have in the past, purely on private property where there is no threat to anybody on public property, because the missile cannot go outside the private property.

For those of us who believe that people who wish to use firearms safely should be able to continue to do so, while at the same time accepting that there is a need to combat misuse, that is a reasonable position to adopt. I would support Government measures that did that. I am not convinced that the change in the clause will do that, but if the Government are convinced, I hope that they will agree to the exception for the use of such weapons on private land.

Dari Taylor (Labour, Stockton South)

I want to make a quick comment. I support clause 43. I would like to point out to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that if the clause had been in place two years ago, Matthew Sheffield would still be alive. I would like to make that statement loud and clear. Supervision, age, maturity and sensible usage go together quite neatly. Clause 43 is useful, and I support it. I heard the integrity in everything the hon. Gentleman said, but he underestimates the immaturity of a 14-year-old and how easily fun and games get out of control, as they did in the case that I mentioned. I ask him to think again and to consider the value of changing from 14 to 17 the age of use, ownership and ability to travel around my constituency. I ask the Committee to support the clause.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I rise to speak in support of the exception proposed by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. I have taken on board the representations that we have heard from the British Association for Conservation and Shooting, among other groups. It is supportive of clause 42, which we have just discussed, but raises legitimate concerns about clause 43. We have to come back to the fact that we are discussing a Bill about antisocial behaviour; it is not about tackling the fundamentals of shooting. That is a different debate, but it is easy to get carried along that line if one is not careful.

It is obvious that the use of air weapons has always been an activity on farmland and the like for young people, and the clause would take a gainful activity away from them. Obviously, we need every protection that we can get, but the BACS merely requests that clause 43 be

''amended to allow young people between the ages of 14 and 17 to use an airgun''—

I am sure that it would add ''lawfully''—

''on private land without supervision''.

The association would also like the clause to make it absolutely clear that it is

''an offence for anyone of any age to use an air weapon to fire a missile beyond the boundary of . . . private property.''

When I saw the mass of amendments before us, I found it difficult to decide which one I wanted to support, which is why I thought I would simply say what I wish for the clause. Amendment No. 254 is almost right, but I would be very interested in what the Minister has to say. Hon. Members on both sides of the House were concerned that the provision would go over the top, and everyone knows that there has to be something in the way of an amendment, but I am not expert enough to propose the precise words.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Again, I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South. I am concerned about the unsupervised use of airguns by young people between the ages of 14 and 17. That concern is based on evidence from my constituency. A large proportion of abuse and misuse of air weapons is caused by young people who use airguns unsupervised. Both the police and local RSPCA inspectors say that during school holidays, particularly in the summer, the number of incidents soar, and that there is a direct correlation to age. The RSPCA thinks that less wildlife and fewer pets, including cats and dogs, will be shot and that there will be less criminal damage if we make sure that use of air weapons is supervised. It is unsupervised use that can lead to the antisocial behaviour that people are complaining about.

Laura Moffatt (Labour, Crawley)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the supervision order will not only have an impact and prevent abuse, but will also protect young people? Supervision will protect many young people from those who may want to get the weapons off them. It allows young people who legitimately enjoy using air weapons for target practice to be protected, because they will always be supervised and there will be no opportunity for people to attack them and get hold of the weapons.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I concur with what was said earlier, that sometimes the possession of air weapons is an entry into illegal use of guns at an older age. Some teachers in London have stated that it is mainly 13 and 14-year-olds who like to carry air weapons, and once they get older they want real guns. That is a serious problem.

On the issue of animals, one local vet in my constituency said that treating cats, dogs and other animals that have had air pellets lodged in their skull or wherever was common. He said, ''It's just youngsters messing about,'' but they are messing about with airguns, and that is the result of unsupervised use. If supervision instils responsibility, it is a good thing. Not all 14-year-olds are responsible: if they were, we would not have the level of misuse that we see during the school summer holidays and other breaks. I hope that the change will go through to increase the age limit from 14 to 17. It will have a dramatic impact on the misuse of air weapons.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I rise not only to support my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, but to say that I was glad that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole mentioned the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.

I wish to specifically mention another organisation, because it includes in its membership the National Rifle Association—in the previous debate, I mentioned my constituency link with the NRA. Before joining the Front Bench, I was for a relatively short time the unpaid parliamentary adviser to the British Shooting Sports Council. I took over from the former Member for Weston-super-Mare, whose son is now my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin).

The British Shooting Sports Council incorporates a large number of other organisations. For the record, in addition to the National Rifle Association, it has in its membership the Association of Professional Clay Target Shooting Grounds, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, the Countryside Alliance, the Gun Trade Association, the Muzzle Loaders Association—some of the members of that organisation live in my constituency and send me letters—the National Smallbore Rifle Association, the Shooting Sports Trust, the Sportsman's Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom Practical Shooting Association, the Association of Professional Shooting Instructors and the Institute of Clay Shooting Instructors. The very fact that all those organisations exist reinforces the point that shooting is a hugely popular sport.

One of the difficulties I find when we debate issues such as this is that Labour Members' experience of the countryside is limited. That is not their fault, but they should recognise that those of us who spend an enormous amount of time in the countryside—

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I will in a minute, but I want to finish my point. Those of us who had the good fortune to spend a lot of time on farms while we were growing up know that responsible shooting on private land has been a feature of country life in this country for a couple of hundred years. I do not want to minimise the extent of the urban problem, and I recognise the legitimacy of the points that have been made by the hon. Members for Stockton, South and for Cleethorpes, but they should recognise that responsible shooting by young people has been part of country life for more than a century.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

The hon. Gentleman may have been a little misled when I spoke about densely packed terrace houses. If target shooting had been taking place in such an area, it certainly would be antisocial because of the noise. However, the constituencies that that I and some of my hon. Friends represent also include vast rural areas. I ask him to acknowledge that the problem is as acute in the villages and small towns in the rural areas as in the urban areas. I get more complaints—

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. I was in the hon. Lady's constituency with my grandchildren at the weekend to watch the kite festival, and very nice it was too, but her intervention was just a little too long.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Lady reveals her ignorance of the matter when she talks about noise from air

weapons. Small air rifles do not make any noise, as she would realise if she knew anything about shooting.

I stress why the Bill will be so damaging, particularly in rural areas and especially to a sport in which this country has a proud reputation. I am sure that Labour Members are always delighted to support British sporting competitors when they win medals at the Olympics or other international competitions. The British Shooting Sports Council says:

''Not only are these proposals''—

especially clause 43—

''highly unlikely to have any impact on those who misuse air weapons, they would on the contrary target the vast majority of young people who use their air guns responsibly, and would cause further long term damage to all shooting sports by reducing the number of new entrants.''

I entirely agree with that. The clause would be vastly improved if the amendments were to be accepted, but if it remains unamended, it will have a major detrimental effect on the legitimate use of air weapons by young people.

We have a fantastically successful record in shooting sports, including some of our most successful Olympic medal hauls, and I am glad to see the hon. Member for Stockton, South nodding. Almost all new entrants to shooting sports start their careers with air guns, and many young apprentice agricultural workers and gamekeepers rely on the use of air guns for pest control to earn their livelihoods. The Bill will therefore also affect low-paid agricultural workers, something that I would have expected Labour Members to understand.

A new requirement for supervision would be not only a burden to young people in that age group but a positive disincentive. The removal of the exemption allowing a young person to carry an air rifle that is properly covered in a public place could also impact on those, mentioned earlier, travelling from their homes to the places where they shoot competitively. It would target the many young target shooters, many of whom I see coming to Bisley in my constituency, who often compete at international level, because they would be unable to travel to the range for practice or to airports for travel to international competitions, up to and including European and world championships, unless accompanied by an adult.

It is a serious matter. The main body that represents shooting sports and the large membership of the other representative organisations say that if the clause remains unamended, it will cause serious damage to a sport in which we have been fantastically successful. From my experience of farming in Norfolk, it will also completely change the way in which young people between the ages of 14 and 17 are taught to shoot responsibly.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that shooting on private land is not a problem, particularly not on farm land. I recognise the legitimate constituency concerns raised by Labour Back Benchers, but the best way to deal with them would be for the Government to accept the

amendments; they would massively improve the clause. If the Government cannot accept them, I suspect that they will have major problems in another place, because many Members there have experience of shooting sport.

I cannot stress too strongly that I want to see our shooting sports and our rural life continue. The way in which the Government are approaching the problem is not right.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I support the general tone of the remarks that have been made from the Opposition Benches, although I would not go so far as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in suggesting that Labour Members do not understand rural issues because they represent urban constituencies. It is dangerous to suggest that people do not have certain knowledge because they happen to represent one constituency or another.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the fact that more rural constituencies are represented by Labour MPs than by members of any other party?

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. The political topography of the country is not at issue.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

In which case, I shall stay off that, because I had a retort ready. I was, for once, in some sort of agreement with the hon. Lady, so she has not done her cause any good. There is clearly a problem with air weapons and antisocial behaviour in parts of the country, and we must find a way to deal with it. However, I do not believe that a blanket increase in the age limit is that way.

The Government are right to make suggestions, but the clause does not substantially tackle the problem; it affects what has rightly been described as the lawful activity of thousands—possibly hundreds of thousands—of young people, who will not be able to carry it out again. There are probably tens of thousands of air weapons in my area. I have not had a single letter, phone call or visit about the misuse of air weapons in my constituency, which is one of the most rural constituencies; it is the size of Greater London, but with only 63,000 inhabitants. Those tens of thousands of air weapons are used almost exclusively—certainly predominantly—by 14 to 17-year-olds, because they cannot use other firearms. They use them on farms for pest control. That is how they learn to use firearms responsibly. The clause would have a dramatic effect on the legitimate use of weapons by many young people throughout my constituency.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he is saying. Will he accept that the same is true for me and for my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire? Neither of us has ever had a complaint from a constituent, either.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that useful intervention. The amendments might not be entirely satisfactory, but I hope that the Minister—if he is listening to me—will agree to consider a way of tackling the problem that the Bill is creating. Something that is not a problem in large parts of the

country will be stopped by it. I do not think that the Minister intends to do that; he is trying to deal with a problem that does exist in parts of the country where weapons are abused.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify for me and for my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling the direction of his argument? Is he suggesting that the increase in the age limits should not apply where there is usage on private land with the permission of the owner, as opposed to public areas?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

That is exactly what I am suggesting—the use on private land with the proviso of not firing the projectile beyond the edge of the land. I suspect that the amendments are not the perfect way of achieving that. However, I hope that the Government will consider the issue. We all want to

tackle the problem without penalising the vast numbers of young people who use weapons in entirely legitimate activities.

May I ask the Minister how, if the clause becomes law, it will be enforced? My constituency has some 80 police officers to cover an area the size of Greater London, only about one quarter of whom are on duty at a time. There are thousands of air weapons that could be used over vast areas. I suspect that in rural areas the reality is that we shall have a law to which the police turn a blind eye.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee G

Clause 43 - Air weapons: age limits

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment No. 249, in

clause 43, page 33, line 30, at end insert-

'(3A) In section 23(2) add

( ) he is using the weapon or ammunition on private property with the consent of the occupier in an activity which would be lawful other than by virtue of his age.'.

Amendment No. 250, in

clause 43, page 33, line 30, at end insert-

'(3A) In section 23(2)(b) after 'gallery', insert 'or on private property'.

Amendment No. 254, in

clause 43, page 33, line 30, at end insert-

'(3A) In section 23(2) add-

''(c) he is using the weapon on private premises or property with lawful authority but where a person has with him an air weapon on any premises or property in circumstances where he would be prohibited from having it with him but for this subsection it is an offence for him to use it for firing any missile beyond those premises or property.''.'.

Amendment No. 126, in

clause 43, page 33, leave out lines 31 to 34.

Amendment No. 127, in

clause 43, page 33, leave out lines 36 and 37.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

When we adjourned for lunch, I was on the point of concluding my speech with the thought that we must ensure that when tackling the problem of antisocial use of air weapons we do not prevent activities that in many parts of the country are regarded as legitimate. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the suggestions that have been made, or that he will at least consider some alternatives.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I start by apologising to the Minister. In the debate on clause 42, I caused him high frustration by saying that I did not think that the clause would do anything. I say that because I have such great respect for him as an ex-Whip. I believe that ex-Whips in whatever form can provide great expertise to Committees. He has persuaded me of their merits.

As I listened to the contributions on clause 43 before lunch, I was tempted, because of the tragedy that was outlined, to think that there was some merit in upping the age limit. I confess that I am not entirely au fait with the ways of the countryside and how the farming community trains up its youngsters to shoot

rats and so forth, but I am not entirely convinced that the provisions would do the right thing. I trust the Minister implicitly, but perhaps this would be a good moment for him to reconsider the matter. Perhaps the age limit is too high. I understand that there are compelling reasons in favour of change, but I think the Government should reconsider the question of private land.

As I said, I have no problem with the measures, but there is a question whether the responsible use of airguns on private land should be allowed. The trouble with this, as with all the proposed legislation, is that most of the people involved are completely law abiding and go about their pursuit perfectly reasonably, but the activities of a handful might mean that those lawful and pleasurable activities will be curtailed. There will be time to re-examine some of the issues-perhaps not in Committee, but there is always Report, Third Reading and the other place-so that we can see whether we are punishing a huge majority because of the misdeeds of a few.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. Before I call the Minister, may I make it clear that, alas, the consumption of coffee is not allowed in the Committee Room? I ask you, Caroline Flint, to take your coffee outside with you.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

First, let me say that, as an ex-Whip, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) was one of the least frustrating contributors to the previous debate. I say that knowing that no one would dare to bear down on me in the present company.

I shall try to respond to the debate, but I cannot remember some of the points that were made this morning on the more general issues. The amendments are designed to retain the existing age limit on owning or possessing an air weapon, or to mitigate the effects on legitimate shooters of the increase in the age limit. The intention behind clause 43 is to tackle the misuse of air weapons by young people by ensuring that they do not have unsupervised access to such weapons.

There has been a steady rise in the misuse of air weapons in recent years. In 2001-02 there was a 21 per cent. increase in such offences. Such misuse can cause serious nuisance, crime and injury, and most instances of misuse involve young people. The Government are determined to curb that trend and we believe that raising the age limit from 14 to 17 is an important part of achieving that. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) that maturity is an issue.

Much of the nuisance occurs in rural as well as in urban communities. There is an annoying notion being peddled around that an MP's understanding the countryside is dependent on the constituency that he or she represents or on the party that he or she belongs to. I am the proud representative of the very urban constituency of Coventry, North-East, where I was born and raised. However, I have never considered myself a townie, and as a youngster I spent most of my time and recreation in the countryside. That notion ought to be knocked on the head.

I thank the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for the thought that he has given to the issue of raising the age limit and the attempt that he has made to reach a conclusion on how to mitigate some of the consequences of doing so. I am mindful that there are many legitimate uses for air weapons and many responsible young shooters. I am also aware of the concerns expressed by shooting organisations and other bodies such as the Countryside Alliance. As I said earlier, I consulted the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, whose representatives I thank for their careful and thoughtful input to attempts to draw the line in the right place and to determine how we could raise the age limit without harming activities, such as pest control, that we do not necessarily want to prevent but that can involve young people using air weapons on farms. We do not wish to interfere with such activities.

I know that when it first saw the Bill the British Association for Shooting and Conservation was slightly concerned about shooting on private land, because although we had discussed that issued with the association and other organisations, we had not accurately got down our thoughts when drafting the Bill. In dealing with the hon. Gentleman's amendments, I think that we have still not quite got there. It is a drafting problem. There was no intention to impinge on that area. In drafting the Bill we could either rule out the private land issue, or include it with a view to amending it at a later date, but let me make it clear that there was no attempt to row back on some of the intentions that we had right from the start.

We had some very constructive engagement with organisations that were concerned about the issue. To address those concerns, I have already agreed to look at the options for allowing some unsupervised shooting on private land, but we must be careful to ensure that any such shooting does not cause a nuisance to neighbours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes said, that will be a particular issue where the private land is in an urban area with neighbours close by. Amendment Nos. 249 and 250 do not go far enough in addressing that point.

I am far more encouraged by amendment No. 254. I do not want to argue with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, because he is trying to achieve exactly what we want to achieve, but it is not clear why he included both ''private premises'' and ''property'' in the amendment. I think that he is just taking a belt-and-braces approach, but the legislation already defines premises as including any land, so there is no reason to go further, unless he was thinking about something else when he framed the amendment. I would need to look closely at the concept of lawful authority, which implies something wider than just the consent of the owner.

Furthermore, none of the amendments includes a lower age limit, so they would theoretically allow a five-year-old to shoot unsupervised, which I am sure is not the hon. Gentleman's objective.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for the way in which the Minister is addressing the amendments, and for his kind remarks about my efforts. He is right: I certainly did not intend a five-year-old to be able to walk round with an air weapon; that is a lacuna in my proposal. As for premises and property, I was simply taking a belt-and-braces approach, as he suggested.

I intervened to point out something that I should perhaps have said earlier. I tabled an amendment, which unfortunately has not been selected, to deal with the issue of the adult who provided the weapon. Under that amendment, which is to the next clause, anyone who gave or lent an air weapon to someone under 17 who misused it would have been liable for the offence along with the young person. That would go a long way towards meeting some of the concerns of Government Back Benchers. As I said, the amendment has not been selected, so we shall not debate it, but I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind as a possible way of finding the way forward that he talks about.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I welcome what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do and I am sure that we can find a solution. I say to any members of the Committee who might be concerned about our trying to deal with this issue that we need to think about two points. One was raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). If we wanted to take action in this respect, we would potentially be putting in place a measure that was unenforceable in many parts of the country and bringing the law into disrepute by so doing. Even if we wanted to go there, the point made by the hon. Gentleman is valid.

The second point concerns the interpretation of the terms ''private land'' and ''public land''. Public land is land to which the public has access by payment or otherwise, so a canal towpath, public rights of way and so on could be covered. We need not fear that we are necessarily creating a problem in that regard. There are issues about proximity to residences. I am not sure that we can deal with them in greater detail than amendment No. 254 and the comments that have just been made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire deal with them. However, if we genuinely want to deal with misuse and not prevent what most people think is the appropriate use of weapons, we are close to reaching an accommodation that will do that.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment in the light of the comments that I have made and our continuing work to bring into being something that is close to amendment No. 254.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister and I will come back to him on that point, but will he address the other issue that I raised about young persons, perhaps those who compete in target shooting, being able to transport their weapons? I know that that issue has been raised with the Minister in a number of quarters.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I will deal with that. The amendment to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not selected, but it deals with an important issue

that we need to consider. I am not so sympathetic to the arguments being advanced, but I will listen. I fully acknowledge that there is an issue of private land; we must deal with that and we will, as I have said. I am more than happy to continue to listen to arguments about the carriage of weapons, but we are talking about 14, 15 or 16-year-olds who are involved in gun sports carrying weapons in public places without any parental or other adult supervision. I am not certain that the clause would create the problem that others envisage, but I would like to hear from people who think that there will be a problem.

Many responsible parents and young people who are involved in gun sports keep their rifles in gun clubs. Parents certainly ferry around young people who are involved in various activities. I am not convinced that we need to have very young people carrying weapons around the streets, even if those weapons are wrapped and buckled in cases. I am not opposed to people being able to go about their activities, but I do not wish to create a big loophole in the powers that we wish to give to the police to prevent misuse. I am not as convinced on that issue as I am on the private land issue.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that one of the concerns is that those young people could become victims of crime and the weapons could be stolen? Surely supervision is preferable to offer protection to those young people from the loutish elements in our community.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I am not sure how significant that is as a contributory issue, but I certainly take on board my hon. Friend's comments.

I do not wish to close the door entirely, and if people wish to convince me that there is a problem, I am prepared to continue to give it consideration. The private land issue certainly needs to be dealt with. I am trying to deal with the other issue clearly and honestly. I am not certain that there is a need for 14-year-olds to be carrying guns around the streets without any supervision, even if those weapons are covered and buckled.

I hope that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will withdraw his amendment, but I thank the Opposition and the organisations that have been following our procedures for their constructive input. We must find a way forward that maximises the effectiveness of the tools that we wish to give to the police to deal with misuse while minimising the impact on people who are taking part in sports or other legitimate activities. We do not wish to inconvenience them to any degree greater than is necessary.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

It is a great shame that you were not with us this morning, Mr. Cran. You would have been very interested in what I believe was one of the best debates that we have had in this Committee. We were able to address a serious issue with a considerable amount of unanimity on the desire to resolve it, even if hon. Members did not entirely agree on all of the issues.

On the issue of carriage, I heard what the Minister said. I will draw it to the attention of the various shooting organisations that he still remains to be

persuaded on that matter, and no doubt they will produce the evidence that they believe is appropriate. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, I hope it has become obvious during this morning's proceedings that I have a little more knowledge of this issue than many, having studied a lot of work on it over the years. I am not aware of any evidence to the effect that young people carrying airguns are more likely to have them stolen. I am not saying that it could not happen, but bearing in mind that the law has stood for 30 years, I am not aware of any evidence that that has been a regular feature. We must be careful to have a sense of proportion about what may or may not happen.

I am grateful to the Minister for his comments about private land. He will not be surprised to hear me say that I do not think that changing the age limit is either necessary or right. That is the view of the Firearms Consultative Committee that he quoted earlier, and I have seen its representations to him. I recognise that the Government take a different view. Although the discussion has inevitably centred on the countryside and farmland, I do not consider this a purely rural issue. For many people who live in urban areas, the nuisance use of air weapons is a significant urban issue that needs to be addressed. As the Minister has said, I have tried to come forward with proposals that will help to address it.

It is perfectly reasonable for an adult take responsibility. I take as an example my own situation. When I was in my early teens-a long time ago-my father gave me an air rifle. It would have been perfectly reasonable to hold him responsible if I had misused it-I do not suggest that I did misuse it. If someone makes an air weapon available to a young person, it is reasonable that they should then be responsible for ensuring that it is used safely and properly. I do not know why the amendment I tabled was not selected-no doubt you know why that is so, Mr. Cran, but I do not. It is an important part of the mix that the Minister is seeking to address what we all agree is a problem.

The hon. Member for Stockton, South, who is not here this afternoon, has a tragic constituency record and I recognise and understand the sincerity of her views. An objective person would agree that the idea of licensing all these weapons is a perfectly intellectual argument, but I share the Minister's view-as does the Association of Chief Police Officers-that it is wholly impractical and out of proportion. I recognise her strength of feeling on that matter, and I hope that she does not misunderstand my reasons for taking a different view.

There are those in the sporting world who take the view that we should fight to the last ditch on the issue of the age limit and to keep it where it is. My hon. Friends and I want to find a way forward that will allow young people to continue to use air weapons on private property in the way that they traditionally have done. As long as they do not use them unlawfully, that is the way forward that we should try to find.

I am grateful to the Minister for his kind words. He questioned my use of the word ''lawfully''. That is the only section of the amendment on which I took advice.

Someone asked me earlier where the wording of the amendments came from, which I took as a mortal insult as I had drafted them all myself. Someone suggested that I should use ''with the consent of the occupier'', but I was advised that ''lawful authority'' is a traditional legal phrase that covers not only the occupier but the person who holds the shooting rights, who may be a different person. It also ensures that the weapon is being used lawfully on the land and not for shooting something should not be shot at. The Minister will look at that.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

If I table an amendment that includes the term ''lawful authority'', the hon. Gentleman will be nothing other than pleased. I am not saying that he is wrong-we just need to look at it and understand it.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I appreciate that point. If the Minister comes forward with such an amendment I will not say, ''I told you so''.

The issue is serious. I think that the Minister understands that the activities of tens of thousands of young people stand to be seriously affected by the clause. I understand why he thought he should start with a ban and rein back with amendments rather than proposed something about private land that he then must change. I am simply concerned that we get the provision right before the Bill receives Royal Assent. I accept that the Minister will genuinely seek a way forward. If my amendments help him in that, I am content. I do not know when the Report stage will be, but it would be helpful if the measure could be put right before we send the Bill to the other place. In the light of this debate, which I thoroughly appreciate, and the Minister's sincere response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Prohibition of certain air weapons

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I beg to move amendment No. 239, in

clause 44, page 34, line 4, at end insert-

'(2A) In section 5 (weapons subject to general prohibition) after subsection (1)(ae) insert-

''(af) any air rifle, air gun or air pistol which uses, or is designed or adapted for use with, a selfcontained gas cartridge system (whether powered by air or carbon dioxide);''.

(2B) If at the time when subsection (2A) comes into force a person has in his possession an air rifle, air gun or air pistol of the kind described in section 5(1)(af) of the Firearms Act 1968 (c.27) (inserted by subsection (2A) above)-

(a) section 5(1) of that Act shall not prevent the person's continued possession of the air rifle, air gun or air pistol,

(b) section 1 of that Act shall apply, and

(c) a chief officer of police may not refuse to grant or renew, and may not revoke or partially revoke, a firearm certificate under Part II of that Act on the ground that the person does not have a good reason for having the air rifle, air gun or air pistol in his possession.

(2C) But subsection (2B)(a) to (c) shall not apply to possession in the circumstances described in section 8 of that Act (authorised dealing).'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 257, in

clause 44, page 34, line 5, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment No. 258, in

clause 44, page 34, line 10, after 'dangerous', insert

'by virtue of the fact that it can be readily converted to be capable of discharging a missile by the force of gunpowder or other like propellant'.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

We have tabled amendment No. 239 to make specific provision for banning the sale, transfer, import and manufacture of certain airguns using the self-contained air cartridge system as announced earlier this year. Existing owners will be allowed to retain them on a firearms certificate. This action has become necessary because of the problems that have arisen in relation to certain air pistols that are powered by this self-contained air cartridge system. They can be converted in several relatively straightforward ways to take conventional ammunition. Consequently, weapons using the system have been used in an increasing number of criminal acts.

A significant number of these conversions have been submitted to the Forensic Science Service, which is aware of their use in at least 80 serious offences, including murders, attempted murders and serious woundings, in England and Wales since the beginning of 2001. Proposed new subsection (2A) adds a new paragraph to section 5(1) the Firearms Act 1968 that means that any person who has in his possession or purchases, acquires, manufactures, sells or transfers one of these guns without first obtaining the Secretary of State's authority commits an offence.

We recognise that the majority of existing owners use their guns in a wholly proper and legal way and have no wish to convert them. That is why we have given a special dispensation to existing owners that will allow them to retain possession under the authority of a firearms certificate in accordance with section 1 of the 1968 Act. In the circumstances, we do not think that it is necessary for existing owners to show good reason for owning the gun. However, we think that it is important when issuing the certificate to existing owners of these weapons to retain the elements relating to fitness and not representing a danger to public safety or to the peace.

In all other respects the normal procedures will apply for obtaining a certificate. Proposed new subsection (2C) is intended to put dealers on the same footing as any person who deals in prohibited weapons. We have made it clear that we do not want any future sales of that type of air weapon to take place, or existing stocks to be sold on to others. Anyone wishing to sell such guns will in future need to

obtain a section 5 authority to possess them as well as to sell them abroad.

Let me comment on the other amendments in the group. Amendments No. 257 and 258 would do away altogether with the order-making power, or would narrow it so that the only weapons covered would be those that can be converted to discharge a missile by the force of gunpowder or other like propellant.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Before the Minister goes too far in attacking my amendments, I draw his attention to the fact that they were tabled after his amendment and should therefore be considered in light of the assumption that his amendment has already been accepted. I realise that on their own they are not necessary, but I believe that when linked to the Government amendment, they are.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I was not in the mood to attack the hon. Gentleman's amendments.

Although we now propose a specific control in relation to self-contained gas cartridge systems, that cannot be the end of our efforts to stop criminals getting hold of firearms. It is just as important that any safeguards that we introduce should be capable of being applied against new designs that might come on to the market. We therefore think it prudent to have an order-making power that will enable the Secretary of State to make provision in respect of any air weapons that appear to be ''specially dangerous''.

I know that concerns have been expressed that the power could be used to ban a wide range of air weapons, to the extent that we could end up with even more stringent controls on such weapons than on other firearms. That is what we are aiming to achieve. I remind the Committee that any air weapon would first have to be regarded as ''specially dangerous''. Secondly, any order would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. In the light of those assurances, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments and to support Government amendment No. 239.

We must remember that the guns are already classified as firearms, so it is not possible to use section 1 of the Firearms Act 1982, which makes special provision for controlling imitation firearms that are readily convertible to firearms. Although we could have dealt with that without using primary legislation, through the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969, it would have resulted in rifles becoming subject to certification, whereas revolvers, because of their length, would have become prohibited weapons.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

As I said, our amendments were tabled after having seen the Government amendment. First, I share the Minister's view that we have a serious problem with the Brocock brand of air pistol, although others that may be as easily converted may be developed. Like the Minister, I have had discussions about whether there was another way of dealing with them, because I do not like banning things on principle. I would have preferred it if another way could have been found, but I have come

to the same conclusion as the Minister: there is no alternative. The air pistols are so easily converted that he probably has no choice but to take the power to ban them and anything like them.

I tabled the amendments and the Minister asked me to withdraw them, but I have not moved them. I tabled them because I wanted to challenge him. The amendment that he has tabled, which gives a fairly wide-ranging set of powers, rightly addresses the issue of air weapons that can be converted. Given that, why does he then think that it is still necessary to have clause 44(3)? The Minister is effectively saying, ''We've got a set of specific powers, but we're also going to have a range of general powers.'' It is worth making the point that subsection (3) will amend the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. It would have been perfectly simple to remove the exclusion of air weapons from that, rather than have all the paraphernalia in clause 44. Section 1(4) of the 1988 Act provides powers

''If it appears to the Secretary of State that the provisions of the principal Act relating to prohibited weapons or ammunition should apply to . . . any firearm (not being an air weapon)''

and so on. I therefore do not see why the Minister could not remove the exclusion of air weapons, which would give the Home Secretary all the powers that he needed.

The purpose of tabling the amendment was to challenge the Minister to explain why the general power and the specific power are needed. The general power in the clause would have allowed him to ban Brococks and similar weapons, but he has now decided to include detail about self-contained gas cartridge systems. That is fine and I understand that, but why does the Minister still want the general power? As he rightly accepts, that provision raises the suspicion that the power may be used more widely in future by someone who has perhaps taken less of a genuine interest than the Minister has.

The Minister is familiar with my other point, which is that my hon. Friends and I are generally suspicious when Secretaries of State are given wide-ranging powers to do things in future that do not require primary legislation. The intention behind amendment No. 258 was to get some detail on the dangerousness of a weapon that can be converted to be

''capable of discharging a missile by the force of gunpowder or other like propellant''.

I conclude by asking the Minister to explain why he has put the words

''whether powered by air or carbon dioxide''

at the end of proposed new section 5(1)(af) of the 1968 Act. I would have thought that reference to a self-contained gas cartridge system would be perfectly adequate and self-explanatory. I am concerned that that wording might restrict the application of the provisions-somebody could develop a weapon powered by nitrogen, for example. Specifying air or carbon dioxide seems to exclude other gases, which is unnecessary, so I would be grateful if the Minister considered that.

From what I have said it is obvious that we shall not oppose the clause. It is regrettable that it is necessary, given that the criminal fraternity has found

it so easy to convert such weapons to fire proper bullets. Very reluctantly, I accept that the Government's proposals are necessary, although I would be grateful if the Minister explained why he needs to introduce the specific powers that are detailed in the amendment, in addition to the general powers that were already in the clause.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I understand entirely where the Government are coming from, so I do not plan to dissent from their thinking in the way that I did on some earlier clauses. I simply want to mention the concerns that the British Shooting Sports Council has raised with me. Before I do, however, I echo what my hon. Friend said about how the Conservative party recognises the extent of the problem and accepts the reason for the Government's motivation to take the powers that they propose to take on the misuse of weapons that are easily converted and that have been such a criminal menace. This debate is therefore of a different kind from that which we had on the last two clauses.

As the BSSC makes clear, the Government have stated publicly that they want to ban the importation, transfer, sale and manufacture of all such air cartridge weapons. The Minister made it clear this morning that while they are proposing certain amendments to the Bill, the Government are also undertaking a more far-reaching review of all firearms legislation. I anticipate that the Minister will say that they are looking again at the question of importation in that review.

The Government's proposal in clause 44 does not, in the view of the BSSC, fully take into account the fact that many legitimate sporting shooters own airguns because they do not have to obtain a firearms certificate, which would at least double the cost of the weapon. The BSSC has said that the Government might ban air cartridge system guns outright and then provide compensation-has happened under the scheme started by the previous Government after Dunblane and carried on under the present Government. That would be an alternative approach. I would be grateful if the Minister dealt with the BSSC's serious concern about the issue. The fact that it is suggesting a ban reinforces the fact that it is a responsible body. I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit in which I am making the suggestion. It is important to have his reply on the record.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Let me say to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that we put in ''by air or carbon dioxide'' in order to avoid doubt and to cover future developments. We did it having taken advice on the drafting of the legislation as well as on what was potentially available. However, the hon. Gentleman's point seems reasonable. Perhaps we should think about it, given that something that is different again may well be around the corner. I shall be happy to think about the point and to consider whether we are creating a potential problem rather than avoiding doubt.

The wording of the clause is complex. We are trying to cope with future developments in technology or

fashion and we need a new power. The existing power in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 requires the weapons not to have been generally available before 1988, and operates as a total ban. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman-and will copy the letter to the rest of the Committee-to spell out why subsection (3) is necessary, so that we are clear before Report about what is intended and what is not. I want to allay his fears about the provision being wider than we want it to be.

On the issue of compensation, I can tell the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) that the firearms in question have been used for criminal purposes on a significant number of occasions. It is incumbent on the Government to take action to prevent their further misuse, and we believe that we have struck a fair balance between the interests of the individuals who own the guns and the wider public interest. Existing owners will be able to retain the weapons for their own use, and retailers will be able to run down stocks and obtain authority to sell any surplus overseas if they wish, as will manufacturers. We do not believe that compensation is payable in those circumstances.

It may well be that there are those who wish to continue to own those weapons. Many owners, as I have said, own them responsibly and use them responsibly. However, it is undeniable that the weapons are being widely misused. I have no criticism of the manufacturers, who at our request have put in place a voluntary import control and have co-operated with the Forensic Science Service in trying to find a technical fix. I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire: if a technical fix had been possible-if we had been able to render the weapons unconvertible, or very difficult to convert-that would have been far and away the best solution. The manufacturers tried to help us to achieve that, but it has defeated them and the Forensic Science Service.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Closure of noisy premises

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 260, in

clause 45, page 34, line 35, leave out 'public'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 261, in

clause 46, page 35, line 16, leave out 'public'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The amendments are related. They are intended to make this part of the Bill more effective. The Local Government Association suggested them, arguing that

''The word 'public' should be removed as it is an inaccurate reference. Most 'nuisances' particularly in regard to noise are classified in law as 'private' rather than 'public' nuisances. For a nuisance to be public there has to be other issues in addition to noise involved such as rubbish, odour etc.''

The LGA stated:

''The use of the word 'public' effectively cancels out the new powers granted by the clause to local authorities as most noise nuisances are private. As a result these powers would most likely be infrequently used and thus not tackling the real issue. Removing the word public will give local authorities clear powers to make a closure order in relation to premises where both private and public nuisance is being caused.''

Perhaps the Minister will tell me that that is nonsense and that the problem does not exist. However, on the assumption that we are trying to make this part of the Bill work, I hope that he will consider the amendments.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Is the gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument that the clause would be more effective if it were to state simply that

''a . . . nuisance is being caused''?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Yes.

As I said, the LGA helped with the amendments. It suggested that the word ''public'' should be removed because that would enable local authorities to use this part of the Bill more effectively. It is possible that the advice that I have received is wrong. If that is the case, I am sure that the Minister will tell me so.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I can be brief, although as the amendments are minor, we could have a stand part debate on the clause.

I too received the LGA briefing-as, no doubt, have many other Committee members. It states that although the suggested closure powers for noisy premises relate only to public nuisance, most noise nuisances are private nuisances. Under the clause as drafted, the usefulness of the power is limited, and the LGA wants it to be extended to include private nuisances. That is worthy of debate. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in response to the Liberal Democrat amendments. After that, we might deal with some of the wider issues on noise nuisance in the stand part debate.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Clause 45 gives a power to local authority chief executives to issue closure notices to licensed premises from where noise is causing a public nuisance and where the closure of the premises is necessary to prevent the nuisance. The power can be delegated to environmental health officers under clause 46.

The wording of clause 45 on the power to issue closure orders, including the reference to public nuisance, is the same as the police powers to close premises under the Licensing Bill. The term ''public nuisance'' has been used in clauses 45 and 46 because it has wide meaning in common law, including nuisance caused to a section of the public. The power relates only to licensed premises and is not designed to deal with disputes between individual neighbours where noise might cause a private nuisance. It would not be appropriate to give EHOs a power of closure wider than the powers that have already been given to police officers.

I say to the hon. Member for Ludlow that the normal powers, such as noise abatement procedures, can still be used against licensed premises that are causing a private nuisance to a single near neighbour. In the clause, we are talking about the power to close a

premises forthwith. We have already given that power to the police and we are now potentially extending that to a delegation of EHOs. That is only appropriate where there is a nuisance that clearly goes beyond a private nuisance.

As I said, other abatement powers are still available whereby people can go in and tell those on the premises what they have to do to respond adequately to a complaint and give them time to do so. We hope that those powers will be enforced properly. The new power will mean immediate, forthwith closure and should be considered only where there is clear public nuisance.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister has gone a long way to satisfy me that it is appropriate to keep the word ''public'' in the clause. It was important, however, to ask why it should be kept. The circumstances in which the Government intend the powers to be used have been made clear and make a lot of sense. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I will not take up much of the Committee's time, because the basic principle underlying the clause is good and I have no doubt that the chief executives of my two local authorities-Surrey Heath and Guildford, one of which is entirely in my constituency and one of which is partly in it-will find the additional power useful. I have often complained in the past, as the Minister has cause to know, that the Government are laying more and more duties on local authorities without providing the funds for them. In this case, I can genuinely say that the power to make closure orders will be useful to chief executives of local authorities. I have no doubt that it will be used on occasion.

Committee members will have noticed that my hon. and right hon. Friends and I tabled a couple of amendments that were not selected, although they appear on the amendment paper. It would be out of order for me to speak to them since they have not been selected-I must confess to some puzzlement about that. I shall seek expert advice from the Clerk to find out why after the sitting. The fact that we tabled a couple of amendments shows that we were interested in the clause. We were trying to explore the Government's thinking.

There is an issue about subsection (2), which states:

''This subsection applies to premises if-

(a) a premises licence has effect in respect of them, or

(b) a temporary event notice has effect in respect of them.''

I wonder whether that limitation on a potentially useful power to a local authority chief executive is needed. The Minister partly dealt with that in responding to the Liberal Democrat amendments to the clause. We are trying to deal with antisocial behaviour, and as constituency MPs we all receive letters from people complaining about noisy events, but some of the most significant events that take place are completely unlicensed. I am talking about a situation where there is no premises licence or

temporary event notice. I received some letters a year ago about an illegal rave where some people invaded a factory unit, took it over and held an illegal rave. I am sure that the chief executive would have loved to have the power to issue a notice to make the premises subject to this order at that time, because the premises were otherwise empty.

I hear what the Minister says: that the provision is intended to be limited to licensed premises. Will he say a little more about why it cannot be made wider? Will the Government keep it under review? It is the kind of issue that may be raised in another place, where colleagues will ask, ''If we are doing this anyway in statute, why not make it a wider application?'' That is the point I wanted to make during the clause stand part debate. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath touched on the issue I wanted to raise: illegal raves. I have had many problems with noise from unlicensed premises on which people are effectively trespassing. In such cases it is difficult to identify the owner-the problem often arises on a weekend or something like that. Both the police and the local authority seem-I am not an expert on the matter-to pass the buck of responsibility between each other while the poor neighbours have to suffer intolerable disruption over the weekend.

I understand why the Bill includes the provision, but many people want to know why there is an omission under the clause headed ''Closure of noisy premises'', in that it deals strictly with licensed premises. It is the illegal side of things where one does not have much power. Without reopening the rural-urban debate, illegal raves can take place in an urban setting but equally people can set up on a field somewhere. Relatively few people are affected, but it is still be a nightmare for them. I was hoping to see such provision-it may be somewhere else in the Bill, and I will have a quick flick through, but I do not think that it is.

We write to the Department complaining about such problems and it says, ''Well, we're looking at it.'' We may have a good opportunity to deal with the issue on Report-or, if the Government cannot look at it by then, perhaps in the other place. It is a matter of great interest to many of our constituents.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I welcome the clause. There is no doubt that noisy premises, be they pubs or clubs, can cause immense aggravation and social nuisance in some parts of the country. It might be churlish to say so, but it would have made more sense to put the provision into the Licensing Bill, which gives the premises licences in the first place. It would seem more logical to put the power to remove the licence in the same Bill. Be that as it may, it is an important power.

My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge expressed the concern that the provision does not address the problem in both town and country of unlicensed activities. A year or so ago a farmer found a rave going on in his barn. To stop it, he turned off the

power, but the police, rather than doing anything about the illegal rave taking place on his premises, promptly threatened him with prosecution under health and safety legislation for turning off the power. The issue needs to be addressed and I hope the Government will do that at some stage. It is an omission not only from clause 45, but from the noise section of part 7.

As far as the provision goes it is welcome-I was going to say ''wealthy'', because my eyes alighted on the fine not exceeding £20,000, which seems a significant sum to me, but is probably peanuts when seen in the context of the profitability of some nightclubs. Nevertheless, I recognise that it is necessary, although I hope that the Minister will understand that some of us think we should look more carefully at what is taking place in unlicensed premises.

That links to the issue of immediacy. If there is one theme that has run through debates on most parts of the Bill, it is that many of the powers being given to the police or local authorities cannot be used immediately. They require areas to be designated, and so on. In this case, the clause provides that

''The chief executive . . . may make a closure order''.

He is obviously not going to do so at 1 o'clock in the morning, when the problem arises. The Minister is nodding; perhaps he will come back to me if I have got that wrong. Most people suffering from antisocial behaviour want action then and there, not a lot of consultation before anything can be done and the necessary orders can be obtained. I hope that the Minister can allay that concern that he will that if an unacceptable noise is coming from a nightclub, the clause will allow it to be closed then and there, not at some stage in the distant future.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

The Liberal Democrats also support the measure. I was thinking along the same lines as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire in wondering why on earth the provisions were not in the Licensing Bill. In fact, I was about to seek some assurances that everything fully ties up, because it is quite difficult to marry two pieces of legislation that deal with the same important issues. In addition, I too think that there is a problem of the time that it will take to take action. Perhaps the Minister will expand on that.

I would like to say a little more about private nuisances at private events. I am not quite so concerned about an event held inside a barn, but in Poole a whole stadium area was invaded, and the noise went on for hours and hours-for the whole weekend-until it was finally brought to a halt. Clearly, there is a gap in the provision. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that there are powers that could be used, but many people in the vicinity did not get any sleep at all that night because of the loud music. I make those comments, but I am generally supportive of the measure, because the issue needs tackling.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The power in the clause is there for chief executives to delegate. We must think about to

whom the power to close premises will be delegated. The decision needs to be taken at a fairly senior-or the senior-level in an organisation. Having said that, the power can be delegated to environmental health officers and used immediately. Obviously, in some circumstances, those officers would need to act in conjunction with the police, who have the same power, but they can do what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire urges us to enable them to do, even, if necessary, at 1 o'clock in the morning. The thought of my chief executive doing that herself at 1 o'clock amused me.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Why not?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

My hon. Friend makes the appropriate complaint of the council tax payer: why not?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because it gives me the opportunity to place on record something that impressed me in the past few days. I heard that one of the senior officers in my county council had agreed to attend a Sunday morning meeting with school governors. Sometimes, we do not pay enough credit to the most senior local authority officers. Because the buck stops with them, they often give up their own time, including at weekends, and sometimes work early in the morning or late at night. It is easy for us to forget that local authority chief officers sometimes work the most unsocial hours.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The hon. Gentleman is just trying to set me up. I hope that Hansard will not be too widely distributed; I can feel a letter from my own chief executive coming on, telling me how many hours she works. The hon. Gentleman has just tried to make that worse.

Raves are not necessarily an omission from the legislation, but the Opposition's points are valid. The matter would need to be dealt with in a new clause, and the size of the Bill, the logistics of getting it ready and parliamentary time must all be considered. However, raves are a relevant issue. Legislation was brought in to deal with them. Sections 63 and 65 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 created a power exercisable by the police to stop preparations for a rave and to require people to leave a site where they were waiting for a rave to begin and leave a site where a rave was taking place. A failure to comply with a direction was made an offence, with a power of arrest attached.

We have identified trends designed to circumvent the existing legislation. An increasing number of indoor events are held without permission. Organisers are restricting the number of people at such events to just under 100 to try to get round section 63 of the 1994 Act. Once a direction to leave a site is issued under section 63, rave organisers simply seek to move to a new venue a short distance away, often in another police area.

That issue must be dealt with, but it is not appropriate that the clause should cover it. We promise to deal with the matter as soon as parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, let me say that I know that it is a problem in many

constituencies. We should not allow the police or anybody else to tell citizens that they have no powers to bring relief in such circumstances-there are occasions when they can take action using other powers. We have not yet introduced specific parliamentary powers to deal with the trends and with the rave organisers, but we will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that. That should be looked at urgently.

I wonder whether I may air another constituency problem, which I am sure will be shared, although I do not think it is covered by the relevant provisions. There is a considerable problem in a part of my constituency where many motor bike enthusiasts gather during the night, revving up their engines and so forth. There are not many powers that can be used to deal with such matters and I wonder whether anything could be done about that. The word ''premises'' is the problem. If that definition could be widened, it might provide some power to disperse those attending such events. The problem occurs on the Stockley bypass and, depending on the weather, it happens early in the year-around Easter-throughout the summer and on bank holidays. It is intolerable for people living nearby.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The hon. Gentleman may recall the commencement date for the powers in the Police Reform Act 2002. Those powers are intended to deal with nuisance created by off-road motor cycles.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

On the road?

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I am trying to think whether the powers extended to the creation of off-road nuisance. I will write to the hon. Gentleman if we have not covered that. There are powers in section 59 of the 2002 Act to deal with vehicles causing nuisance. Those are in force now, and they cover situations on or off the road. Let me write to the hon. Gentleman and set out exactly what are those powers, so he can use the letter in his constituency. There is clearly a problem of awareness about the new legislation that is being implemented.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I should like to make a point that reinforces what all hon. Members have been saying. I recently encountered a problem on an industrial site. I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Police Reform Bill, and in the end I got from the House of Commons Library the full notes on the new powers in the 2002 Act and sent those to the police. That is ludicrous-the police need to know more about what powers are available.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. Mr. Ainsworth, I do not want us to be answering constituency questions all afternoon which are not strictly germane to the matter under consideration. I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I will, Mr. Cran.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) mentioned the extension of some of the powers that have been introduced over a relatively short period. Those powers must be presented in a usable way and promoted so that we are not relying

solely on the management techniques of the country's 43 police forces. We aim to intervene by making knowledge of the law-and changes to the law-more widely known than they obviously are at present. The problem that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) raised is a genuine one.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

I wish to pursue that point. Clause 45, like many others, introduces new powers. We have just heard another example of a power that is unknown. Unknown powers are commonplace, and we do not wish those in clause 45 to go the same way. The fact that local authorities, the police and other agencies simply do not know that they have certain powers is a real issue, and we simply must find a way to ensure that people understand those in clause 45, as well as all the others that we are creating.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I accept that point entirely. We must address issues that are of concern, but we must also make certain that our agenda is being followed up. I give my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole a commitment to consider how we can intervene to raise awareness of the changes that have been made and the powers to deal with the problems that exist.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46 - Closure of noisy premises: supplemental

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I can be brief on this matter. It seems to me that clause 46 follows on from clause 45-[Laughter.] Perhaps that was a statement of the obvious. It not only follows numerically but makes common sense of clause 45.

I have a query about the use of environmental health officers. Subsection (2) allows the chief executive to authorise an EHO to exercise any power or duty under clause 45(1). That is sensible, but will the Minister tell the Committee whether guidance will be issued as to the seniority of the EHOs who may be used? In small councils, someone who is newly employed and relatively young can be a junior member of an environmental health department. One would not want to see junior local government officers put in a position where those organising noisy events might put them under threat.

We heard in the previous debate how events can get rowdy and out of hand. Does the Minister propose that guidance should be given so that junior members of staff cannot be landed in difficulties? I am sure that any responsible chief executive would not want that to happen. Nothing in the Bill addresses that matter. If the Minister is not able to issue guidance, perhaps he will state clearly for the record, so that it can be understood by people who read the account of our proceedings, that the chief executive should delegate only to somebody quite senior.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I want to raise a couple of points. One matter that the Minister touched on worries me a little. Someone who is attempting to close down one of those events must, I imagine, have some form of police assistance. The event may be late at night, alcohol may have been consumed and tempers may be raised. That is apart from the obvious problem, which I shall not pursue, that at that time of night the police are often stretched and feel that they cannot provide sufficient numbers to cover a possible breach of the peace. Such instances sometimes occur when illegal encampments of travellers are to be moved on, and the police say that to do that they need more staff than they have.

Then there is the issue of economics. Resources might have to be bought in from neighbouring forces. I am concerned that there might be a problem in that, if the powers existed, a local authority could ask for closure, but could be told that there was insufficient police cover for it to proceed. I do not know how we can address that issue; but I thought that I should raise it. Perhaps some guidance can go out to police forces. Just to bring my constituency into it-in case anyone has forgotten it-Uxbridge often suffers because if incidents occur towards the centre of London, officers are moved off our division and further in. If anything then crops up, they are short staffed. However brilliant he is, I do not think that the Minister is able to resolve that, but I thought that I should highlight the problem.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

It is good to see that the ex-Whips mutual appreciation society continues. The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman-the appropriate delegation of the powers-ties in with that mentioned by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I thought that we had covered the position: rather than giving powers that can be exercised by all environmental health officers, the Bill allows chief executives to delegate, in the hope that such executives will delegate to appropriate people who are able to make judgments about when they are able to act alone and when they need the support of police officers. Therefore, we had not intended to issue guidance. I shall think further about whether it is necessary. I am stepping on dangerous ground: the idea that my chief executive might be out at 2 o'clock in the morning enforcing such orders herself suggests that she does need guidance to be able to decide who should do it on her behalf. It is a serious issue, and I shall give it some thought.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Dealing with noise at night

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Again, I can be brief. All our debates have covered particular problems at weekends and late at night. We have just discussed the involvement of senior people in local authorities. I understand that it is useful to have a clause that deals specifically with noise at night.

In this clause, which amends the Noise Act 1996, introduced by the previous Conservative Government, what sort of approach has the Minister in mind in relation to the 1996 Act, which says that

''sections 2 to 9 only apply to area of local authority if authority have so resolved or an order by Secretary of State so provides''?

Have the Government issued, or are they minded to issue, any guidance to local authorities about whether they should make such resolutions or, alternatively, has the Secretary of State any rules that enable him to decide at what point he might issue an order? I do not have a problem with the phrasing of the clause, but it would be helpful to have some indication from the Minister of exactly how the Government would extend the guidance that they give to local authorities under the 1996 Act.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I think that it was during the Committee's eighth sitting, when the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was telling us of a constituent who had written to him about fireworks being used at inappropriate times of night, that I tried to intervene on the hon. Gentleman; but the Chairman called me to order. Had I been allowed to proceed, I would have said that fireworks are one of the chief causes of antisocial behaviour, as they can cause so much noise late at night. I have received not hundreds but thousands of representations on that matter.

I understand that clause 47 deals also with residential properties, and I wonder whether powers exist to deal with noise related to fireworks at night. My hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that a private Member's Bill on that subject, of which I am a co-sponsor, is going through the House. I understand that the Third Reading debate will take place in a couple of weeks' time. Does the Minister's Department have any plans to deal specifically with the antisocial use of fireworks, either through that legislation or in some other way?

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

Clause 47 is welcome, in that it gives local authorities more power to deal with noise at night. It deals with an issue that we have continually raised in Committee-the cultural change needed to ensure that the new powers are used, especially as we have trouble trying to get the authorities to use the existing powers. We ought to put a marker down that the Bill is a plea, by Parliament and the elected representatives of our communities to those responsible for implementing the law, that they should do so with a greater sense of vigour.

I have a couple of specific questions. Like many other Committee members, I am sure that noise at night is an increasing problem. We have to deal with an increasing number of complaints about noisy parties, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes reminds us, about noisy fireworks. The clause would impose a fixed penalty notice, but I am not sure how much it would be. I wonder also what is the process for issuing such notices. Would it be easy for the local authority to issue them? What sort of evidence would be required, and would the person responsible for issuing them have a professional responsibility to issue a notice simply because there was a problem with noise?

In other words, is it a quick fix to some of the problems that we have to deal with in our constituencies, or will the power to issue fixed penalty notices be a bureaucratic process, one that is not easily used by those responsible for implementing them? Clause 47 makes some welcome and strengthening additions to the law, but I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to address those practical questions.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I rise to follow what the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) has said so many times during the Committee's consideration of the Bill, which has been admirably wise. Whatever one's belief may be, the value of the Bill will lie in whether it makes any difference to the lives of ordinary people. The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the increasing problem of noise at night. In his response to a point made by my hon. Friend, the Minister said that quite often the problem is that people do not know-

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming-

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I always sympathised with hon. Members who were stopped in the middle of what they were saying. Now I know what it is like. I will have to remember what I was saying.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

All I ask is that the hon. Gentleman does not repeat what he has said.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Sometimes what I have to say is so brilliant that it deserves repetition. I am sorry that you feel the way that you do, Mr. Cran. However, I entirely accept your ruling and shall try not to repeat or even to deviate.

The point that I was trying make, without repeating it, is that the Minister said in relation to another issue that the problem is that powers are often not used. I believe that he was referring to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge about raves.

The hon. Member for Gedling touched on the problem of noise at night. There is nothing more frustrating for ordinary people than being afflicted by a problem, in this case noise at night, and being told by the bureaucracy-the local authority officials, whoever they may be-''Oh well I'm sorry, there is nothing I can do about it.'' I am sure that almost every Member has gone to Ministers and asked why we cannot change the law on that, and the Ministers have said, ''Civil servants have told me that there are all these powers. Why aren't they using them?'' That has happened under every Government, including ours. On Thursday, or perhaps later, we will be discussing travellers, which is another example of where the problem arises.

Let me stick to the issue of noise at night, as you will want me to, Mr. Cran. It is clear that powers exist, and I hope that what the clause proposes will improve matters. My reason for intervening is to ask the Minister to explain why he believes that it will make such an improvement, because my understanding of the clause is that local authorities, unless otherwise

ordered by the Secretary of State, have discretion as to whether to make the resolution, under section 1, to apply sections 2 to 9.

In effect, the clause is saying, ''Never mind. You won't have to make the resolution. It automatically applies to you.'' However, that still leaves it up to the local authority to decide whether to apply it. The local authority still has the discretion to use it. I do not for a moment advocate that local authorities should therefore be told to apply it, because I do not believe that we should tell local authorities that they must have that discretion as part of delegated powers. I am interested to know why the Minister believes that the change will make any difference to whether the powers are actually used.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

Does my hon. Friend agree that a justifiable excuse for not using the powers may be the lack of resources? Local authorities or the police want to deal with these things, but with more and more things being heaped on them, they simply do not have the resources.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I am a very emollient sort of person, as he knows, and I am not going to blame the Government for the lack of resources available to local authorities, however true that might be. However, I am certain that lack of resources is part of the problem, but I must also say, after several years in this place, that I am convinced that resolve is as important as resources.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a difference in performance between local authorities that cannot be explained simply by resources or lack of them? It is more a question of resolving to exercise available powers rather than the simplistic explanation given by the hon. Member for Uxbridge.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. I allowed the hon. Lady to get the point out, but I shall not allow a general debate on the performance of this, that or the next local authority.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

You are very wise, Mr. Cran. But there is a variation because local authorities have not taken the option to use these powers. Even removing the need for that first resolution does not mean that they will use them any more than they do at present. Why does the Minister think that it will make any difference?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

I have a confession to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath referred to previous Ministers and previous legislation. I was the Minister who took the Noise Act 1996 through the House. This debate brings back to mind our debates about the adoptive nature of the power and the reasons why it should not apply to the whole country. My hon. Friend asked exactly the right questions and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. The Government appear to be applying the Noise Act throughout the whole country, without the requirement for a local authority to adopt

it. However, they are lessening the duty that local authorities are put under because they do not have to provide the full night-time service under subsection (3).

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I did not know when I introduced the stand part debate that my hon. Friend was the Minister responsible. He will be glad to know that I mentioned that it was the previous Conservative Government who introduced that excellent piece of legislation. I am delighted to be reminded that my hon. Friend was the Minister.

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Although it was a good piece of legislation, we would all have liked it to go further. If the Minister will tell me that this measure will go further, he will get plaudits from me rather than brickbats.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

If we wanted to be cheap and party political, we could say that the hon. Gentleman introduced a piece of legislation that is so underused that we now have to put it right. But we would not want to do that. The hon. Gentleman made his confession and highlighted the central point. That shows how hard it is to legislate in this area and to do what is best. All the points that have been made are valid. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling talked about making it more usable. That is exactly what we are trying to do. The hon. Member for Uxbridge talked about resources and that is another issue that we are trying to address. We want to give local authorities a power that they can use without necessarily applying resources in areas where they do not want to.

Clause 47 amends the Noise Act to end, for England and Wales, the previously adoptive character of sections 2 to 9. Under these proposals, it will apply those sections directly to all local authorities. Under the current adoptive regime, only 14 local authorities have adopted those sections. That is because only 14 have been prepared to provide the kind of facility that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was trying to encourage them to provide. From now on, all English and Welsh local authorities will have the power to investigate complaints for excessive noise at night, giving warning notices in respect of such noise and, where noise remains excessive after the service of a warning notice, either prosecute or, more likely, issue a fixed penalty notice. Therefore, whether or not the power is usable, a person will be able to give a notice. If the nuisance or noise does not cease within a reasonable period, which in many circumstances will be 10 minutes, a fixed penalty notice could be issued to the individual involved. The fixed penalty is set at £100. We are not changing any of that. We are freeing up local authorities from the need to provide a 24-hour service in order to be able to access the fixed penalty regime.

We are aware that the restrictions that accompany the formal adoption of the Act have been preventing its widespread use. Some local authorities, after reviewing local needs and available resources, cannot justify providing an 11 pm to 7 am noise response service seven days a week. As a result to date only 14 local authorities have adopted the Act and can

therefore issue noise fixed penalty notices. Accordingly, while applying sections 2 to 9 to all English and Welsh local authorities, clause 47 will relax the requirements governing a local authority's response to a complaint of excessive noise, permitting that to be more discretionary.

Night noise fixed penalty notices can be useful for dealing quickly and effectively with inconsiderate noisy neighbours. Such notices confront the noisemakers with the stark choice of shutting up within 10 minutes or facing a fixed penalty of £100. At night, the quick resolution of noise problems is vital. Making that useful tool readily available to all local authorities could make a real difference to the quality of life of people troubled by noisy neighbours. The Government intend to do that when-[Interruption.] What on earth does this note say?

James Clappison (Conservative, Hertsmere)

Having heard the Minister's explanation and while he applies himself further to his notes, may I endorse the sentiments that he has expressed? It was the intention in 1996, and is certainly the intention now, that more action will be taken to deal with the problem of noisy neighbours. That will come about in due course.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

What the hon. Gentleman tried to do in the Noise Act-in effect to provide a carrot and stick-was right. If someone is prepared to provide a service seven days a week to cover the night-time period, they have access to a quick and readily available remedy that they can impose on people who are imposing themselves on their neighbours. However, that has not worked. Many local authorities have found that they do not want to provide such a service. We could argue all day about whether they were right to decide that. We are relieving them of the responsibility. They can provide the service as a discretionary service if they wish to do so. They can still access fixed penalty notices. We are not changing the rules with regard to the decibel levels or the measuring of noise levels that is required to prove a nuisance. As I said, we are freeing up local authorities from the requirement to provide the service described.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 - Penalty notices in respect of graffiti or

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It will be helpful to have a brief debate on the clause. I am glad to say that Opposition Members can welcome the fact that the Government propose to take further measures on graffiti and fly posting. I receive many letters from constituents about graffiti and fly posting, and I am sure that other members of the Committee receive similar letters.

It is fair to say that all of us who are rightly proud of our country are depressed about the image that is sometimes conveyed, particularly to overseas tourists, by the amount of graffiti here. The problem is not by any means restricted to the UK-I have observed a lot

of graffiti in other European countries as well. However, it is undoubtedly the case that parts of our major cities-not only London-have been severely damaged by graffiti. Local authorities, companies and other bodies have to spend an appalling amount of money on removing graffiti. One thinks in particular of the problems faced by railway companies and London Transport in trying to clean graffiti off railway and tube carriages. We therefore welcome the fact that further powers are being taken in clause 48 to enable authorised officers of local authorities to issue penalty notices. However, I have some questions for the Minister about the powers that the Government are taking.

One of the issues on which I considered tabling an amendment, but decided not to do so, is the level of penalty that has been chosen. Unfortunately, some graffiti artists are quite wealthy, and I wonder whether the £50 penalty specified in subsection (9) will be enough of a deterrent. I am rather surprised that the penalty is so low. Can the Minister explain the thinking behind that?

It occurred to me that, although the power is useful, the Government need to consider whether they are imposing extra bureaucracy on local authorities. I have previously mentioned my concern about the imposition of more and more duties and powers on local authorities without accompanying funding. I am particularly conscious of that matter, having just opened a letter from the chief executive of my local authority, in which it is pointed out that Surrey Heath borough council has experienced a net loss this year, because the extra money that it has had to pay out in salaries and national insurance outweighed the increase that it received from the Government. That is not the Minister's fault, but it is nevertheless relevant.

I hope that the Minister can explain the thinking behind the low penalty payable in pursuance of a notice, but I understand that in subsection (10):

''The appropriate person may by order substitute a different amount for the amount for the time being specified in subsection (9).''

It is useful that local authorities have the opportunity to increase the maximum penalty, but I wonder whether we should be delegating such matters to them. It is more common for the Government to set out the level of a penalty in the Bill, and then to increase it in due course, if new legislation or inflation mean that the amount is too low. I hope that the Minister can comment on that, but I do not want him to read into what I said any opposition to further measures against those responsible for graffiti or fly posting.

On another point, subsection (2) says that a fixed penalty may not be used if the offence was motivated wholly or partly by hostility towards a person based on his belonging to a racial or religious group or towards members of a racial or religious group. I assume that the thinking behind that is that such an offence would be pursued separately by the police, using other powers for offences of race hatred. Can the Minister give some guidance on how local authorities should respond? Should they go and consult senior

officers in the relevant police force the minute that they identify such an offence? As that aspect of fly posting or graffiti is excluded from the power, can the Minister explain what local authorities should do if a vast number of racist posters suddenly go up in an area over a weekend?

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

The hon. Gentleman said that he could imagine such things happening. In my constituency, Solomon court sheltered accommodation is particularly targeted by racist graffiti and posters, causing the elderly residents great distress.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Lady is right. That is already happening in certain areas, and even where it has not happened so far, it is possible to imagine it happening. It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about that matter.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

I want to confine my comments to a couple of points.

I have never believed that the quality of the environment is an add-on. It is essential to people's self-esteem and feeling of well-being and it enables them to feel part of the community. I welcome the clause.

I want to take up one of the issues identified by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath concerning the funding of the imposition of penalty notices. The revenue raised by speed cameras is already recycled back into the police pot. Will the Minister consider ways in which the revenue taken from penalty notices-or at least some of it-might find its way back into the local authority pot?

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

Order. I think that the issues that the hon. Lady is addressing appear in clause 50.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

I beg your pardon, Mr. Cran.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I have a couple of questions for the Minister.

Will there be an age limit for penalty notices? That may be dealt with elsewhere in the Bill, or it may be a well-known fact of which I was not aware. I am not thoroughly up on graffiti artists; I have an idea that wealthy people go round doing such things. I am not sure about that, but I accept the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath on that matter. Such people are not necessarily impoverished, but some of them will be young and some will not. What effect would the Bill have on juveniles, or is that dealt with in existing legislation?

Is there anything in the Bill about obscenity in racial and religious graffiti? I can understand that deciding which words in a piece of graffiti were obscene would cause a sub-committee of departmental civil servants a problem-they would try to work out what points they would give for obscenity. Presumably fly posting comes under the Obscene Publications Act 1964? Is there any relevance in that?

My other question-and here I declare an interest-is whether fly posting includes advertising attached to lamp posts. I do not know whether that is a common practice in all constituencies. I know that it is only in Scotland that election notices are legally attached to lamp posts.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

No, it is done in various constituencies.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

In Uxbridge, we value our lamp posts. Some people use lamp posts and other street furniture for affixing adverts, such as ''Lose 20 stone in half an hour''. That one I did not take up.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am not going to intervene on my hon. Friend on the issue of losing 20 stone, but he may be interested to know that I had cause-for reasons that I will not bore the Committee with-to look into election posters being fixed to lamp posts. In certain constituencies, there are specific byelaws to allow that, whereas in other places it is illegal. I know of one constituency in Staffordshire where all the lamp posts had, alternately, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat posters on them, and I wondered why any of the parties had bothered to do that, because they completely cancelled each other out. However, when I checked, I was surprised to find that a byelaw to allow the practice had been passed.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

You will be as delighted as I am, Mr. Cran, to discover that we learn so much in Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information.

As I said, I have an interest. This is unfair to the bona fide retailers, who may have been trading in the same spot for over 100 years, who stick to the rules. Notices are put up, some by reputable companies-just about reputable, as they obviously do not offer quite the same value as others-and are left up for some time, unless they refer to an events such as a bank holiday weekend sale. I wonder whether that can be defined as fly posting, because if companies are advertising on those notices, it is obvious who is responsible for them. Those companies are advertising for nothing, whereas others have to pay to put up advertisement leaflets in prominent places, so it would be useful to slap a penalty notice on them for each poster. However, I do not know whether the Bill contains such a power.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I wish to make two points that follow on from the hon. Gentleman's comments and relate to the fixed £50 penalty notice.

There may be companies that are getting others to fly post on their behalf. If that is the case, there is an issue about the level of the fine that the companies responsible should pay. We must also be clear that where a company passes the responsibility to another person-possibly a young person-for a few pounds, or more, that company must not escape its responsibilities if the person sticks up posters advertising its warehouse sale, for instance, in the streets of our communities.

I also want clarification on fixed penalty notices. As the Minister is aware, we had discussions in earlier debates about the age at which they will apply.

Without being ageist, one would assume people under 18 are responsible for a lot of graffiti, but earlier advice to the Committee was that notices would apply to those over 18, and only in pilot areas to those aged 16 and 17.

Vernon Coaker (Labour, Gedling)

May I make a couple of points, following on from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)?

The age at which young people can be given a fixed penalty notice is a crucial issue. Most hon. Members think that the police should be able to issue fixed penalty notices to youngsters aged 10 and above, and, as will become apparent when we address clause 51, there is a debate about whether community support officers should be able to do that. That raises this question: if a young person under 16-perhaps 11 or 12-is responsible, should the payment of their fixed penalty notice be a matter for their parents?

A range of issues need to be clarified to make the clause as effective as possible. In my area, the majority of people who are responsible for graffiti are under 16, and if we do not have a clause that deals with that, the Bill will not make a lot of difference to the current situation. Generally, I welcome the clause-but with that proviso.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath was right-I have taken a straw poll among Labour Members, and we, too, think that £50 is not enough. Will the Minister address that and find out whether £50 is as effective a deterrent as we would want?

I well understand why the Minister wants to exclude graffiti that is racially motivated or against religious groups, as we would all agree that it is so serious that other powers can deal with it. However, the speed at which graffiti is removed is important, whatever sort it is, and I wonder whether the guidance for local authorities will mention the speed at which they are expected to remove graffiti.

Graffiti is a problem for all sorts of properties and premises. We have huge debates in my constituency when graffiti appears on a garden wall or on the side of a shop. We get into a nightmare in which the local authority says that it will remove graffiti if it is on a public building, but not if it is anywhere private; or it says that it will remove graffiti if it can get payment for doing so from the person who owns the property. Will the Minister clarify whether penalty notices will be available to deal with graffiti on any building or structure?

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I want to follow the hon. Gentleman's sensible points with specific questions on two linked matters. Who exactly will be given the penalty notice? Does the authorised officer of the local authority have to spot somebody fly posting or spraying graffiti and make them culpable by giving them the fixed penalty? What happens in the situation that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge talked about, which we all know to be commonplace, where the person doing the fly posting is acting as an agent for somebody else? Will the owner of the warehouse, or whoever is doing the sale, be liable and be hit by a fixed penalty? If so, £50 is nowhere near enough. That is the key issue for the Minister to address.

Linked to that is the issue of removal. I know that you will rule me out of order, Mr. Cran, if I start to talk about the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), which we will discuss later. However, they refer to the issue of removal. If, as I suspect-the Minister nodded earlier to suggest that I am right-the penalty notice must apply to somebody who is spotted doing the deed, surely clause 48 should include a power for the local authority officer to say, ''Remove that graffiti.'' That is not covered by a fixed penalty notice, so I would be grateful if the Minister explained why and said whether it could be covered.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

I want to ask one brief question. I appreciate what the clause is designed to achieve in respect of graffiti and fly posting, but-and this relates to what the hon. Member for Uxbridge was saying-I regularly receive complaints from my constituents about the proclivity of certain firms in the area to stick leaflets under car windscreens in car parks. I have had numerous complaints about that, sometimes because of the nature of the services and products advertised on those flyers. Will the clause catch that sort of behaviour?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

This has been an interesting debate. During its course, I have spotted another problem. A council officer may give a fixed penalty notice to the person spraying the graffiti; in that sense it is rather like a traffic warden issuing a parking ticket. However, a traffic warden can at least write down a registration number in his book. Unlike a policeman, the council officer will not have the authority to stop that person if they try to run off or demand their name and address. How can an officer give people fixed penalty notices, and pursue them if they do not pay, if he does not know who they are? If a policeman were doing that, there would be no problem, but I can foresee problems for authorised council officers. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that I may have missed something.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I have at least discovered the root of some of my problems during the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling is taking soundings on the Back Benches. The Whip was not here when he admitted it, but he is here now as my hon. Friend is deciding whether he supports the Government's position. I thought that I should make my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) aware of that, so that he could take the appropriate action at the appropriate time.

Clause 48 gives authorised local authority officials the ability to issue fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly posting. The intention is that those notices will be used only in minor instances of those offences, which might not otherwise have been considered worth the time and expense of prosecution. We do not think that fixed penalty notices are appropriate for offences involving wholesale criminal damage, obscenity, or where racially motivated fly posting is part of the offence. In those cases, people should be prosecuted. The local authority should take the time and trouble to prosecute people, to provide the appropriate level of deterrent. However, as many hon. Members will know

from their constituencies, this is a growing problem. Methods are becoming more blatant and there is a need to provide an easy-to-use deterrent for those low-level instances of people who go round scrawling graffiti or fly posting. That is a great nuisance and we believe that the deterrent will be usable for such minor situations.

Offenders will have 14 days in which to pay the penalty, after which time a prosecution for the offence can be initiated. No proceedings will be brought where the payment of the fixed penalty has been made within 14 days. Clause 48 also prescribes how payment of the penalty is to be made. The penalty for such offences is currently set at £50, and it is aimed at the person who is fixing the fly poster or scrawling the graffiti. It is possible to prosecute the individuals who profit from the activity-the people who are behind it and are employing other people to do their work for them.

That is not easy; otherwise a lot more of it would be done. Such people do not make clear declarations about who they are; otherwise they would be prosecuted. They often put middlemen or legal problems in the way of prosecuting them as the people who stand to gain from the fly posting. This will not solve the whole problem-I do not pretend that it will. It will, however, be a useful intervention to provide a deterrent on those minor occasions where the local authority would otherwise say, ''It is not worth the court time or the aggravation. We are not going to prosecute in these cases''. That is why there is a propensity for the activity to grow and become a sizeable problem in many of our communities.

My hon. Friends were concerned about the age limits. Their concerns arose because they have logical minds; they thought that the fixed penalty notices applied in the same way as the others that we discussed earlier in the Bill. We would therefore have been talking about 18, but extending the age to 16 with an order-making power. That is not the case, because that power originates in different legislation.

The fixed penalty notices would apply to people over the age of 10-the age of criminal conviction for minors-but under-14s could not be convicted unless they knew that what they were doing was wrong. Potentially, therefore, the fixed penalty notice could apply to someone under the age of 14, but that would be difficult; it would be easier to apply to over-14s, which could catch many of the perpetrators of the crimes that my hon. Friends have mentioned. That is a different regime from that of the earlier fixed penalty notices, when we were looking to reduce the age.

I have talked about racist fly posting and graffiti, but we do not propose that fixed penalty notices should be used in those circumstances. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath was concerned that we were giving the local authority the power to decide, but the appropriate person is the Secretary of State. In Wales, the appropriate person will be appointed by the National Assembly for Wales. Fly posting on lamp posts is covered by clause 49(1)(c)-[Interruption.] Instead of writing it clearly in the first place, someone is shouting out that it is 49(1)(e).

On the question of who gets the fixed penalty notices, the requirement will be either that the person should be caught in the act, or that someone can prove who was involved. That is a problem, but the provision will cover many circumstances. I know that blatant fly posting goes on in parts of Coventry-I am sure that it goes on in others parts of the country-and that people go along the ring road fixing posters to lamp posts from the back of a van. In such circumstances a registration number will be available, and that could provide a real deterrent.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

If a 16 or 17-year-old is caught writing on a wall, and if he gives a false name and address to the council officer, he cannot be dealt with, so a notice will have been handed out that will never be recovered. I wonder how on earth we can deal with that.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Sometimes the perpetrators or the vehicle registration numbers will be known, and then the fixed penalty notice would be a useful tool.

We need to consider whether to make the individual clear up the mess or remove the notices. However, without further thought on the question of restorative justice and the other issues that I know people are interested in developing, to impose a requirement on the local authority that issued a fixed penalty notice to ensure that the person cleared up their mess would be a logistical problem that could stand in the way of issuing a fixed penalty notice in the first place. The authority would need the appropriate equipment and the logistics to stay and see that the job was done.

The issuing of the fixed penalty itself is at least a deterrent. It is some recompense for the trouble that has been caused, but we do not want to impose a logistical burden on those who might use the power. None the less, we should consider the question of whether we should oblige people to mend and put right what they have done. I am sure that we shall return to that subject, as well as many others.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

With regard to fixed penalty notices, what happens if those aged 14 or under do not pay? What is the next step? We would hope that the parents-or a parent-would pay up, but is there any compulsion for them to do so, and if not, what happens?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

There is a legal obligation for the parents to pay the fine imposed on prosecution, so there is a deterrent, even for 14-year-olds.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister was touching on the idea of asking people to clean up their graffiti. One problem is that for some forms of graffiti, that would involve quite powerful chemicals, and there would be a health and safety issue. Some spray paints, unfortunately, take an enormous amount of activity to clean up, and only people who know what they are doing with those chemicals should use them. Unfortunately, that is one of the problems blocking the idea.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

If we are thinking about restorative justice issues, we should consider practicalities, too. People who try to deter others from littering their area by drawing graffiti or fly posting need to take effective

measures and move on. For all kinds of reasons, including those that the hon. Gentleman raises, that would not necessarily happen if the perpetrators were obliged to see to it that they put right and mended what they had done.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Will the Minister elaborate on the distinction between those over 14, for whom the fixed penalty notices may apply under the clause, and those under 14? I think that he said that the basis for the distinction was that those under 14 would not know whether they were doing wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has told me that in 20 years of teaching, he never found a child who did not know that it was wrong to deface a wall. I want us to take the opportunity to nip bad practice in the bud. We have talked a lot in Committee about how, if such behaviour is not nipped in the bud as early as possible, it can lead to worse offences, and possibly a prosecution under criminal law.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

To be liable for a fixed penalty notice, an individual has to have committed a relevant offence. That takes us into the law that covers the criminal conviction of minors. Fixed penalty notices cross-reference with those laws. Although children are criminally responsible from the age of 10, those under 14 receive the benefit of a rule of common law that says that a child in that age group cannot be convicted, however uncontrollable or obnoxious his behaviour, unless he knows that what he was doing was either morally or legally wrong.

A fixed penalty notice could be issued to a child on or after his 10th birthday, but if the child was not yet 14, the issuer would have to be able to show in court that the child knew that by creating graffiti or fly posting, he was acting wrongly. We would not be providing that quick fix, because the matter would have to be provable in court. That is an issue that we need to consider in terms of the age of criminal responsibility-the age at which people become responsible for their actions-rather than as part of what we are trying to do under the Bill, which is to attach fixed penalty notices to give local authorities usable powers, rather than having to use the court system. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, that question is relevant to such matters, as it is to others.

I do not know whether I have covered all the points that hon. Members have raised.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

As the Minister was speaking I became concerned that not many of those notices will be issued. Will the Minister enlighten me about whether there are similar fines over which local authorities have such powers? For example, do some litter fines come under the same categories? My experience of local authorities is that they rarely implement their fining powers. Can the Minister give me an example of something that comes under the same category?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Local authorities have powers to issue fixed penalty notices for littering or dog fouling. The hon. Lady asked about the extent to which such powers are used and the extent to which local

authorities apply fixed penalty notices. We might be able to shed some light on that when we come to Government amendment No. 244, through which we intend to allow people to keep the money that is generated and to plough it back into services. That might lead to a step change in the extent to which some of those powers are used.

I think that I have covered all the points, so I had better sit down.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 - Penalty receipts

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I beg to move amendment No. 244, in

clause 50, page 38, line 8, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 9 and insert

'may use any sums it receives in respect of penalties payable to it in pursuance of notices under section 48(1) (its ''penalty receipts'') only for the purposes of functions of its that are qualifying functions.

(4) The following are qualifying functions for the purposes of this section-

(a) functions under section 48, and

(b) functions of a description specified in regulations made by the appropriate person.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4)(b) may (in particular) have the effect that a local authority may use its penalty receipts for the purposes of any of its functions.

(6) A local authority must supply the appropriate person with such information relating to its use of its penalty receipts as the appropriate person may require.

(7) The appropriate person may by regulations-

(a) make provision for what a local authority is to do with its penalty receipts-

(i) pending their being used for the purposes of qualifying functions of the authority,

(ii) if they are not so used before such time after their receipt as may be specified by the regulations,

(b) make provision for accounting arrangements in respect of a local authority's penalty receipts.

(8) The provision that may be made under subsection (7)(a)(ii) includes (in particular) provision for the payment of sums to a person (including the appropriate person) other than the local authority.

(9) Before making regulations under this section, the appropriate person must consult-

(a) the local authorities to which the regulations are to apply, and

(b) such other persons as the appropriate person considers appropriate.'

The clause currently requires a local authority to pay to the appropriate person-the Secretary of State in England or the National Assembly in Wales-any sums that it receives in respect of fixed penalty notices issued for graffiti and fly posting. The amendment would remove that provision and allow the local authority instead to retain the receipts and use them for qualifying functions, which are the issuing of fixed penalty notices under clause 48 and such other functions as may subsequently be specified in regulations. Those could include wide functions

relating to graffiti, such as cleaning up the mess caused in the first place.

The intention behind the amendment is to encourage local authorities to use the power. I told the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that there were other circumstances in which local authorities could issue fixed penalty notices. Those are littering and dog fouling, which are detailed in the Local Government Bill, which is further through its parliamentary stages than this Bill. Those powers will not be available until that Bill receives Royal Assent.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

May I make a couple of points on the amendment and also touch on the clause, because I imagine that we shall not need a stand part debate? I am slightly puzzled that such a long and detailed amendment needed to be made now. I wonder whether the Minister could enlighten us on whether the matter was missed when the Bill was originally drafted. I am sure that the mistake was not his, but given that the amendment is much longer than most Government amendments-it is certainly longer than the others tabled to this Bill so far-I wonder whether there has been a change of mind, a mistake or whatever.

In relation to penalty receipts and what happens to them, there are to be public service agreements between the Government and various authorities-in fact, such agreements might even already exist. Although I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to give me details today, will he write to me and to any other members of the Committee who are interested and set out the terms of the public service agreements that are being made? Perhaps he can also give some examples of what happens between the Home Office and local and other types of authorities.

It would be useful to know because the way in which funds are transferred is a matter of interest, as evidenced by the attention being paid in all parts of the House to the changes that have been made to the rules on hypothecation. In the past, Her Majesty's Treasury has been reluctant for money to go anywhere other than back to the Treasury. I have always believed that Government funding can operate more sensibly if hypothecation is allowed. I have argued that many times, and the Minister has heard me doing so. I hope that he will be prepared to give some examples. If he is able to write to me in that respect, it will be very helpful.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am delighted that lamp posts are protected by two different Bills. They are protected from human antisocial behaviour by this Bill and from dogs by the Local Government Bill. Lamp posts will be delighted, but I wonder why the provisions could not be in the same Bill.

The amendment is a good step forward. I hope that the principle will apply to other sections and that the provisions relating to education and truancy will be reviewed, because the money from the local education authorities could be used against truancy. As a general principle, it is good for the money from fines to be used to tackle the problems in relation to which they have been levied-so long as it is not seen as a quick

route to solving local government financing problems. The cost of administering fixed penalty notices will probably vastly outweigh the receipts from them; nevertheless, they are a good thing. I hope that the Government can reassure us that the principle will be applied to the fixed penalty notices that are issued in other circumstances.

John Randall (Conservative, Uxbridge)

I welcome the amendment and the clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath has a point-perhaps even the Minister is human and cannot always bring his wonderful powers to bear immediately.

There are two questions that I would like to ask the Minister. He keeps mentioning that the appropriate person is the Secretary of State. Perhaps I am being incredibly dense, but I wonder which Secretary of State.

The other point is that, as Committee members will have understood, I have a deep and intimate knowledge of the retail sector in Uxbridge. Not long ago, one of its well-established companies had a bit of graffiti on one of its walls. That was removed at considerable expense; as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, it is not that easy to do. Although a company-or a private individual if it is on the side of a house-will, albeit not happily, accept that such removal has to be paid for, if it knows that the fine is going to the local authority, it will be less than impressed if the local authority does nothing in return. I hope that, in the wise words of the Minister, some way can be devised-not in the legislation-to enable local authorities to report back, and that some measure of guidance will be issued. If they are going to be in receipt of the funds, the authorities should provide a service for their ratepayers, whether businesses or council tax payers.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

The Secretary of State to whom I have referred is the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As for why the measure has been proposed in an amendment, we consulted local authorities not only about the power but about the fact that they were interested in keeping the moneys collected. It took more time to reach a conclusion on the latter point than on the former one. We can effectively hypothecate the money and use it to as an incentive to the use of the powers.

On the issue of education fixed penalty notices, it is our intention to allow for hypothecation, again by regulation. We must be mindful of the point that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath raised about the degree to which we hypothecate both ring-fenced money and money without restrictions. The hon. Member for Uxbridge also raised that point. Where there are public service agreements and excellent councils, one would wish to offer more flexibility. We decided to deal with issues relating to education through regulation. There is, as is widely recognised, a far greater propensity to hypothecate these days. That is particularly true of recovered assets, which are hypothecated for use against criminal activity. There has been movement in Government thinking in that area. I think that that has to be welcomed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 - Powers of police civilians

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

I beg to move amendment No. 183, in

clause 51, page 38, line 14, leave out 'that subparagraph' and insert 'subparagraph (2)(c)'.

James Cran (Conservative, Beverley and Holderness)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 184.

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

Clause 51 gives powers to community support officers and selected accredited persons to issue fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly posting. As Members of the Committee know, those members of the extended police family were established under the Police Reform Act 2002. The amendments clarify the references to the relevant provisions of that Act.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister knows our concern, because we have debated it many times. People would prefer to see more police officers, rather than community support officers. We do not have a problem with the Government amendments, because we understand that community support officers exist and it is sensible that the powers are to be extended to what the Government call police civilians. However, we hope that the Government will listen to us when we debate these matters in other parts of the legislation in due course.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I rise because we have concerns about all fixed penalty notices. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about private employees having such powers, albeit on private land. Will all accredited officers, including Tesco-style police, come under the jurisdiction of the local authority or the police?

Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East)

All accredited schemes must be approved by the local commander. That covers the individuals, and their powers.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank the Minister for his response. We have been over this ground before, but our concerns remain. We would prefer accredited officers to be employed by the local authority and the police through a mechanism that would tie them in. If that were case, we would not have all sorts of people issuing penalty notices. It is generally sensible to make use of community support officers on minor issues, which give so much irritation in the community.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 184, in

clause 51, page 38, line 22, leave out 'that subparagraph' and insert 'subparagraph (2)(b)'.-[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Clause 51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.-[Mr. Heppell.]

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Five o'clock till Thursday 22 May at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.