HC Deb 04 May 1962 vol 658 cc1383-401
Sir B. Janner

I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, at the end to insert: 'target practice' shall not include firing at living animals or birds". I hope that in this instance the House will see fit to accept my Amendment, or that at least we shall have an indication from the powers that be that they will not interfere by indicating a danger to the Bill in the event of the Amendment being accepted. The purpose of the Amendment is to avoid the kind of thing which is happening in many parts of the country by preventing some lawyer, or keen layman, from using a technical point in order to upset the intention of this Clause. The position is that the Bill as drafted would permit a member of a club to use an air gun at any time "in connection with target practice."

Some people may think that this is raising a rather technical point, but I point out that it would enable a person to develop his shooting abilities by firing at animals and birds and claiming that that was target practice. I hope that the House will consider this Amendment favourably. I should like there to be a provision in the Bill so that target practice does not include shooting at living birds or animals. There was an interesting letter in either the Leicester Mercury or the Leicester Mail which pinpointed this question. The correspondent wrote: It was a typical February day … A poetic start— cold with ice in the wind. A dull-toned day, except where the clouds broke and revealed the pure blue above, and crocuses thrust their coloured lamps through the turf. I do not want anyone to imagine that this is just a poetical reference, although some poetic licence is used later. The correspondent writes in attractive terms about what was happening in the parks of Leicester, as follows: A pleasant and invigorating scene until the villains entered in the shape of three youths, little more than children, with a gun, potting into every tree where a bird, preoccupied with housing sites and building, presented an easy target. We wondered about the perky robin which questioned us with a big eye a yard or so in front of us on the path; and the thrush on the fence, proud-breasted and so vulnerable. And we wondered how long it will be before our parks are denuded of these harmless little creatures which are such a joy to see and to hear. Is there to be no stop to this murderous desecration of our city parks? As we came out of the park we were fortunate enough to run into a police constable and sergeant, to whom we reported the matter. They told us that boys were allowed to carry a gun on the park but not to fire it!They obligingly walked through the park—to see no doubt the boys innocently carrying their gun. Let me quote another typical example of the destruction of animal life. From the Leicester Mercury I quote, The use of air guns on parks and open spaces increased during the year, as indicated by the cases of wild birds and ducks found shot or injured. The rookery in Abbey Park was deserted due to persecution of birds by youths with air rifles.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Are these youths members of a club? I do not follow the relevance of the argument to the Amendment.

12.30 p.m.

Sir B. Janner

It may well be that they were members of a club, and they were certainly grouped together. They were individuals going about together. I do not know what is meant by "members of a club". I may be wrong on this point and I am open to correction, but I imagine that three or four people might well call themselves a club for this purpose and come within the terms of the Clause.

Mr. B. Harrison

I wonder whether they would come within the term a club approved by the Secretary of State".

Sir B. Janner

Why not? The Minister of State does not mind. He has shown us so today. He does not care a hang whether birds are killed as long as they are over 14.

Mr. Harrison

The birds?

Sir B. Janner

The birds or the people shooting the birds. Of course, the Minister of State does care about this, but he has not sufficient courage to oppose violently those who are with him in office. I hope that he will not regard that as an offensive remark. I am sure that he would have come the whole way with us; I know him well enough to believe that that is the case. But it is a question of force majeure in certain quarters so that even a Minister of ability is not able to do all that he wishes to do.

If a club utilises living animals as targets, I cannot see how they can be prevented from doing so by the Bill as it stands. I am sure that the promoter of the Bill does not want that to happen. But a target can be a living target. Indeed, it might well be held that in order to teach someone to shoot, it is best to use a living target.

The argument seems as clear as the "way to parish church". I do not want a living target to be used. The Amendment would prevent people from using a living target. This may be regarded as a technical matter, but as a lawyer I am sure that the question Which could be asked by the magistrate is, "What is a target?". If he does not acknowledge What a target is in a legal sense, then it is easy for an advocate to convince him that it could be a living animal and to argue, on those grounds, that the defendant has no case to answer. If someone is accused of having been a member of a club and having shot a living bird, I am sure that by this argument he could claim that there was no case to answer.

I defy even the Minister to be ingenous enough to prove that there would be a case to answer. Does he think that in a court of law, with his experience of advocacy, he would fail with a claim that there was no case to answer?

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee (Wokingham)

In the concluding words of the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) we saw the reason for the Amendment—namely, the perspicacious reading of any legislation by him from the point of view of one singularly skilled in and with an excellent reputation for threading his way, legitimately and in the interests of others, through legislation of this kind. As a very junior member of the profession of which he is a senior member, I pay tribute to him for his reputation in this respect, but I wonder whether even his ingenuity has not been strained a little. He opened to me a most pleasurable vista. There is a shooting club in the House, which I have no doubt is approved by the Secretary of State under the Act of 1937, and if the hon. Member's argument is right, and if we as hon. Members while engaged as members of this club or while taking part in target practice chose to shoot at another hon. Member, we should not be committing an offence under the Bill. This opens up vistas of carrying Parliamentary debates into fields which the lines on the Floor of the Chamber indicated we gave up many centuries ago.

Sir B. Janner

The hon. Member credits me with a certain amount of ability for representing a case, but a human being can hardly be regarded as a target for practice by a reputable club, although he is regarded as a target by those between the ages of 14 and 17.

Mr. van Straubenzee

But it does not say so in the Bill, and I am following precisely what the hon. Member started.

To be serious, I do not think that he means us to assume that any reputable club, such as one which would be registered as the Act provides, would for one moment permit a living target, human or otherwise, to be used by its members to shoot at while engaged as members of the club or in connection with target practice. The hon. Gentleman is very much more familiar than I am with this aspect, but it is easy in drafting, although one appears to be tying up all loose ends, in fact by being so precise actually to tie the hands of those who later have to interpret legislation rather than to give them greater freedom. For instance, since in the definition Clause we shall, if the Amendment is accepted, have inserted the proposed words about target practice, we might limit the discretion of a magistrate rather than prevent the very thing which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

I cannot imagine that we in the House will fall out seriously on this, because it is obvious that the cases which the hon. Gentleman was permitted to mention in his speech would not in any case fall within the Bill as drafted. They would not be members of a club. They would not be engaged as such members and they would not be engaged in target practice if they were shooting in the parks of Leicester while the crocuses were displaying their beauties in the poetic way the hon. Gentleman revealed to us.

It was useful for us to have this discussion. I, for one, subject to what my hon. Friend the promoter of the Bill may say, certainly do not feel a strong sense of aversion to the proposed words. However, the House must treat those whom we represent throughout the country as reasonable, sensible human beings. When they are constituted together as a club, registered as such in the way that this House has previously prescribed, if we lay down solemnly that their targets shall not include living creatures, such as animals or birds, we shall credit to our constituents throughout the country a lack of humanity which I doubt that we are entitled to assume in them.

Mr. B. Harrison

I followed with great interest the poetic quotations of the hon. Member for Leicester, Northwest (Sir B. Janner). There seem to be two difficulties about the Amendment. First, Clause 1 (5, a), in which the phrase "target practice" appears, was taken from the Firearms Act, 1937. If we define "target practice" in this Bill in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests and do not have it so defined in the Firearms Act, there could be a possible misinterpretation that under this Bill one must not fire at live birds whereas under the Firearms Act that can be done.

Secondly, I should hate any inference to be drawn from the Amendment that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was likely to license such a club where live targets would be used. Before the Home Secretary approves a club, he has to ascertain that it has proper safety precautions, proper fixed targets, etc. Provided that no inference will be drawn that my right hon. Friend might license a club which uses live animals as targets, and having made these two points, in order to compromise I recommend to the House that we accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

12.45 p.m.

Mr. Renton

My advice to the House is that the Amendment is innocuous but unnecessary. It does not matter at all whether it is added to the Bill or not. The intention expressed by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) is a sound one, if a sound intention can be quite unrealistic. As drafted, the Bill exempts from the restrictions of possession imposed by Clause 1 weapons which are in the possession of a member of a club … approved by the Secretary of State … while engaged as such a member in or connection with target practice. The effect of the Amendment would be that live animals or birds could not be used as targets for the purpose of target practice.

This exemption applies only to those clubs approved by the Secretary of State under Section 4 (8) of the Firearms Act, 1937. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) indicated, the Home Secretary, before approving a club for the purpose of the 1937 Act, takes steps to ensure that the club has a proper and safe range on which shooting can take place and that it is a properly conducted club. If the Bill passes into law, the Home Secretary will also take steps to satisfy himself on these points before approving a club for the purposes of Clause 1.

It goes without saying that all approved clubs must have ranges with proper targets. That means lifeles [...]targets, inanimate targets. A person who fired at a bird even where this was practicable—it would not be practicable normally on a covered range—would not, at the moment that he fired at the bird, be engaged in target practice. Therefore, the Amendment seems to me to be unnnecessary, both in itself and to achieve the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. However, in spite of that, if there is such a thing as amending a Bill in order to achieve good will between the promoter of the Bill and those who have certain reservations about it, far be it from me to stand in the way.

Sir B. Janner

I have listened quietly to the very cogent argument advanced by the Minister. He has given an assurance, but, as he knows, that cannot be used in a court of law. However, it may come to the notice of anyone who may come across a case of this description at a later stage. Perhaps this is a case of ex abundanti cautela—from excess of caution. Nevertheless, it is disturbing that the term "target" can be applied to something which is living. The Minister has given an assurance, and that satisfies me. Whether it will satisfy a court is for some of our colleagues in the legal profession to decide later. Perhaps it will never arise.

I certainly do not agree with the Minister's word "unnecessary." The word "unnecessary" has been frequently upset in being proved to have been wrongly interpreted in courts. Provisions which we have thought to be unnecessary have been shown by courts of appeal to have been very necessary in Acts. Many of us, particularly those of us who deal with consolidating certain Acts, come to the conclusion that certain provisions which appeared to have been unnecessary become necessary because cases have been decided upon the lack of such provisions. However, in view of the assurance given by the Minister that the Home Secretary will not approve a club in any circumstances in which such a thing could happen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

12.50 p.m.

Mr. B. Harrison

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

As we have had a very full discussion, I want to say only a little more. I am glad to think that this Bill is generally approved as a first step. I should like to thank not only its supporters, but those hon. Members whose names do not appear on the Bill but who have helped it at various stages because of their continuing interest in this subject. There are others, not in the Chamber, whom I should also like to thank for their co-operation. The gun makers, especially, have given me wholehearted support both in preparing this Measure and in making it workable. The fact that some of them will suffer financially as a result has not led them to oppose the Bill. We have also had consultations with the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the Association of Municipal Corporations, and the like.

Although this Bill may not go as far as some would wish, our discussions have drawn the attention of many people to the dangers that can result from air guns and shot guns being in the wrong hands. "Medicine, Science and the Law" reported a case in which an air rifle pellet had punctured the skull and gone through the brain of a child. Ever since I introduced this Measure I have had letters from all over the country giving details of accidents.

I hope that when we see how this Measure is applied we will be able, if necessary, to use it as a basis for further legislation to deal with the very serious casualties caused by air guns and shot guns in the hands of those under certain ages. Once again, I thank all those, both here and in various parts of the country, who have taken an interest in the Bill, and I hope that the House will give it a Third Reading.

12.54 p.m.

Sir B. Janner

It is a matter of congratulation that this Bill has the approval, I am sure, of every hon. Member now in the House and of those who are not here. Nobody will deny that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) has done the community a very considerable service by promoting this Measure, and he has conducted it through its various stages in an exemplary way. His advocacy has shown not only that he has this matter at heart, but that he has considerable skill and ability in getting the desired result. I say that, quite frankly, because the hon. Gentleman has had a little trouble from myself and one or two of my colleagues, and it is difficult for a man who shares the feelings of those who criticise to keep quiet so as to get his Measure through. He has walked along the razor edge of this difficulty very well indeed.

The House is taking a step in the right direction towards avoiding the difficulties arising not from the use but from the abuse of these weapons which can result in such serious though, obviously not intended, damage. It is the abuse of guns that ought to be stopped, and there are very serious reasons for it.

The minds of young people today are being directed to the idea that violence is not really a serious matter. They look at pictures, they read books that one would not consider as particularly desirable reading, they see cartoons, watch television, and all the rest. To them, violence is a matter of no concern at all because practically from the cradle they are trained to regard it as natural. If someone shoots someone else, what does it matter if he is dead—or if fifty are dead? These youngsters see these incidents on television and the films.

How many parents ever find their children sitting down to a really classical book? Our children want to look at the television. Very many of their games are based on the use of firearms—they pretend to shoot and pretend to be shot dead. They feel that with these weapons they are great big men and that without them they are nobodies. They follow the fashion, and fashion is a great thing not only for the ladies but for youngsters. They want to be in the swim. That being so, this Bill, representing as it does a small step forward, is of considerable importance in curbing an abuse.

I beg the Minister to regard this legislation as only a step towards what is desirable, and always to remember the grave anxiety and concern felt by all thinking people about the serious conditions prevailing among young people possessing these weapons. With the promoter of this Measure, I thank all those who have given their support, and I am glad that I, too, have had the opportunity of assisting in some small way.

1.0 p.m.

Sir L. Heald

I should like to express my appreciation of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison). Hon. Members who have had experience of piloting a Private Member's Bill through the House are aware of the extremely difficult task and the many pitfalls involved. Today we have seen one of these dangers which, I am glad, were able to be surmounted. The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) behaved in a statesmanlike way and it is well to remember that, by our procedure, if a division arises at certain stages it may cause great difficulty. However, we have managed to reach almost the end of the story and the hon. Member for Maldon has good reason to think that he has done a very good job.

The Bill will have three very definite results. The first is a direct one, for we believe and hope that it will actually prevent accidents and disastrous events from occurring. Only yesterday I read in a newspaper how, over a recent period—I do not have the exact details with me—of thirteen fatal accidents, three involved children aged 15 and under. There can be no doubt that these accidents do happen to children and I believe that the Bill will help in a positive way to stop them, apart from helping to deal with the other objectionable features of this matter which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West.

While that is the direct effect, there may be two indirect ones. The first has already been mentioned—that it might result in the encouragement of further efforts on the part of the Farmers' Unions and the Home Office. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has pointed out that the time has come for matters of this kind to be examined with a view to having some general control based on the appropriate age limit. I hope and believe that the result of the Bill—which we hope will become law shortly—will not merely be that the file will be put away, with people saying, "We have done it", and then forgeting about it. This could be avoided by the organs of publicity being used to keep the facts alive.

The road to this stage of the Bill has been a hard one to hold. It has taken a long time to get public opinion to believe that anything could be done. A number of people have said, in effect, "We think you are engaged in a very laudable effort, but we know that you will never get anything done." The Bill having come this far shows that something can be done.

The third result, and perhaps another indirect one, is that we may gain the help of those whose assistance is extremely valuable. This may help to bring home to parents and others responsible the terrible dangers of firearms in the hands of children. The importance of doing this is realised by those who have considered this matter in some detail. I have been presented with a detailed account of accidents that have been reported in the Press. These details, resulting from the use of guns of all kinds by children, show how dreadful these accidents can be. In many cases they arose because parents left loaded guns in their homes where they could be got hold of by children.

I read of a case recently of a loaded 12-bore gun that was left in a house—not a farm house—and a small boy picked it up and said to his sister, "I am going to shoot you." He did. He pulled the trigger and blew her head off. If we can got the help of those who are responsible for publicising these matters—An the Press and over the air—these sort of accidents may be prevented. That parents will now know that children are actually breaking the law if they are under a certain age may have the effect of bringing them up against this problem once and for all, and, perhaps, even of inculcating more restraint on those who are older, just as the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West would have liked the Bill to have made clear. As I say, the Bill is a first step and an important one.

1.6 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

I, too, wish to add my good wishes and congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) on having got his Bill thus far, especially since he had some difficulty on a previous occasion. Unfortunately, for various reasons, I was deprived of making some comments earlier, but I have had the good fortune today of being able to listen to the learned and technical discussion that has taken place regarding the various ages that might seem appropriate.

The Bill is a good one because it is reasonable. There is, after all, a limit to the length Parliament can go to protect people from the results of their own folly. Some people are so foolish that to protect them and the community they would have to be locked up altogether. Obviously, Parliament cannot go as far as that in all cases.

We know of the enormous dangers following on the possession of guns of any kind by the wrong sort of people. My nephew, who is nearly 4, already regards himself as an expert driver of a motor car and of a mechanically propelled lawn mower. He was recently helping me in the garden and he said, out of the blue: "I am going to kill you now." I replied "No, not now, it is lunch time," He replied, "Never mind, I will get my gun this afternoon." I have a feeling that the provisions of the Bill—which I hope will soon become law—will safeguard me in the future.

Many of us have had tragic experiences either among people related to us, to friends OF to people we have known of the results of the untrained use of firearms. In my short life I have had several of these experiences and I shall relate a few of them to the House. Perhaps they would not have happened if the Bill had been passed at the time. We hear stories of occasions when an air gun pellet has had to be removed from the fleshier part of the anatomy. That is one thing, but I remember being at school with two one-eyed boys, both of whom had lost an eye as the result of a shooting accident. Two others had only parts of their hands as the result of similar events. One other person under 14 had managed to shoot himself through the arm and the leg with a .22 bullet.

As a school master for a short period between leaving Oxford; and becoming an hon. Member of this House I had the tragic experience of one of my pupils being shot dead by someone of a Similar age. That sort of thing can be pre vented if this Bill is properly applied. What I have been saying so far has been applied to human beings, but there are side effects, and the way that animals can become involved in this has already been emphasised. I do not wish to go into that subject at any length but I have just received from one of my hon. Friends a letter from the Norfolk and Norwich Naturalist Society. The emblem heading their note-paper, on which are words in support of the Bill, is a very beautiful butterfly. I mention this because I have even heard that these fare beauties have been shot at by people using weapons which will be prohibited or controlled by the Bill.

As I say, I welcome the Bill. No one wants, by this or any other Measure, to restrict or prohibit the proper use of firearms or air weapons in country pursuits by people who are properly trained in their use. Parliament should never assume the responsibility or attempt to stop the legitimate use of even dangerous weapons, and I think the Bill strikes the right balance between over-control and proper control and, for that reason, I welcome it.

1.10 p.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke), I start by respectfully congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) on his conduct of the Bill and his skill in bringing it thus far. All the indications are that the House is very shortly to come to a decision without opposition.

I think we shall mislead ourselves if we assume that the Bill, excellent start though it be, will of itself make a tremendous change in either the outlook of some of the young people concerned or, alas, in the number of accidents. If I have any divergence from the views expressed by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) in his speech a few minutes ago, it is that I feel that he and others are in danger of exaggerating the attitude of mind of young people when it comes to things like revolvers and playing games involving weapons of various kinds. I frankly say that I do not think that boys, at least, have changed very much in this respect. I do not think that they are any worse. Indeed, if anything, they might be a little better than they were years ago. I remember that my own favourite reading, of which I had an extensive library which I still possess and sometimes dip into with great pleasure, was stories of Robin Hood. While I suppose that there was a certain moral value in the fact that the stories told of men distributing the ill-gotten gains of the rich and giving them to the poor—

Mr. Robert Cooke

Certainly not.

Mr. van Straubenzee

My hon. Friend must note the adjective I used. I spoke of "ill-gotten" gains. Although there was, perhaps, some moral there, in fact it was a continuous tale of violence, and, while in those days the weapons were bows and arrows, I do not think that the principle was any different. I feel that boys were no different years ago, and I think we might do grave harm if there went out from the House of Commons the idea that young people today do nothing but indulge in vicious games and pastimes. I honestly do not believe that this is true.

Nevertheless, I am bewildered that for so long Parliament has thought it right to impose so few restrictions on the carrying of air guns, for instance, by very young people. I had my first air rifle, under very close supervision, be it said, at the age of six. I well recall securing by a fluke a direct hit on the extreme tip of a crocodile's snout in India. The creature thereupon submerged with great rapidity, and the incident gave me a wholly undeserved reputation with my father's retainers for being a very fine shot. It was something which one or two of them remembered for many years. However, I still do not feel that it was proper for me to have been entrusted, even under very close supervision, with a weapon of that sort, even in the practically uninhabited area where I was living at the time.

I warmly welcome the restriction which I trust that Parliament as a whole will very soon impose when the Bill becomes an Act. I do not believe that any reasonable parent will want to have a child under the age of 14 in unrestricted possession of an air gun or air weapon. To that extent, one may fairly say that this provision is overdue and is very much to be welcomed.

Equally, we ought to register the fact that there is, as has been stressed already, deep public concern about one matter which the Bill will not touch. I refer to the activities of roving gangs—as has been said before and should be emphasised again, they are a minute number, a tiny percentage of our young people—causing deep perturbation in country areas surrounding our towns, going about and leaving behind them a trail of devastation and the maiming of animals and birds. This is quite intolerable in a civilised society, and I believe that the country generally expects Parliament to do something additional about it before long. I am well aware of the general provisions of the law relating to this type of conduct which are outside the Bill now before us, but it seems clear that there is a gap in our law here through which certain people are successfully slipping. Public opinion has become aroused, as the postbags of hon. Members on both sides, I am sure, reveal. I hope that we shall return to this subject soon, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) suggested.

A great deal of our discussion today has centred upon air guns, and it seems to me that we are in danger of failing to direct sufficient attention upon what the Bill will provide by Clause 2, which represents a fairly substantial change in the law regarding shot guns. I think that it is a sensible way of drafting the enactment in this respect, to provide that persons under 15 should possess an assembled shot gun only while under supervision. This is the right way to put the thing in motion.

The legitimate, controlled and skilled use of the shot gun is a perfectly proper part of life in the countryside. It is the skilled use of it which should be emphasised. I was lucky enough to start, under skilled tuition, at an earlier age than 15, and I remember well from my younger days that I was taught that to wound and then not to ensure the speedy killing of a bird or animal, even of vermin, was a heinous crime. So it is. It is the skilled use of such a weapon which is of the greatest importance, and this, of course, implies careful supervision. This is why I think that the Bill as drafted approaches the matter in the right way.

At the same time, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West, was right to remind us that the House should be anxious not to entwine younger people in restrictions so that we appear to be trying, with a puritanical spirit, to control their every action and legitimate recreation. We have here, as we have so often, a balance of argument. This was well exemplified in Committee. By limiting what we are doing in regard to shot guns in Clause 2, we are, I think, going about it the right way.

For those reasons, in addition to the others which have been powerfully adduced during our debates, I very much welcome the Bill and wish to speed it on its way to an unopposed Third Reading.

1.19 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Clapham)

I welcome the Bill and give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) for all the work he has done, and I thank the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) for helping us today in no mean way in getting the Bill through.

There is grave anxiety throughout the country today about the misuse of firearms and, particularly in the urban districts, of air guns. The Bill will do something to relieve public anxiety on this score. I was a little worried when my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said that he thought that we must strike a balance between people learning to use firearms and a measure of restriction. If people are to learn to use these weapons, I should have thought that, nowadays, the age of sixteen would not be unreasonable as a limit to impose even in the country areas. A shot gun or air gun is, let us face it, a dangerous weapon and it is not unfair that we should impose an age of about 16 before that weapon is used, even under supervision.

I, too, consider that one of the great advantages of this Measure is that it will draw the attention of the public to that unfortunate thing called parental control and supervision, in all fields, which in this day and age is rapidly receding into the background. It is parental responsibility which should not necessitate the passing of an Act of Parliament of this kind. Unfortunately, it is lacking, and it is for Parliament to impose certain restrictions on the use of these weapons.

Any legislation on this subject is difficult, because the conditions under which these weapons are used in the town and in the country are entirely different. In the town, there is no necessity for them except on an authorised range under proper supervision. When Parliament enacts a larger Measure, as it will be obliged to do, it will find it extremely difficult to overcome this real and practical difficulty.

I welcome the Bill. I hope that the Government are fully cognisant of the feeling of the House that this is merely a first beginning in this avenue of legislation, including general parental responsibility, and that they will not regard it as closing the file and forget all about it. I hope that in the future we may go just that one stage further and impose a system of licences which includes not only firearms, but air guns, so that there can be reasonable and proper supervision. By that means, a person using the firearm or air gun, and not merely the purchaser of the weapon, would have to be in possession of a licence.

I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will look at this matter carefully with the possibility of introducing some form of comprehensive legislation to cover those aspects which it was not possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon to cover in an excellent Private Member's Bill.

1.23 p.m.

Mr. Fletcher

Before the House parts with the Bill on Third Reading, I should like cordially to congratulate the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) on the skill and perseverance with which he has pursued the subject. I know that he has not always regarded me as one of the most helpful of his critics, but this is an opportunity which we should all take of praising him for the skill with which he has pursued his objective.

As the hon. Member knows, the Bill that was introduced last year was, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, unnecessarily cluttered up with Clauses about poaching and other matters which some of us considered objectionable and irrelevant to the subject. There has, however, never been doubt in any part of the House about the merits of dealing with this evil, which has been growing so much in recent years, arising from these lethal weapons being in the hands of very young children.

In some ways, it is both a reflection on our administration and, at the same time, a tribute to the zeal of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Maldon, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) and the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) that private Members' time is used so profitably to stimulate and encourage efforts by the Home Office to do something—perhaps not as much as we would all hope, but at least something—both to stem the tide of juvenile delinquency and malicious damage by juveniles and also to direct public opinion to the evils which result from lack of adequate parental control over children.

We all recognise the natural instincts of young persons to indulge their boyish spirits. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) has regaled us with his experiences as a youth in the jungles of India. We have to remember that conditions in this small island, most of which is either fully or semi-urbanised, are very different from the jungle conditions of India. Therefore, the legislation required is very different.

I claim to be as libertarian as anybody in outlook, but I do not regard a Bill of this kind, which we hope will deprive young children of access to shot guns and air guns, as being in any sense anti-libertarian. We regard it as essential to prevent the growing tide of casualties and the rising toll of malicious injury to property. It is mounting year by year. We hope that the efforts of the hon. Member for Maldon, his success in carrying the Bill into law and the publicity which these debates are receiving will do something to improve our social conditions in this respect.

1.27 p.m.

Mr. Renton

Although my attitude on behalf of the Government has been one of neutrality and although the Bill has yet to go through another place, I do not think that I would be exceeding my duty if I took note of the fact that the Bill has got very far in this House—obviously it will pass through the House—and congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) without whose efforts the Bill would not have got so far. I know how hard he has striven and for so long to achieve the Bill. It may not go as far as he would have wished in the first place, but it represents a reasonable compromise based on the decisions of the House.

It is one thing to pass a law which creates new offences, because that is what the Bill does; it is another thing to enforce it. I can, however, offer this word of encouragement to the House, that there is not the slightest doubt but that the police forces will be glad, when necessary, to take advantage of the Bill.

It will not be an easy Bill to enforce. A great deal will depend upon the cooperation of parents. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Clap-ham (Dr. Alan Glyn) said what he did about parental responsibility in this matter. Without an acute sense of parental responsibility, the Bill could become a dead letter. It is only fair to remind parents without frightening them that their own responsibilities will, under the law, indirectly be increased if the Bill becomes a statute. Under other provisions of the law passed many years ago, parents can be brought before a court for the misdeeds of their children, and this Bill could increase the likelihood of that happening.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.