GUNS (THIRD PARTY INSURANCE) (Hansard, 11 March 1964)

§ Mr. Forbes Hendry (Aberdeenshire, West)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make insurance against third party risks a prerequisite for the issue of gun and game licences. The autumn before last one of my constituents, while engaged on his lawful occupation in the country, was struck on the face by shot discharged from a sporting gun. That may have been an accident and it would not be proper for me, at this stage, to speculate as to the cause. Suffice it to say that this man, a highly respected citizen with a great record of public service, hovered on the border between life and death for two weeks. Happily, he recovered, but he lost irrevocably the sight of one eye. It may have been an accident, but that was very cold comfort to him. He is now without an eye, and he has been unable to recover any damages from the person responsible for firing the shot.

Only last summer the wife of a friend of mine left her baby in a pram in her garden. A neighbour, very properly, was shooting pigeons. Unfortunately, he forgot that the shot fired from a sporting gun must come down somewhere. The shot came down on the pram, which was badly peppered with shot. By a miracle the baby was unharmed. But again, we might have had a tragedy, and a young life might have been cut off. Again, there was no hope of any recovery in respect of the negligence which caused this possibly serious accident.

This sort of accident does not occur very frequently but often enough to cause much public concern. When I determined to ask leave to introduce the Bill, I received support from many organisations. In particular, I should like to refer to the support which I received from the very important Women's Group on Public Welfare. I understand that that is a very powerful federation of women's organisations throughout the country. They have authorised me to say that they are very anxious that legislation is passed to make insurance against accidents of this sort compulsory in the event of a person applying for a gun licence.

440 A great deal of concern has been expressed, too, by the National Farmers' Union. Farmers generally have been troubled a great deal during past years by trespassers as well as by others going legitimately on their farms and shooting not only game, but rabbits, and causing a great deal of damage to their farm animals. Much loss has been caused to farmers without any hope of their recovering damages from the persons who caused it. I have been authorised by the National Farmers' Union to say that it is solidly behind the objectives underlying the Bill I hope to introduce. The union has expressed its best wishes for the progress of the Bill through the House if permission is given to introduce it.

I have been to the trouble of making inquiries about the cost to people carrying guns of the proposals which I hope to make in the Bill. I find that the cost is negligible. Farmers have the advantage of getting suitable cover absolutely free under their ordinary third party and road risks policy if they confine themselves to shooting vermin. In that case, there is no extra cost at all for suitable insurance. If the farmer wishes to use a sporting gun for pleasure, as well as for shooting vermin on his own farm, the cost to him, I am informed, is only 10s. per annum, which is a very small cost for such a valuable cover.

The ordinary householder, who uses a gun very little, is, I am informed, completely covered against accidents of this nature under his ordinary householder comprehensive insurance. I am told that the cover is given free by the insurance companies as a normal extension to his policy. I am also informed that people who are using guns frequently can get cover up to £10,000 for any one accident for only 7s. 6d. in any one year and cover up to £100,000 for any one accident for the paltry sum of 10s. per annum. The cost of the proposals in the Bill is, therefore, negligible, and the Bill is, therefore, not a material interference with the liberty of any subject.

It must be borne in mind that the insurers who would issue suitable policies would use their discretion. It is hoped that they would refuse to issue policies to people who are manifestly unsuitable to be indemnified in this way. I need not enlarge on that. But 441 it is well known that many people who carry guns are quite unsuitable to do so, and yet anyone can go to the Post Office and buy a gun licence simply by paying a fee.

In the past, gun licences and game licences were introduced for the purpose of raising revenue. In this modern age the amount of revenue raised by such licences is very small, but I suggest that these licences could serve a very useful purpose in making sure that people who handle guns are suitable to do so and that they would be in a position to cover the loss sustained by innocent third parties through the use of these lethal weapons.

There is ample precedent for insurance of this sort. Nobody can drive a motor car without being properly insured against third party risks. That is right and proper, because a motor car is a lethal weapon. A sporting gun is equally, if not more, lethal, and although accidents may not happen so frequently they can be severe when they do happen.