Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2005.

Standing Committee B

Clause 26 - Age limits for purchase etc. of air weapons

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 26, page 28, line 33, at end insert 'in England and Wales'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 3, in clause 26, page 28, line 37, at end insert—

'(2A) After section 22(1) insert—-

''(1A) It is an offence in Scotland—

(a) for a person under the age of 18 to purchase or hire an air weapon or ammunition for an air weapon;

(b) for a person over the age of 18 to purchase or hire an air weapon or ammunition for an air weapon except from a person or place licensed as set out in (1B) below.

(1B) The conditions for licensing a person or place to sell or hire an air weapon or ammunition for an air weapon are to be set by the Scottish Parliament.''.'.

New clause 1—Provisions relating to the Scottish Parliament—

'The 1968 Act can be amended by the Scottish Parliament to introduce—

(a) a licensing scheme for the sale or hire of air weapons or ammunition for air weapons;

(b) a licensing scheme for the purchase or possession of air weapons or ammunition for air weapons;

(c) a ban or restriction on the sale, hire, purchase or possession of air weapons or ammunition for air weapons.'.

New clause 2—Matters relating to Scotland—

'(1) Section 26 and 27 so far as they extend to Scotland shall be regarded as within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

(2) The Scotland Act 1998 shall be amended as follows—

(3) In Schedule 5, Head B4, after ''1997'', insert—

''Exception

Regulation or control of the sale, possession or purchase of air weapons, or ammunition for air weapons.''.'.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

Amendment No. 2 would restrict the provisions of current airgun legislation to England and Wales and open the way for alternatives to be introduced in the Scottish Parliament. Amendment No. 3 would create a licensing scheme in the Scottish Parliament, similar to that proposed by the Government last week, insofar as it would license the vendors rather than the purchasers. The intention is that the licensing scheme introduced in the Scottish Parliament would allow more checking of purchasers by making it one of the conditions necessary for obtaining a vendor's licence. It would therefore affect the check on those owning air weapons, as we heard last week.

New clause 1 is effectively a reverse Sewel motion. For the constitutionally minded, authority would remain at Westminster, but responsibility for this provision would transfer to the Scottish Parliament at this time. New clause 2 would devolve responsibility for air weapons for all time.

The amendments and new clauses are not constitutional meanderings. They would implement the correct air weapon licensing scheme in Scotland. England has a profound problem with firearm crime, and the Government are right to address it. We heard from the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Brent, South (Ms Butler) last week that handgun culture is growing in their constituencies and in many other parts of England. I shall come to that in due course.

Let us consider the differences in gun crime between Scotland and England. The last year for which we have information is 2003–04. In England, there were 68 firearm murders, 1,195 attempted murders and more than 10,000 firearm offences. If my memory serves me correctly, the police say that about 8,900 of those offences involved real firearms. In Scotland, there was one murder, four attempted murders and fewer than 200 firearm crimes, and real firearms were identified in 194 cases.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be extremely accurate with the figures; he should remember that some 55 million people live in England, and only 5 million in Scotland. That is proportionate with the figures that he has given.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that proportionality should be taken into account, but England had 1,195 attempted murders and Scotland nowhere near 10 per cent. of that number over the same period, and England had 68 firearm murders but Scotland only one. Proportionality does not enter either equation. England has a specific difficulty with real firearm crime, and the Government are right to address it. Scotland's problem is primarily air weapon crime, and I shall explain why in a few moments.

I shall put the figures into context. There have been fewer firearm murders in Scotland in 10 years than there were in England in a single year. The statistics for crimes involving handguns, mentioned last week, are even more startling. England had 5,123 handgun crimes, including 35 murders, compared with 29 handgun crimes and no murders in Scotland over the same period. However, although Scotland had fewer than 200 crimes associated with identified firearms, it had 415 air weapon crimes—200 per cent. more.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I want to put a simple point to the hon. Gentleman. I understand clearly the case that he makes, but how concerned would he be if we were to restrict the legislation so that it applied only to England and Wales, and Scotland suffered a displacement effect as criminals moved north to enjoy protection that they would not have in England and Wales?

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

There would be no displacement effect thanks to weaker legislation; we are proposing tougher legislation. I suspect that if there were displacement, and I doubt there will be, it would go the other way. Such crimes tend to be geographically specific; one would not travel from Dundee to Coventry to fire an air weapon. One would fire it where one had it.

The proposals would effectively devolve airgun legislation to the Scottish Parliament so that an effective licensing scheme can be introduced. When the initial legislation was published, we felt that the provisions for air weapons did not go far enough. The Government amendments last week made some progress but cover only vendors, not purchasers. If any of the options that we have proposed were accepted by the Government and the Committee, they would allow the Scottish Parliament to put in place a licensing scheme directed more at the purchaser than the vendor. We believe that that is vitally important.

Secondly, the devolution of the airgun legislation would offer an appropriate licensing scheme. Again, some concession was made last week but there was concern that the Bill was a catch-all piece of legislation and that sports clubs, target shooters, airsoft members, and those who used their weapons for vermin control and so on might be caught. We are convinced that if an appropriate licensing scheme were put in place in Scotland to take the Scottish circumstances into consideration, it would be a sensitive licensing scheme that would allow those entitled to hold, buy or hire air weapons or ammunition to do so, and restrict only those who were not entitled to have them.

Two issues were raised last week that are related to this matter. In the final sitting, the Minister suggested in answer to a question that I put that, and I paraphrase, she sought a balance between utility and cost within the practicality of introducing a licensing scheme and the bureaucracy and cost associated with it. One of the Tory Members—I believe that it was the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly)—mentioned the number of air weapons in circulation. I think that the figure given was 7 million, with perhaps 650,000 in Scotland.

My recollection of being a child is that a large number of air weapons, air rifles and pistols were in people's garages and garden sheds with bent barrels, dismantled bits and rusted barrels, and they were utterly unserviceable. I suspect that the number of serviceable weapons is rather less than the 7 million suggested and that the large majority of those are in the hands of responsible people who would volunteer anyway to enter into a licensing system or scheme. The licensing scheme would also open up the opportunity for a voluntary disposal system for old and non-functional weapons that people no longer require or wish to have in their possession. For all those reasons, we believe that the introduction of a licensing scheme in Scotland is appropriate.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) raised a point a while ago about the difference between Scotland and England. I have spoken to a number of serving police officers, including some senior ones, and they tell me that their concern over real gun crime is negligible in some force areas. They are concerned about imitations, knives and air weapons. We believe in the devolution of airgun legislation to Scotland to introduce an appropriate licensing system for Scotland and to toughen up the legislation so that it is not merely the vendor who is licensed. A licence on the purchaser, holder or owner would be the most appropriate course of action, and I hope that the Committee will accept those recommendations.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

I ask colleagues on both sides to reject the amendments in the name of the Scottish Nationalist party on the basis that they are as totally irrelevant to the Committee as they are to the people of Scotland, who merely want safe, effective legislation, which is what the Government propose.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

We are not in favour of devolving these powers to Scotland. Nor are we in favour of a licensing scheme, which we believe would be impractical.

The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) spoke about a wide range of issues, many of which I shall address in the clause stand part debate, so, if he does not mind, he will have to wait until then. I want to put on the record the fact that we will not support the amendment.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I have often said in Committee and when discussing statutory instruments that what can be devolved should be devolved. In this instance, however, close examination suggests that the negative consequences of having a system in Scotland that is separate from that of the rest of the United Kingdom would not be helpful, so although I sympathise with the amendment's intention, we will resist it.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Despite his imaginative use of a reverse-Sewel provision, I am afraid that the hon. Member for Dundee, East has found that the vast majority of Committee members are against him. I, too, urge the Committee to resist his amendments. Firearms are a reserved matter for a very good reason; we recognise the ease of movement across the border between England and Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) made that very point. As he said, guns can easily be transferred between the countries, resulting in loopholes that can be exploited by people who want to misuse weapons. It is therefore right that we have a unified system.

Since the dreadful incident involving the young child Andrew Morton, I have been working extremely closely with Scottish Ministers to ensure that we toughen up the law not only in Scotland, but throughout Great Britain. Air weapon misuse is a problem for us. The vast majority of people use their guns responsibly, but air weapon misuse has been increasing, so it was important to table the new amendments that we discussed last week to provide that weapons can be sold only through a registered firearms dealer. That will mean that only responsible retailers will be able to sell air weapons, and it will stop the casual, anonymous purchases that lead to the vast majority of problems caused by air weapons.

Air weapons will need to be sold face to face rather than through mail order or the internet. The provisions will mean that we have the balance about right. Much of the Bill is about achieving a balance. The hon. Gentleman's suggestions would lead to huge bureaucracy and would not necessarily be effective in enforcing the responsible use of weapons, which we all want, or in bearing down on the mischief of irresponsible use. I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The Minister suggested that guns could be transported between Scotland and England if the legislation was not uniform. Of course, that is true. I suggest most respectfully, however, that railways are also devolved, and that trains move between countries. It is not a particularly strong argument.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

May I correct the hon. Gentleman, as I have had the Liberal Democrat party's transport brief? The railways are devolved only in as much as they are entirely within Scotland.

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The hon. Gentleman's point is well made.

The Minister suggested that non-uniform legislation might lead to a loophole and to guns being moved across borders, but we are suggesting tougher, not weaker, legislation in Scotland. I hope that all hon. Members recognise that. In light of what various hon. and right hon. Members have said, however, it would be foolish to press my amendment to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I reiterate that we strongly believe in the need to reduce violent crime and in taking all measures necessary to do that. Our concern is that much of the content of the clauses that relate to firearms will not reduce gun crime in practice. The effective way to reduce violent crime in communities and on the streets where gun crime and gun culture pose such a threat and airguns are misused is to enforce existing laws, not to introduce legislation that will complicate the law in ways more likely to affect the law-abiding majority than the criminals.

Will the clause's clamp-down on 17-year-olds owning air weapons combat the gun culture that we are all so concerned about? We do not think so. Being tough on crime means reducing crime in practice, not just talking tough on crime in Committee Rooms when discussing clauses that are not going to do their job. Since we last discussed the clause, the Minister has not explained how it is likely to reduce violent crime. Following our consultation on the issue, we believe that it should be removed from the Bill. That view has wide-ranging support from those who practise the sport, including the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which has 123,000 members, and the British Shooting Sports Council, the umbrella organisation for the major shooting associations in the United Kingdom, which represents, through direct membership or as a result of affiliation to associations, the interests of some 750,000 certificate holders and an even greater number of other people.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is hardly describing utterly independent and impartial organisations? He is describing people who have a vested interest in the sale, maintenance and use of weapons, so naturally it makes sense to them to allow the widest possible population of users.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I am describing people who love the sport of shooting, and I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that they, too, have a right to be heard. Many hon. Members have made the point that the vast majority of those who own the 7 million airguns in this country are law-abiding people whose voice deserves to be heard.

There is no evidence to suggest that raising the age at which somebody may own or hire an airgun from 17 to 18 will have a material effect on violent crime. Where does the magical age of 18 come from? Where is the statistical evidence proving that 17-year-olds are not able to prevent themselves from committing gun crimes? Are 18-year-olds so much more responsible than 17-year-olds? Tightening restrictions penalises the shooting community with no evidence that that will result in any benefit such as reduced airgun misuse. Raising the age limit might make such weapons more desirable to delinquent teenagers while depriving others of the opportunity of being taught safely and responsibly to handle firearms. Training young people to shoot can be valuable in teaching them skills, discipline and responsibility. Introducing them to safe and responsible firearms use makes it far less likely that they will ever misuse guns.

Airguns are the entry-level guns for most new entrants to shooting sports and are crucial for the development of safe and competent gun use. Most people who shoot with a shotgun or rifle start their shooting careers as young people with airguns. If young people were prevented from having reasonable access to airguns, all shooting sports would suffer, with little or no effect on crime figures. This attack on airgun ownership constitutes a veiled attack on shooting and on entry to the sport of shooting. Scouts, cadets and schoolgoers all participate in air weapon shooting. They enjoy the sport safely and responsibly.

We have met the National Small-Bore Rifle Association, which estimates that some 300,000 young people regularly participate in sports involving air weapons. Indeed, 15 such sports are Olympic events: five shotgun events, six cartridge-firing events and four events involving air rifles or air pistols. Air weapon events now enjoy a greater standing than other rifle and shooting sports. It is important to realise the extent of the sports enjoyed by young people and the impact that the clause will have. The National Small-Bore Rifle Association represents more than 1,100 affiliated clubs throughout the UK and has more than 100,000 direct members, including some 5,000 young people aged 16 or 17 who stand to be affected by the legislation. In addition, 30,000 cadets and innumerable scouts and schoolchildren are regularly involved with air weapons. Only the weekend before last, the scout airgun championship took place, involving more than 600 competitors, all of whom were under 14.

Young people who are properly introduced to the sport are taught to handle weapons properly, safely and responsibly, to respect others on the range and to obey range officers. A prime example is Chris Lacey, who, through his membership of the scout movement, came to represent Great Britain at the age of just 17 at the European championships earlier this year, at which he beat the British senior record. Chris is an Olympic hopeful, if not certainty. The clause will put him, as a 17-year-old, in the absurd position of being able to drive his car lawfully to the rifle range or private farm where he practises shooting, but, arguably, of committing an offence if he takes his covered and locked air weapon with him. He certainly will not be able to purchase ammunition for it or buy a new air rifle.

The law will prevent young people from enjoying and perfecting some sports. Most world-class shooters of air weapons are in their late teens or early twenties. They did not just pick up an air weapon yesterday, but have been training for years; the sport is their passion. The clause attacks that. The BASC website says:

''the Home Office should produce evidence to show why excluding 17 year olds from owning an airgun will significantly reduce criminal misuse and improve public safety . . . To restrict their use given the low and declining figures for misuse in this age group is wholly disproportionate and will have little or no effect on airgun misuse.''

The Minister stated that

''the Government believe that much of this misuse is carried out by young people and that a further increase in the age limit will help prevent this.''—[Official Report, 11 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 767W.]

But belief is not evidence. Will the Government reassess their view if it is not corroborated by the evidence?

The proposed legislation creates some absurdities and anomalies. The Police Federation says that in recent years, it has noticed a

''steady increase in the number of incidents involving weapons such as crossbows and high-powered catapults, fuelled in part by Internet sales.''

It points out that the use of such weapons can have the same effect, if not a worse one, as the misuse of air weapons and that the Bill is an ideal opportunity for the Government

''to bring about greater consistency across the legal framework''

in relation to firearms and other weapons. They have now proposed an amendment to increase the age limit for crossbows, but that will still be a patchwork approach.

The Police Federation says that if the clause is enacted,

''the law in relation to air weapons will in effect 'leap-frog' that of other weapons.''

It goes on to say that supply and demand, and experience, dictate that the result could be a rise in the sale and use of weapons such as bows and arrows and high-powered catapults.

Like much of part 2, the clause fails because the Government have not taken a step back and put the provisions in context. It provides that a young person will be able to buy a shotgun or rifle at age 17, but not an airgun, for which they must be 18. One may need a licence or certificate to buy a shotgun or rifle, but not to buy a slingshot, catapult or bow and arrow, all of which can be bought at 17 and are more lethal than an airgun. The Government propose to change from 17 to 18 the age at which the acquisition, purchase or possession of a crossbow becomes legal, but not for catapults, which cause more damage. That is another example of the creation of further inconsistencies when the focus should be on enforcing existing legislation.

Obviously, there is understandable concern about the tragic shooting of Andrew Morton with an airgun in Glasgow. That was horrific, but, thankfully, such incidents are not common. There are more than 7 million airguns in the UK, the overwhelming majority of which are used safely and responsibly. The proposals in the Bill are the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Hon. Members should note that the offender in the tragic case of Andrew Morton was aged 27, not 14, 15, 16, 17 or even 18. That case is going through due process, so I will not comment on it further, except to say that we hope that justice will be done. We should be enforcing existing laws, not creating new ones. To say that millions of people should suffer because of what a single drug-addicted criminal does has moral legitimacy equivalent to that of a totalitarian state. Existing legislation is good enough to make the clause unnecessary.

At the last count 30 offences connected with the misuse of airguns existed, including having a loaded or unloaded airgun in a public place and deliberate damage being caused to property, or injury being caused to domestic pets or human beings. There is a requirement for an individual aged between 14 and 17 carrying an airgun over public land to be accompanied by an adult, and there are police powers to stop and search an individual if they have reasonable grounds to believe that he is carrying an offensive weapon.

The enforcement of existing legislation would be infinitely more productive than introducing the misguided provisions before us. It is obvious that all improper use of airguns should be an offence, whatever the age of the perpetrator. Tinkering with age limits does little but anger and upset people who use those guns safely and responsibly. Bizarrely, on page 11 of the Home Office consultation paper of May 2004, in relation specifically to age limits, the Home Office categorically recommended that there should be no further restrictions on the sale of airguns, because of the disproportionate enforcement effect. For those reasons, I recommend that the Committee vote against the clause.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I have a simple question that arises from Thursday afternoon's debate on the clause, in which I made it clear that I was

''not convinced that any weapon of any kind should be available by mail order or over the internet.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 20 October 2005; c. 199.]

That remains my view. However, at the weekend I did some research and a point was put to me that I should like the Minister to consider: for those resident in the northern isles, and, I suspect, also for those resident in the western isles, there is only one registered dealer who—I shall try to put this tactfully—has difficulty in fulfilling orders in a timeous fashion. At the moment, those who purchase either air weapons or air ammunition may do so by mail order, which will be denied to them. They are concerned that that will have a negative impact.

There is clearly very low—if any—relevant crime in the areas that I am concerned about. I do not expect an answer today, but will the Minister reflect on the matter to see whether the problem can be alleviated?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The clause is just one of a number of measures aimed at addressing the mischief of the misuse of air weapons. We do not say that increasing the age from 17 to 18 will of itself solve the problem, but it is important. I am sure that the hon. Member for Huntingdon would acknowledge the need for the law to encompass a range of measures and police powers to make our communities as safe as they can be.

The misuse of air weapons is a significant problem. It causes huge distress to the public. In an earlier discussion about equivalence I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South who talked about the fact that people who misuse air weapons could terrify people, particularly older people, in their properties and that it was not equivalent to being gently reprimanded with a cricket bat—I think that was what she said—or a slingshot, or anything analogous.

In 2003–04 air weapons were used in 13,756 crimes, so the problem is not one of low-level behaviour. Those figures show an increase of 59 per cent. over the last seven or eight years. There were 2,400 cases of injury, including 156 cases of serious injury. Hon. Members must be aware that we are trying to deal with a significant and serious problem.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon is right. We do need to enforce existing laws, but, as a responsible Government, we must also identify problems and determine what measures are appropriate to deal with them.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

Given the statistics, the Minister must have some idea of the age of the people engaged in those crimes or the number of cases in which there were injuries. We need that information in order to ascertain whether raising the age limit from 17 to 18 is likely to reduce the number of crimes or the number of injuries. The clause will have no effect if crimes are committed and injuries caused by people over 18. Nor will the clause make any difference to the statistics if the people involved are under 17 and possess the guns legally—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. This is becoming quite a lengthy intervention.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I do not have a breakdown of the statistics; the figures are not available to me. Most hon. Members accept, however, that there is a problem with the misuse of air weapons, particularly among some young people in some areas of our country. I entirely take the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). There might well be little of this sort of problem in the western isles and the northern isles, but it is a significant issue for many constituents in some of our cities and towns.

Young people will still be able to use air weapons in controlled conditions. Committee members will see from the matrix that I circulated, as I promised I would, that young people will be able to use air weapons if they belong to a rife or pistol club or a cadet corps, if they are shooting on a miniature rifle range, if they are supervised by someone of 21 years of age or more, or if they are on private premises with the consent of the occupier. This is not a draconian measure that says that responsible young people should never have access to air weapons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North said, we want practical and effective legislation that works, which is exactly what the legislation is intended to be.

Much of the Bill is about trying to reduce violent crime and to change behaviour. The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked whether we would keep behaviour under review and see where problems could emerge. Of course we will. We are implementing measures that attack the mischief of people who want to act irresponsibly, but keep the situation under review if they change their behaviour.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The Minister said that she had no figures for the numbers of crimes committed with air rifles by people under the age of 18. Two years ago, the Government increased the age limit to 17. If she has no figures for what has happened in the meantime, on what basis is she increasing the age limit now? That is what we are trying to get at.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

There is an age limit of 18 for the purchase of knives, as hon. Members will see when we come to the debate on knives. Again, there may well be responsible young people who want to purchase knives. We are trying to ensure that the legislation governing the possession of weapons that could be misused is coherent while also providing that the people who want to use them responsibly are perfectly entitled to do so.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the BASC and responsible shooters have a right to have their voices heard. The Bill is about trying to strike a balance between not bearing down too heavily on the legitimate and responsible use of weapons and acknowledging that the misuse of air weapons causes huge distress, injury and damage to families in many of our communities.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I do not deny that.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The hon. Gentleman says that he does not deny that. This is one of a range of measures to try to ensure that we address the very real and significant problems of misuse that affect our communities. The clause will help us to do that. It will not achieve our policy directive on its own, but, taken with the other provisions, I genuinely believe that it will help us to bear down on the problem that I described.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross talked about an issue that has practical implications. I do not know whether any other premises in his area could become registered firearms dealers, but I believe that the licence fee will be £150. It may well be possible for someone else to become a registered firearms dealer, but I will see whether there are any other provisions that we might be able to consider. I understand his point, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Dundee, East, if there were a series of exceptions, we might end up with loopholes in the law. I am not suggesting that people go up to the western isles to make illegitimate purchases of air weapons—I am sure that there are many more pleasant reasons for visiting the area—but I shall look into the issue.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 4.

Clause 27 - Firing an air weapon beyond premises

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I beg to move amendment No. 153, in clause 27, page 29, line 19, after 'it', insert ', intentionally or recklessly,'.

I seek again to ask a question of the Government. The clause as a whole, I entirely agree with, and I have no question about its intention. However, I want to ask the Minister whether all points have been considered. Is it possible to discharge an air weapon from a premises unintentionally in a manner that is not reckless? If that is case, should the words intentionally or recklessly be added in order to strengthen the definition? In some very limited circumstances it is possible. I hope that we shall not have a rural versus urban split when discussing this, because the example that I would give would be of a crofter. I am sure that the Committee is aware that a croft is made up of the crofter's own land—the in by land—and common grazing, which is owned either by the estate or by the crofter.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

Or you?

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Actually, as far as I am aware, although some crofters are tenants on my estate, I made an offer to all who wished to buy that they could do so, and the majority have bought their crofts. I am extremely pleased about that. I suspect that if I give a further answer along those lines I shall be out of order, so let me press on.

The first point of training for anybody who is responsibly using a firearm is safety. I well remember the first time that my father handed a shotgun to me. I lifted it, and he immediately took it back and gave me the sternest possible dressing down because I did not have it pointed either at the floor or the ceiling, which is the safe way to do it. There is an old maxim: ''Never never let your gun pointed be at anyone''. I learnt that lesson at a tender age, and it is one that I have also imparted to my own children.

One of the problems that can happen with a number of firearms—not so much with shotguns but with firearms and air weapons—is an accidental discharge. One therefore holds the weapon in such a manner that should such an occurrence happen, the discharge is safe: one either points it to the ground or the sky.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

I have listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the problems of accidental discharge. Has he anything to say on the question of premature discharge?

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

That is not something that I have ever encountered; it may well have happened to others.

It is possible that a weapon may be accidentally discharged without intent. It is equally possible that if the said crofter was standing towards the edge of his property at the time of such discharge, the projectile would land outside his premises. The unintentional discharge would therefore not be reckless, because all the safety measures would have been in place. Albeit that that is a strange circumstance to have discovered, it can take place. Do we wish to create a criminal out of that person? I suggest that we do not.

It was helpful to look at the explanatory note on clause 27, which is note number 170. It clearly states:

''One type of air weapon misuse involves the reckless firing of an air weapon across the boundary of premises.''

So, in the notes themselves, the definition of reckless is used to indicate the Government's intention. I ask the Minister why, if it is required in the notes, it is not required in the clause. Would it not be useful to have that definition so that the Government's intention is clear: that reckless or intentional discharge, or both, would have taken place?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Without indulging in the gory details, I support what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have discussed the point in relation to previous amendments, but we believe that the inclusion of the requirement of intent or recklessness is important and obvious. The mischief that the clause is aimed at remedying would not have been committed in the absence of intent or recklessness. An honest mistake or accident should not therefore attract a fixed penalty.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I wanted to put another scenario to the Minister. Not having the weaponry experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, I went on to the internet. On an American blogging site for air weapon users, there was a discussion about how one blogger used them to kill spiders on his premises. Is it not possible that, whatever an owner was shooting at, he might simply miss? It would not be intentional or reckless but merely a bad shot. The bullets could ricochet. That is a possible scenario.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

I wanted to speak about the problems that airguns pose in communities. I pay tribute to the Gun Control Network, which has worked hard to gather information on the issue. Although most publicity goes to the sort of urban gun crime that I am most familiar with, the problems, harm and danger caused by airguns are a serious issue in communities throughout the land. As we have heard, the most recent annual figures show that more than 14,000 offences involving airguns happened in England and Wales. Such offences are a significant proportion of total firearms offences—57 per cent. in England and 43 per cent. in Scotland.

In England and Wales the number of offences resulting in injury has increased by more than 50 per cent. since 1998. Every month, someone is injured in an airgun accident. In the past three months, two small boys have lost their lives in airgun incidents and many other victims of such incidents have been lucky to escape without serious injury. Many of the reported incidents involved young people who were using airguns without the required supervision, which suggests problems in enforcing even the existing law, because airguns are too easily available.

There are regular instances of emergency services personnel being targeted by young people with airguns. That was previously thought to be an urban problem, on big estates, but there are reports of its happening throughout the country. Investigations by journalists from several newspapers have shown how easy it is for under-age boys to purchase airguns in gun shops. Despite the existing law, inappropriate checks have been made by dealers. The investigation of airguns by the American Academy of Pediatrics shows how dangerous those weapons are.

Chris Ruane rose—

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, may I point out to the hon. Lady that she is straying slightly from the amendment. I have allowed her some flexibility, but I ask her to return to it.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

A young lad whom I once taught lost an eye after being shot with an air rifle. Does my hon. Friend share my opinion that with 7 million air rifles in the UK there are too many knocking around in the hands of young lads?

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

I entirely agree, and that is why I do not support the amendment. There are too many airguns in the hands of young children. I respect the civil libertarian arguments of Opposition Members and those advanced on behalf of people with big estates, and crofters, but I felt it important to set out the general problem caused by airguns in many communities.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Despite wanting to make progress on the Bill, I could have listened to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for some time; he made his constituency sound idyllic, and I hope to get the chance to visit it. Unfortunately, there are no crofters in Salford, although there are lots of crofts, which are derelict areas where people play.

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important question. The amendment would insert the words ''intentionally or recklessly'' into the definition of the offence that would be created by proposed new section 21A of the 1968 Act. Perhaps I may draw his attention to the wording. The proposed new section states:

''A person commits an offence if—

(a) he has with him an air weapon on any premises; and

(b) he uses it for firing a missile beyond those premises.''

In the debate on clause 1 about using a child to mind a weapon we discussed related issues; I think that the word ''uses'' denotes a degree of intention. It is difficult to see how it would be possible to use the gun in any other way.

We want to ensure that the provisions apply to people of all ages. At the moment they apply only to those under 17, so in a way what we are doing is a reversal of the process under previous clauses. We want to ensure that adults who behave in the manner in question will have committed an offence. A recent case involved two grown men who fired weapons across the boundary of other premises. It was not possible to prosecute them, and it would be helpful if that were possible.

One issue not raised by the hon. Members for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and for Huntingdon is that of a person shooting on one property who has permission to shoot in an adjoining field. I want to consider the matter further, so I ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross to withdraw the amendment but undertake to see whether we can come back with provisions to meet that situation. I am anxious not to penalise people who behave in a proper and responsible manner, but I am determined to ensure that people of any age who discharge weapons across the boundaries of premises are not allowed to do so in a manner that causes the kind of distress that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington so eloquently outlined.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I reiterate what I said at the start, which is that I am wholly in sympathy with intention of the clause. The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington is absolutely correct; shooting across premises in urban areas is wholly unacceptable, and I totally support the Government in what they seek to do. The Minister has given me the answer that I suspected I would be given, and I am grateful for it. Highlighting the point in our deliberations gives guidance to those who have to enforce the law. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

We support the clause. I am pleased that the Minister said in her closing remarks that it may be problematic for airgun users who shoot across to adjoining land. I am pleased also that she recognises the need slightly to tighten the clause so that individuals who are not meant to be caught by the clause are not caught. The Opposition tabled a couple of amendments to that effect—I am sure that there were good reasons for them not being selected—but I am pleased to hear that the Minister will deal with the point.

Adjoining pieces of land would both be premises under the Bill, and in some circumstances it may be reasonable to shoot over the border—for instance, if the owner of the second piece of land had given consent to the shooter to fire into it. Under the Bill, however, that would constitute a strict liability offence, and I think the Minister agrees that is crucial to include words such as ''without lawful authority or reasonable excuse''. Such phrases are used throughout firearms legislation. The Government should also consider giving clear and unambiguous advice as to what would constitute lawful authority or reasonable excuse. We look forward to seeing amendments at a later stage.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I have little to add, except to say that I will look at the issue of adjoining premises. A range of strict liability offences already exists under firearms law. Purchasing ammunition, possessing or acquiring a shotgun and transferring ammunition without being a registered firearms dealer are all strict liability offences, so there is a good precedent for having a tough test—and rightly so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Restriction on sale and purchase of primers

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 196, in clause 28, page 29, line 39, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

'(1) For the purposes of this section a primer is a cap type primer, UN numbers 0044, 0377, 0378 for use with metallic small arms ammunition and shall not include any fired or inert primers or any primers manufactured for use in equipment which does not fire a projectile.'.

Clause 28 restricts the sale of primers. Although we do not object to the general thrust of the clause, the devil again lies in the detail. Primers form an essential part of shooting equipment, and many members of the shooting community enjoy loading their own ammunition; it forms part of the overall sport. The Gun Trade Association Ltd. estimates that more than 30 million primers are sold every year in the UK, and sales of primers increase dramatically in the run-up to the shooting season. As it stands, the clause is flawed, so we have tabled various amendments.

After consultation with the many interested parties, technical difficulties became apparent, not least that a restriction on the sale of primers would catch distress flares, shotgun cartridges and even the air bags used by the motor vehicle industry. I hope that it is not the Government's intention to criminalise everyone who buys or sells modern motor cars.

Primers are used for reloading a wide variety of cartridges, including those used in hunting, target shooting, research into heritage firearms, historical re-enactment and living history. Reloading allows for the production of custom-made ammunition, which enhances accuracy. That is an important animal welfare consideration, as it can increase the likelihood of instantaneous death when an animal is shot. Reloading is often the only way in which people who shoot vintage firearms can produce cartridges, as original ammunition is no longer manufactured. The forensic science service and other forensic examiners confirm that criminals rarely use reloaded ammunition. If anybody still doubts the Government's lack of expert consultation, this clause provides a clear example of the way in which they are whimsically legislating without first seeking proper advice.

It is necessary to define primers in subsection (1). After a certain amount of the sort of consultation that seems not to have been carried out by the Government, we think that the most sensible option is the United Nations definition relating to metallic cap-type primers. The UN numbers for primers for cartridges are 0044, 0377 and 0378. Those numbers are grouped within different hazard classification bands, and it is therefore logical to define primers within this Bill as cap-type primers UN numbers 0044, 0377 and 0378 for use with metallic small-arms ammunition. Such a definition would catch the potentially dangerous primers that are clearly intended to be caught by the Bill, but exempt those used for shotguns, security flares and car airbags. Also excluded in our definition are

''any fired or inert primers, or any primers manufactured for use in equipment which does not fire a projectile.''

That is particularly important for re-enactment societies, theatre companies and film producers, all of which use blank-firing weapons. Many war veterans have spent shells from the second world war and many blank-firing weapons are used in organised heritage fairs. The clause should be drafted so as not to cover such acceptable uses.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised the matter—it sounds moderately sensible—and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

It is clearly the Government's intention to ensure that persons who are not in any of the categories listed should not be in a position to acquire a primer. Can the Minister clarify whether somebody who is a firearms certificate holder and who reloads ammunition will be able to go on purchasing primers? Further, will those who do not hold firearms certificates, but who have shotgun certificates and load their own ammunition, be able to purchase primers, or does the absence from the list of the shotgun certificate mean that they are excluded?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I can tell the hon. Member for Huntingdon that the Government are not whimsically legislating. The legislation is framed so that it is practical and effective. I have taken the trouble to look at primers and ammunition-loading presses, imitations and deactivated weapons. This is not an area in which I am an expert, but I wanted to make sure before I came to the Committee that I had some understanding—albeit not as deep as that of those who are involved with such matters every day—of what we are trying to do.

Complete rounds of ammunition are subject to certificate control. Components are not—they can be purchased by anybody. The Committee will agree that we should not allow that situation to persist. Some criminal gangs seek to avoid prosecution by keeping ammunition in its component form and putting it together just before they go out to commit criminal acts. I am mindful of the case of David Bieber, who shot and killed P.C. Broadhurst in 2003. He was found in possession of home-made as well as commercial ammunition. We take the issue seriously.

Cartridge cases, lead bullets and smokeless powder are all necessary to make ammunition, but the end product is essentially inert unless it has a primer. It is on that that we want to concentrate our efforts. We recognise that reloading ammunition is an important part of rifle-shooting sports, and that around 20 million primers are sold to law-abiding shooters. We have therefore tried to be proportionate in our efforts to control the situation, and to ensure that only people with a legitimate need for primers should be able to purchase them. Many dealers already ask to see a firearms certificate before they will sell such items, but we want to enshrine that good practice in law by making it a statutory requirement.

We do not want to go wider than we have to, and are mainly concerned about the type of ammunition used in weapons such as handguns and sub-machine guns. I accept that the reloading of shotgun cartridges and the use of primers with muzzle-loading arms is rarely a problem. We do not want to include fired or inert primers, although it is arguable that they are not included because they cannot ignite the powder charge, or primer-actuated devices such as cable-cutters, nail guns, distress flares or air bags in cars. I also accept the validity of the argument that some antique firearms come cased with original primers, although there may not be many around.

As this area is a potential minefield for interpretation—that is not my joke; it is in my brief, so I can blame it on the relevant official—it has been suggested that the clause might be better predicated on seeking to control cap-type primers that are designed for use in metallic ammunition. That term is used in all explosives regulations and accords with UN guidance. The only point on which I take issue with the hon. Member for Huntingdon is his proposal to tie down the measure to specific numbers. I am reluctant to do that, given that they could change.

I am satisfied that if we were to go for a definition on controlling cap-type primers designed for use in metallic ammunition, that would meet our policy of intention, although it would have drafting implications for the rest of the clause. We will, therefore, introduce an amendment that narrows down the primers to those relevant to that kind of ammunition. That is not defined by UN numbers, because I want there to be flexibility to include other types of ammunition if those numbers change. With that assurance, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I thank the Minister for taking our concerns on board. She has gone a long way toward allaying them, and I am pleased that she is going to consider the matter further.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

With leave, Mr. Benton, perhaps I could address the questions raised by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. He asked whether someone who held a certificate would be able to obtain primers: the answer is yes. He also asked about someone with a shotgun, to which the answer is also yes.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I beg to move amendment No. 154, in clause 28, page 30, line 1, after 'person', insert 'knowingly'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 228, in clause 28, page 30, line 10, leave out 'he produces' and insert

'he shows that he is the holder of'.

No. 229, in clause 28, page 30, line 10, after 'certificate', insert

'on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor'.

No. 220, in clause 28, page 30, line 10, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 230, in clause 28, page 30, line 12, leave out 'he produces' and insert

'he shows that he is the holder of'.

No. 231, in clause 28, page 30, line 12, after 'certificate', insert

'on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor'.

No. 221, in clause 28, page 30, line 13, at end insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 222, in clause 28, page 30, line 16, at end insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 223, in clause 28, page 30, line 19, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 155, in clause 28, page 30, line 21, after 'person' insert 'knowingly'.

No. 232, in clause 28, page 30, line 30, leave out 'he holds' and insert

'he shows that he is the holder of'.

No. 233, in clause 28, page 30, line 30, leave out 'he holds' and insert 'he produces'.

No. 289, in clause 28, page 30, line 30, after 'certificate', insert

'on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor'.

No. 224, in clause 28, page 30, line 30, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 234, in clause 28, page 30, line 32, leave out 'he holds' and insert

'he shows that he is the holder of'.

No. 235, in clause 28, page 30, line 32, leave out 'he holds' and insert 'he produces'.

No. 236, in clause 28, page 30, line 32, after 'certificate', insert

'on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor'.

No. 225, in clause 28, page 30, line 33, at end insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 226, in clause 28, page 30, line 35, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 227, in clause 28, page 30, line 38, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 237, in clause 28, page 30, line 39, at end insert—

'(5A) On prosecution for an offence under subsection (2), it shall be a defence for a person to show that—

(a) he did not know that what he was selling was an object of a description covered by subsection (2); or

(b) he believed, on reasonable grounds, that the person to whom he sold the object was a person covered by subsection (3).

(5B) On prosecution for an offence under subsection (4), it shall be a defence for a person to show that—

(a) he did not know that what he was buying was an object of a description covered by subsection (2); or

(b) he reasonably believed that he was a person covered by subsection (5).'.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I shall speak to the lead amendment and amendment No. 155. We have, to an extent, already debated the issue of whether someone does something knowingly—in this case, the sale or purchase of a primer. I refer to cases for which the law might not be intended, or in which there is an unintended consequence. Would not it be possible for someone to inherit an estate and sell items to an auction house without realising that primers were included? Could not a seller be caught out by the legislation if they believed a buyer to be a legitimate purchaser, having no reason to disbelieve it?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

There are a huge number of amendments to discuss, but I shall attempt to be brief. We accept what the hon. Lady says about amendments Nos. 154 and 155. We believe that they are prudent and would ensure that those without malice or criminal intent would not be unintentionally caught by the offence.

Amendments Nos. 220 to 227 would serve to clarify the Bill, which, it must be assumed, intends shotgun certificates to be included within the ambit of clause 28 (3) and (5). There seems to be no reason why shotgun certificate holders should not be able to purchase primers and load their own ammunition, which forms a large part of the sport of shooting for many people.

We have also tabled a series of probing amendments based on the alternatives of amendments Nos. 228 and 229. A requirement simply to present evidence in the form of a firearm or shotgun certificate when purchasing primers would be preferable and proportionate. It should also legislate for current best practice, which would be more commendable than adding further intricate layers to existing firearms legislation. Subsections (3) and (5) in particular need to be amended.

Under the Bill, the requirement to produce a certificate every time is not only an administrative burden, but carries distinct dangers. Primers are bought frequently, especially by experienced shooters, and there will often be many repeat purchases from one vendor. Our initial proposal is that the wording ''he produces'' be removed entirely from subsection (3)(c) and (d) and replaced with the less burdensome requirement of the words,

''he shows that he is the holder of''.

Such an amendment would allow photocopies and faxed copies to be accepted by experienced vendors.

Although it might be sensible to have a requirement to show the original certificate on the initial purchase, it should be possible to show a photocopy or faxed copy for subsequent purchases. That is particularly desirable for mail order. Should it be thought necessary to see an original certificate, we therefore propose, after ''he produces the certificate'', the wording:

''on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor''.

That would produce the benefit not only of ensuring that an original certificate was produced, but of reducing the length of time taken and the administrative burden. More importantly, it would reduce the number of original firearms certificates that would be sent back and forth in the post and that could therefore be intercepted by criminals.

Amendment No. 237 is another precautionary amendment that would ensure that potentially innocent people are not unintentionally caught by the clause. It should be a defence for a person to show that he did not know that he was selling a primer within the description of clause 28(2)(a) or (b), or that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the person to whom he sold the object fell within clause 28(3). That would give protection to the innocent salesman or the innocent buyer who might be duped into believing that someone was a registered firearms dealer, held a certificate, or had made an innocent mistake. The amendment would prevent some injustices committed by the strict application of the clause.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

We are legislating on items that are fairly difficult to define, and we have undertaken to tighten up the wording. Although we accept that we need to do more to tighten up the drafting, we would not go so far as the amendments propose. We would make the prosecution's task difficult, if not impossible, if we introduced an element of knowingly committing the offences in clause 28 or if we provided for a defence of reasonable belief. Many of the existing firearms offences are expressed in absolute terms; I gave examples in our previous debate. Under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, it is an offence for a person to possess, to purchase or to acquire a firearm or ammunition without a firearms certificate. There is strict liability; there is no ''knowingly'' or ''reasonable belief''.

Under section 2 of the 1968 Act, it is an offence for a person to possess, to purchase or to acquire a shotgun without a shotgun certificate. Under section 3 of that Act, it is an offence for a person, by way of trade or business, to manufacture, to sell, to transfer, to repair, to test or to prove any firearm or ammunition without being registered with the police. There are also various other offences.

As I said, we do not want to go as far as the amendments suggest. It would be difficult to have the defences that they suggest in this part of the Bill when many of the other offences carry strict liability. It is right that people buying or selling components of ammunition or loading presses should make absolutely sure that the purchase is lawful. We have the existing offence of selling ammunition, which is based on strict liability, so the defences for selling components would be confusing and contradictory. We would leave the door open to a range of excuses about what people believed or were told and the circumstances in which sales took place. Much of the legislation involves strict liability, and the clause follows that position, so I ask hon. Members not to press those amendments.

The restrictions on the sale and purchase of primers in clause 28 mean that only people who hold a firearms certificate should be allowed to buy them. We are giving legislative force to what is already good practice in many cases. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross asked me about the position with regard to shotguns. By virtue of the definition in section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968, both rifles and shotguns are firearms and fall within the definition of a firearms certificate. They are lethal barrelled weapons of any description from which any shot, bullet or missile can be discharged.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

The particular point that I was addressing was whether the holder of a shotgun certificate, who is not the holder of a firearms certificate, would be able to purchase primers for the purpose of loading shotgun ammunition.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Certainly there is a provision in clause 28(8) that primers and ammunition loading presses will not be sold to people unless they have the necessary authority. They must hold a certificate that authorises them to possess a firearm of the relevant kind. We want to make sure that people can buy only the components that relate to the guns for which they have a certificate. That is a proper safeguard; we do not want people to purchase primers for guns that they do not have lawful authority to possess. That is why the definition is narrow.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am grateful to the Minister. She is doing a splendid job of explaining, but I think that she has just explained that without the words ''or shotgun'' between firearm and certificate, the holder of a shotgun certificate is excluded. I am sure that that is unintentional, and rather than have a lengthy debate may I ask that she and her officials look at that and find out whether I am wrong.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I knew I should not have tempted the hon. Gentleman down that path. I have done my best to explain the position at this stage, and my officials are indicating that they think that our drafting is appropriate. I undertake to examine the matter in even more detail than I have done so far, and to come back to him if necessary.

My final point is about the production of photocopies. The hon. Member for Huntingdon suggested that there should be an initial production and then photocopies could be used—but there is a real danger here. I understand the relationships, and that buyers and sellers may know each other, but if we went into the realms of producing photocopies, that would not only take us outwith the current legislation, which talks about producing originals, but it could provide loopholes for people to falsify facsimile copies. I know that owners do not want their certificates to get dog-eared and damaged by constantly having to produce them, and we could consider the prospect of using new technology. Maybe we could have plastic cards of some kind so that firearms certificates would not, over time, become terribly used and worn. That practice may well develop. For the moment, I want to stick with insisting that people produce the proper firearms certificate. This is serious: guns and ammunition can be dangerous if they are misused.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I apologise for intruding on the Minister again, but there is a problem. The law is slightly different on what is required for the production of a firearms certificate and of a shotgun certificate. A firearms certificate, on purchase of firearms, is required on every occasion; a shotgun certificate is not. There is an anomaly.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

If that is the case, I will certainly look into it. As I have said before, we are trying to direct our efforts towards the mischief that is caused. This is not a piece of general firearms legislation. We have had the review and will be coming forward with proposals for general firearms legislation. The policy intention is to narrow down the category of people who can purchase primers to people who purchase them legitimately, and to ensure that people who want to misuse them cannot obtain them. If that fact has an impact on that policy aim, I shall certainly come back to the hon. Gentleman. However, if it affects firearms legislation more generally, he will have to wait for another opportunity to pursue it.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I totally support her intention. That view overrides some of my concerns about the fact that the law might unintentionally trap somebody. The matter is complicated, and I shall think further about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in clause 28, page 30, line 13, at end insert—

'( ) he shows that he is a person in the service of Her Majesty who is entitled under subsection(5A) to acquire a primer to which this section applies;'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 89 to 101, 103 and 293.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

These amendments are technical, and deal with Crown exemption. Only certain parts of the Firearms Act 1968 apply to persons in the service of Her Majesty, including members of the police force, who are exempt so far as possession is concerned but not in relation to the purchase or acquisition of firearms and ammunition. Section 54 slightly modifies the provisions, so that people in the service of Her Majesty can purchase or acquire firearms and ammunition for the public service without having a certificate, provided that they are authorised in writing to do so. Clauses 28 and 29 seek to limit the sale of primers and reloading equipment to certificate holders, and it is right that there should be similar restrictions on Crown servants, and that only those who are authorised should be able to purchase those items. The supplemental provisions of part 2 in clause 36(3)(d) fail to achieve that aim, and these amendments seek to address that failure.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

We basically support all the amendments. In relation to amendments Nos. 88 to 99, can the Minister advise us how far the category of person in the service of Her Majesty extends? Who will be able to avail themselves of the exemption?

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

We, too, broadly agree with the amendments, which seem very sensible. Can the Minister clarify what is covered by use on duty as opposed to use in any other way?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

My primary reference was to members of the police service. However, also in the service of Her Majesty are the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. I am not sure whether the definition goes any further. I shall inquire of my officials, and if it goes further than the armed forces and the police, I shall write to hon. Members or refer to the matter at a later sitting of this Committee.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross asked whether such officers were authorised in relation to their duties, and whether that was when they were on or off duty. I cannot answer, but will endeavour to find out in the next hour or so, and clarify the matter later.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 89, in clause 28, page 30, line 15, after 'enactment', insert

'and otherwise than by virtue of being a person in the service of Her Majesty'.

No. 90, in clause 28, page 30, line 16, leave out 'such ammunition' and insert 'ammunition for a firearm'.—[Hazel Blears.]

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 217, in clause 28, page 30, line 20, at end insert—

'(g) he proves that he is purchasing the primer for the purpose of theatrical performance, historical re-enactment, museum or educational use, use as a starting gun at a sporting event, use in equipment which does not fire a projectile, or use in a blank firing gun.'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 219, in clause 28, page 30, line 39, at end insert

'; or

(g) he proves that he is purchasing the primer for the purpose of theatrical performance, historical re-enactment, museum or educational use, use in a starting gun at a sporting event, use in equipment which does not fire a projectile, or use in a blank firing gun.'.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The amendment provides for the exemption of those using primers for theatrical, historical, educational, and sporting purposes, and for use with other equipment—the sort of person who might buy a primer to which this section applies. Those exemptions are consistent with the Government's amendments to clause 30. As is evident from the categories that I have listed, those are people who may use primers safely and responsibly as part of their daily business and who should not be caught as an unintended consequence of the Bill. By including blank-firing gun primers the amendment will not only affect actors, museums and sports starters; it will prevent those involved in the training of security dogs from falling within the ambit of the offence.

Without the amendment, people who purchase primers for use in theatre, television and cinema performances, or educational or historical re-enactments will not be able to purchase the tools of their trade. Directors and assistants on war films and series such as ''Black Hawk Down'', ''Saving Private Ryan'' and the British production ''Band of Brothers'' would be committing offences when purchasing the primers that enable realistic films to be made without danger. That is the reason for an exemption for blank-firing guns and guns that do not fire a projectile.

It should not be an offence to sell to people such as actors the tools of their trade. The Government have shown willingness to exempt those categories from the realistic imitation firearms offences under clause 30 and we believe that that attitude should be extended to primers.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I agree with my hon. Friend's amendment. The film industry is particularly important in this context. ''Band of Brothers'' and similar films were made in Hertfordshire and film-making is a vital element of local employment, as well as an important part of our broader culture. I am sure that it is intended that the Bill should protect rather than restrain our theatre—in the west end of London we have the world's leading theatre—and our movie industry, which is also an important employer and projector of our culture. I hope that the Minister will give the Committee some clarity, and give those industries some certainty, on the matter.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

We do not want to bear down unduly on legitimate users. Hon. Members will know that we are preparing clarification to the exceptions to clause 30, dealing with imitations, and that that will relate specifically to re-enactments and the television and movie industries. It was always our intention that the Bill would contain such exceptions and we consulted widely during the summer to make them appropriate.

I understand that many film and theatre armourers already have a certificate that will enable them to purchase primers. Our amendment to limit the definition of the primers that it will not be possible to purchase to those for metallic small arms and ammunition may well help with some categories of people who want to obtain primers. The matter is a complex one and we want to get the provisions right.

A small number of people may, after the tightening of the definition, still have to buy commercially made-up ammunition rather than component parts, but we want to limit that category of people as much as possible and ensure that people will be able to buy primers if they have a legitimate need for them and the proper certificates, and if those primers will not be misused to make ammunition that may be used to injure people.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister describe the representations that she had from the theatre and the film industry, and what meetings took place, so that we can understand what she believes their view to be on the matter?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I personally have not met such representatives, but several meetings took place with officials over the summer to discuss those issues. On 15 September a wide-ranging meeting with stakeholders was held. I have met representatives of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and other parties, but I have not had the opportunity personally to discuss the issue that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. However, my officials have had extensive discussions with representatives of the industry.

I shall consider the issues raised today and try to ensure that people in certain circumstances are not disadvantaged—I think particularly of those in the TV, film and theatre industries. I can bring something back on Report if it is necessary to do so. However, I am informed that many theatre and film armourers have certificates that enable them to purchase primers, so they will not be disadvantaged when carrying out their regular duties. If they could be, I undertake to consider the matter further.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

We are pleased to hear that the Minister will continue to consider the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 91, in clause 28, page 30, line 33, at end insert—

'( ) he is a person in the service of Her Majesty who is entitled under subsection (5A) to acquire a primer to which this section applies;'.

No. 92, in clause 28, page 30, line 35, after 'enactment', insert

'and otherwise than by virtue of being a person in the service of Her Majesty'.

No. 93, in clause 28, page 30, line 36, leave out 'such ammunition' and insert 'ammunition for a firearm'.

No. 94, in clause 28, page 30, line 39, at end insert—

'(5A) A person who is in the service of Her Majesty is entitled to acquire a primer to which this section applies if—

(a) he is duly authorised in writing to acquire firearms and ammunition for the public service; or

(b) he is a person who is authorised to purchase a firearm or ammunition by virtue of a certificate issued in accordance with section 54(2)(b) of the 1968 Act (certificates for persons in naval, military or air service of Her Majesty).'.—[Hazel Blears.]

Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 - Restriction on sale and purchase of ammunition loading presses

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I beg to move amendment No. 156, in clause 29, page 31, line 9, after 'person', insert 'knowingly'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 246, in clause 29, page 31, line 14, leave out 'he produces' and insert

'he shows that he is the holder of'.

No. 247, in clause 29, page 31, line 14, after 'certificate', insert

'on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor'.

No. 238, in clause 29, page 31, line 14, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 248, in clause 29, page 31, line 15, leave out 'he produces' and insert

'he shows that he is the holder of'.

No. 249, in clause 29, page 31, line 15, after 'certificate', insert

'on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor'.

No. 239, in clause 29, page 31, line 16, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 240, in clause 29, page 31, line 19, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 241, in clause 29, page 31, line 21, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 157, in clause 29, page 31, line 23, after 'person', insert 'knowingly'.

No. 250, in clause 29, page 31, line 28, leave out 'he holds' and insert

'he shows that he is the holder of'.

No. 251, in clause 29, page 31, line 28, leave out 'he holds' and insert 'he produces'.

No. 252, in clause 29, page 31, line 28, after 'certificate', insert

'on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor'.

No. 242, in clause 29, page 31, line 28, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 253, in clause 29, page 31, line 29, leave out 'he holds' and insert

'he shows that he is the holder of'.

No. 254, in clause 29, page 31, line 29, leave out 'he holds' and insert 'he produces'.

No. 255, in clause 29, page 31, line 29, after 'certificate', insert

'on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor'.

No. 243, in clause 29, page 31, line 30, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 244, in clause 29, page 31, line 32, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 245, in clause 29, page 31, line 35, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 256, in clause 29, page 31, line 37, at end insert—

'(4A) On prosecution for an offence under subsection (1), it shall be a defence for a person to show that—

(a) he did not know that what he was selling was an object of a description covered by subsection (1); or

(b) he believed, on reasonable grounds, that the person to whom he sold the object was a person covered by subsection (2).

(4B) On prosecution for an offence under subsection (3), it shall be a defence for a person to show that—

(a) he did not know that what he was buying was an object of a description covered by subsection (1); or

(b) he reasonably believed that he was a person covered by subsection (4).'.

No. 257, in clause 29, page 32, line 2, at end insert

'but nothing in this section relating to ammunition loading presses shall apply to an antique loading press which is sold, transferred, purchased, acquired or possessed as a curiosity or ornament.'.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 156 and 157. Once again, we visit the issue of whether someone knowingly purchases or sells—in this case ammunition loading presses. To a great extent, we have already debated the subject, so I shall resist the temptation of mentioning the brewery that bought a pub called ''The Huntsman'' thinking that it had rifles on the wall, and not knowing that they were ammunition loading presses.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Clause 29 restricts the sale of ammunition loading presses and dies to all persons except those who may be permitted to purchase them by virtue of their being certificate holders, registered firearms dealers, exempt persons and so forth. It is sufficient to produce a certificate, and no recording of transactions is envisaged; again, persons may purchase on behalf of others. Offences, if committed, would be committed by both the seller and purchaser. We believe that that will serve only to penalise collectors and create a further unnecessary administrative burden yet do nothing to combat violent crime.

The amendments tabled by the Liberals are prudent; they would ensure that those who acted without malice or criminal intent were not unintentionally caught by this needless offence. We have debated the subject before; I do not intend to go over it again, although this is an issue that we will want to revisit at later stages.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

We have had extensive discussions on the word ''knowingly'', and the hon. Gentleman has indicated that he supports the Liberals' position. I think that he has a legal mind, so I propose a scenario. He may recall the situation in Dunblane, where Thomas Hamilton killed 15 children and a teacher. If the word ''knowingly'' had been included in the legislation, and a similar event occurred, could that person legitimately say, ''I didn't know what I was doing because I was not of sound mind''?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

No; and the hon. Gentleman is talking about murder rather than gun presses.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

It is discharging a weapon.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

No; the two cannot be compared. I shall move on.

In the unnecessary event that the Government want to proceed with the clause, we propose amendments Nos. 246 to 255—the same amendments on proof of possession of a firearms certificate as were proposed for the sale and purchase of primers; and we do so for the same reasons. Like our amendments to clause 28, amendments Nos. 238 to 245 serve to clarify the Bill; we assume that it was intended to include shotgun certificates within the ambit of subsections (2) and (4).

Amendment No. 256 is a precautionary amendment intended to ensure that innocent people are not caught unintentionally by the clause. The reasons that I gave for our proposed amendments to clause 28 apply. The amendment would prevent injustices that might arise if the clause was strictly applied.

I now move to amendment No. 257. Should the clause be pursued, it will be necessary to exclude antique ammunition loading presses from the legislation. Many collectors have valuable pieces that, in accordance with other firearms laws relating to antiques, should be exempted. Nothing in the 1968 Act applies to an antique firearm that is sold, transferred, purchased, acquired or possessed as a curiosity. The Government have recognised that in relation to imitation firearms, and should do the same in this clause.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I assume that the hon. Gentleman's amendments that would replace the words ''he produces'' with the words

''he shows that he is the holder of''

are designed for the convenience of the purchaser. I have some sympathy with that approach, but how does he envisage that a purchaser might convincingly demonstrate to a vendor that he holds a certificate, without producing it?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

By producing a photocopy, having originally shown the certificate. As I said in our debates on the previous clause, these are probing amendments, and this area needs to be considered further by the Government.

Collecting ammunition loading presses is not as rare a pleasure as one might think. There are at least three specialist books on the subject, and numerous articles in the shooting and collecting press. The clause will decrease the value of such collections, as it will limit potential purchasers of such items to those who hold certificates. Should our proposed exemption be ignored, the Government should address the issue of compensation for those who hold such valuable collections.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I have some qualms about the clause, and the amendments go to the heart of the matter. During our debates on primers, the Minister said that the Government's reason for referring to them in the Bill, rather than lead, powder, shot or any other component parts, was that the primer is not inert—I suppose that makes it ''ert''—and is the active component that makes ammunition work. To reverse that argument, an ammunition press is useless without any of the component parts that make up the ammunition. I am therefore interested to know why ammunition presses are included. There may be a valid reason, but the provision seems too onerous.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked about certificates. A firearms certificate must be produced on every occasion, largely because expanding ammunition is, rightly or wrongly, considered to be so lethal as to demand that approach. It is different for shotgun ammunition if one regularly uses the same dealer. When one first produces one's certificate, the dealer is obliged to record that one has one, and its number. If one returns the next week for more cartridges, it is up to him whether one should again have to produce the certificate. One does not necessarily have to produce it, because he can say, ''I know you; you're an honourable person.''

My questions about the difference between shotgun certificates and firearms certificates pertain as much to this clause as to the previous one, but the Minister said that she would look into the matter, so I will not pursue it further.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

We had a lengthy debate on similar issues on the previous clause, but I shall add another comment for the benefit of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone). In order to prosecute someone, the Crown Prosecution Service must be convinced that there is a realistic prospect of conviction, and that it is in the public interest to prosecute that person. Those are important tests and safeguards in criminal law. There may be strict liability for some offences, but the public interest test must still be passed. I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured by the extra check that the Crown Prosecution Service has before it prosecutes the very rare case of someone who has got into difficulty because of inadvertent behaviour.

I certainly do not accept the words ''knowingly'', ''recklessly'' or ''intentionally'' in the hon. Lady's amendments, because the people involved in this trade are responsible for taking every possible precaution to ensure that they are selling things to people who are properly authorised to have them. We are not talking about selling soap powder; we are talking about component parts such as ammunition and ammunition loading presses. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that such presses were inert, but they greatly facilitate the reloading of ammunition. Again, I am sure that many reputable dealers would ask for certificates, but we want to ensure that that is a statutory requirement. As I said, the provisions deal with goods that could facilitate the assembling of ammunition and that could be dangerous if they fell into the wrong hands.

Amendment No. 257 deals with the separate issue of antique loading presses. I know that there are people who avidly collect a whole range of antique gun-related items, and the amendment would ensure that antique loading presses could not be sold to people who did not have a certificate. I am prepared to consider that matter to see whether there is something that we can do.

In preparing for the Bill, I learned that there is an extensive trade in cartridge cases. I had no idea that people collected them, but they do. Again, we do not intend to bear down on people who engage in proper and legitimate activities, so I shall consider tabling amendments on Report to address that issue.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I thank the Minister for her words. We strongly support the intention behind the clause, and she has gone some way to reassuring us about what would happen in court to someone who had broken the law unintentionally, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 95, in clause 29, page 31, line 16, at end insert—

'( ) he shows that he is a person in the service of Her Majesty who is entitled under subsection (4A) to acquire an ammunition loading press;'.

No. 96, in clause 29, page 31, line 18, after 'enactment', insert

'and otherwise than by virtue of being a person in the service of Her Majesty'.

No. 97, in clause 29, page 31, line 19, leave out 'such ammunition' and insert 'ammunition for a firearm'.

No. 98, in clause 29, page 31, line 30, at end insert—

'( ) he is a person in the service of Her Majesty who is entitled under subsection (4A) to acquire an ammunition loading press;'.

No. 99, in clause 29, page 31, line 32, after 'enactment', insert

'and otherwise than by virtue of being a person in the service of Her Majesty'.

No. 100, in clause 29, page 31, line 32, leave out 'such ammunition' and insert 'ammunition for a firearm'.

No. 101, in clause 29, page 31, line 37, at end insert—

'(4A) A person who is in the service of Her Majesty is entitled to acquire an ammunition loading press if—

(a) he is duly authorised in writing to acquire firearms and ammunition for the public service; or

(b) he is a person who is authorised to purchase a firearm or ammunition by virtue of a certificate issued in accordance with section 54(2)(b) of the 1968 Act (certificates for persons in naval, military or air service of Her Majesty).'.—[Hazel Blears.]

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

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Although we thank the Government for agreeing to our proposal for a review of the legislation on antique presses, we still fundamentally believe that the clause poses serious problems, because it does not work.

Thousands of shooting sportsmen use ammunition loading presses and dies for several reasons, including saving money, helping the environment and improving accuracy. The ability to reload can save up to 50 per cent. of the cost of factory ammunition, so clay pigeon shooters, for example, who use a significant number of shotgun cartridges, will save a lot of money.

In the absence of clear and workable definitions from the Government, the courts will have to decide what a loading press or a die is in strict legal terms. A loading press is not defined except in so far as the definition includes dies for such presses. There is no clarification, for example, of whether hand loading tools such as decapping and recapping tools, which are designed to exert pressure on a cartridge case, are covered. If they are, a question arises about antique accessories, including those contained within antique and vintage gun cases, as the sale and purchase of those would be restricted to certificate holders. The Bill would also restrict the resale of modern second-hand reloading presses.

We believe that it is unnecessary to restrict the sale of what is essentially a piece of engineering equipment that contains no explosive component and is not capable of discharging any missile. If the sale of primers is to be restricted by clause 28, clause 29 is rendered pointless, because ammunition cannot be made without primers. Indeed, the Minister said that herself. Many firearms that are not subject to any certification control are contained in original cases, with a full complement of accessories that often include reloading equipment. Under clause 29, people who collect cased antique guns will have to apply for certificates to cover the reloading equipment in the cases. That is disproportionate to the perceived risk.

A further problem with the clause is the fact that ammunition can be pressed at home with nothing more than a hammer, a length of wire and a small vice. In view of that, how will the clause have any impact on the determined criminal, who may prefer that approach in any event? For two reasons, clause 29 is unnecessary. First, ammunition presses are wholly useless without the primers, and, secondly, ammunition can be pressed at home without a press. Had the Government had any sort of expert advice on the matter, they would not, we believe, have included the clause in the Bill.

In addition, I note again the need for compensation in respect of loss suffered in consequence of the exercise of a power under clause 29. Reloading equipment for ammunition has been in existence since the 1870s, when the centre-fire cartridge became the predominant form of firearms ignition. Antique reloading equipment is avidly collected and over the past decade has grown significantly in value. An Erskine patent reloading machine and its accessories will easily command £1,000. Collecting ammunition reloading equipment is a legitimate activity that makes a positive contribution to the preservation of British heritage. Most firearms auctions routinely offer antique reloading equipment, and Christie's has held a sale devoted solely to antique reloading equipment and gun tools.

Perhaps because of the bitter memories of the enormous cost and incompetent handling of the compensation scheme relating to handguns following the ban in 1997, the Government seem to have swept the issue of compensation under the carpet. Hon. Members should be aware of the additional cost to the police and prosecution authorities that the clause will entail, as well as the significant effect on business sales. Collectors and existing holders of ammunition loading presses should be compensated for the loss of value of their possessions under the clause. They should not be punished financially for the actions of criminals. I therefore ask hon. Members to vote against the clause.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I have two things to say. First, I have already given an undertaking that we shall consider the question of antiques and collectors with a view to finding a wording that will meet the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Secondly, a more general point is that it is a serious matter if people want to purchase modern ammunition presses that can facilitate the making of ammunition. I do not see why those people should not be required to produce certificates if that is the business in which they are engaged. Making ammunition that can be fired in guns is dealing with something dangerous.

I do not say that people who use the equipment legitimately will do so dangerously; I am sure that they will do so responsibly. However, we are considering not a harmless product but guns, ammunition, ammunition loading presses and primers. It is perfectly proper to require people to produce a certificate. I have undertaken to reconsider the arrangements for people who would be unlikely to have a certificate because they are in another category—that of antique collectors. On that basis, I ask hon. Members to support the clause.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.

Clause 30 - Manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I beg to move amendment No. 300, in clause 30, page 32, line 8, leave out 'a firearm or'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment No. 302.

Amendment No. 266, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—

'(9A) For the purposes of this Act, ''imitation firearm'' means anything which has the appearance of being a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile which is capable of being mistaken for a firearm for which either a certificate under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968, or the authority of the Secretary of State under section 5(1) of the Firearms Act 1968 would be required.'.

Amendment No. 267, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—

'(9A) The definition of ''imitation firearm'' in section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 means anything which has the appearance of being a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile which is capable of being mistaken for a firearm for which either a certificate under section 1 of this Act, or the authority of the Secretary of State under section 5 of this Act would be required.'.

Government new clause 21—Meaning of ''realistic imitation firearm''.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The Secretary of State acknowledged on Second Reading that defining an imitation firearm had always been difficult. I am sure that this debate will illustrate exactly that.

We started from the definition in section 57(4) of the Firearms Act 1968, which states that an

''imitation firearm is any thing which has the appearance of being a firearm . . . whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile.''

That was our starting point. It is a wide definition that works because its application is tied in with a qualifying provision that relates either to the weapon's design when it is readily convertible or to its misuse when it is used to cause fear of unlawful violence.

A ban is a serious step to take, and I acknowledge that. A ban on manufacture, sale and import is a major step forward. It is right to try to narrow down the broad definition of an imitation weapon. We have narrowed it down to those that are indistinguishable from an existing make or model of a real gun or a generic type of firearm. Our formulation for that is in subsections (8) and (9) of clause 30. Since the Bill was published we have given considerable thought to how we might clarify the definition. We are aware of the fact that it will have an impact on a range of legitimate uses of imitations.

We are not attracted by the proposition in amendments Nos. 266 and 267 that the definition of an imitation should be limited to those that could be mistaken for a section 1 firearm or prohibited firearm under section 5(1) of the 1968 Act. That would leave out shotguns, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is not in his place, as he has certainly been instructive during our deliberations on shotguns. Although I accept that even real shotguns are not frequently used in crime, we would not want people to go round in possession of an imitation shotgun without challenge. Neither would we want them to be able to walk around with imitation air weapons. I hope that the amendments will help the Committee to understand what we are looking to ban and what we may allow to be sold in the future.

In new clause 21, we have sought to introduce a greater element of objectivity into the meaning of ''realistic'' imitation firearm. Subsections (8) and (9), which currently define ''realistic'' in clause 30 are reproduced in part in the new clause. In addition, we are making it clear that size, shape and colour should be taken into account. We are trying to be as detailed as we can to give people some certainty.

In essence, we want to establish that where the predominant colour of the surface of the imitation is a bright colour, it should not be regarded as realistic. That said, we do not think that it would be appropriate to use imprecise terms such as ''bright red'' to describe what might be allowed, particularly in primary legislation. Instead, we think that it should be left to regulations to specify which colours are unrealistic. In that way, it should be possible to avoid disputes about distinctions such as those between red, crimson and scarlet. Specifying colours by reference to British standard paint numbers will probably be more accurate than using our simple lay understanding of colours and will provide some objectivity.

We accept that something that is made of transparent material should not be regarded as realistic, and clause 9 means that that can be dealt with in regulations. That is not to say that an item that does not conform with the regulations cannot be regarded as distinguishable from the real thing, but it does mean that those items that meet the regulations will definitely be regarded as not realistic; it gives certainty about the specifications that will be considered.

My officials have given me examples of realistic imitations, those that are likely to be realistic and some that might fall between the two. I do not have enough copies for all Committee members, but they are welcome to pass them around and look at them; they are very colourful. I found them helpful in terms of what is realistic—dark, black metal, similar to the kind of gun that most of us would consider to be a realistic imitation—and what is an imitation but not realistic, such as a transparent gun, which looks like a Star Trek phaser; it has the shape of a gun but one can see through it. In 30 or 40 years, as technology develops, that may well be a realistic imitation, but for the moment it is not. Then there are those that cannot be imitations because they do not look like guns. They are in bright colours, they are generally children's toys, and they are not covered by the definitions. If hon. Members would find it useful, I shall leave the copies out and they can look at them before this afternoon's sitting.

We have also tried to narrow down the definition, because some imitations might be so small that they would not pose a threat if misused. Again, let us think about mischief such as people going into shops and holding guns to people's heads, causing a huge amount of distress. If a gun is so small that it is not likely to pose a threat, it is likely that a court would rule that it is not realistic because it is so small. To avoid unnecessary court cases, it is right to introduce a threshold: 38 mm by 70 mm is absolutely tiny, so a gun of that size would be unlikely to intimidate people unless it had been produced by Q for James Bond.

We are also providing for an exemption for deactivated firearms and for certain antique imitations, as well as for imitations of firearms made before 1870—our definition of a modern firearm being one made after 1870.

In moving our amendments and inviting hon. Members to withdraw theirs, I recognise that a range of issues might benefit from further examination. We have worked hard to narrow down the definition, because we know that the matter is of great public interest and we want to ensure that we get it absolutely right. Hon. Members may have concerns about deactivated weapons. One of the reasons for the exemption is that we do not want to discourage people from deactivating real weapons. If there were to be no exemption, deactivating a real gun would turn it into a realistic imitation, which would be banned. We have an interest in ensuring that real guns are deactivated to the point at which they cannot be used to cause harm in our communities.

We are also aware that deactivated guns can legitimately be used on military vehicles or as part of a display. The hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned collectors. I have seen some deactivated guns that are worth a considerable amount of money, and there are active collectors out there. I hope that hon. Members will realise that we are genuinely trying to strike the right balance. We have a very real problem with people using imitation weapons, now that they are no longer using real weapons to the same extent. They are changing their behaviour and using imitation weapons that are almost indistinguishable from real ones. I can only imagine the trauma of shopkeepers and others going about their lawful business and being threatened with that kind of weapon.

I genuinely believe that the legislation is drafted in a way that addresses that particular mischief. I am sure that we will have an interesting debate about all the amendments and the issues that they highlight. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

As the Minister rightly said, the issue of imitation firearms is fraught with difficulty. We believe that this hasty legislation has been poorly thought through and without proper consultation. Clearly, there is no way in which the Government could have consulted before today on the new clause, which they tabled only last Wednesday. They certainly have not given us the opportunity to consult on it. I can tell the Minister, however, that we have consulted widely on the clause and that I have received hundreds of letters from interested parties.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

The hon. Gentleman complains that the legislation was drafted hastily. Does he know how long some of us, and in particular the Police Federation, have campaigned for a ban on imitation weapons? Some of us would say that the legislation was not drafted too hastily, but is overdue.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I appreciate how long certain people, not least the hon. Lady, have been pushing for this legislation. She must recognise, however, that the Government introduced it in the most unconsultative manner that one could ever imagine. I do not blame her for that, but that is the situation that we have been left with, and she might like to discuss that privately with the Minister after the sitting.

I must say, however, that the Government's last-minute amendments really have saved the clause from totally ruining the leisure pursuits and even the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people in this country. The Minister talked away quite smoothly what amounts to a huge climbdown by the Government, but it is still a climbdown.

That deactivated weapons should be exempted from the scope of the clause is welcome, as is the Government's belated recognition of the interests of galleries, museums, theatres, the film industry, television and historical re-enactment groups. That it should have taken the Government this long to realise their untenable position was simply staggering, however, and the lack of notice given to the Opposition about the Government's amendments was unacceptable.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

May I direct the hon. Gentleman to clause 30(2)(a)? The original version of the Bill says:

''The Secretary of State may by regulations . . . provide for exceptions and exemptions''.

Surely he accepts that we always intended to propose exceptions and exemptions, as we realised that this was a difficult area of law and that we needed to listen to the representations that we all received in the summer months from various concerned groups.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I am afraid that the Minister is now digging the hole that she started earlier. What she says might be written into the Bill, but we received no notice of the Government's intentions in this regard. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people in this country have been put out and have been very concerned by the Government's lack of notice of their proposals. The fact that we heard only last Wednesday in no way makes me happier. For that reason, we shall table several amendments to this part of the Bill in order to limit the effect that we still believe it will have on law-abiding businesses and lawful pastimes.

Following enactment of the Bill, it will be possible to own a realistic imitation firearm, and also to make a gift of one—but that is it; no one will be able purchase one, because it will be illegal to sell them in the UK, although we need to investigate the non-UK position, which we shall come to later.

Based on consultation with the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Gun Trade Association, it seems that there may be as many as 30 million imitation firearms in the UK—excluding toys, of which there are between 30 million and 50 million. According to the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the replica firearms market has doubled in value since 1999; it is estimated to be worth between £30 million and £40 million a year.

The Government say in the regulatory impact assessment that the estimated sale of blank firers and soft air guns is about 350,000 per annum. If realistic toys were included, that number could be at least doubled. A ban on the sale of imitation weapons would affect a number of companies in the supply chain, from importers to those involved in distribution and sale. It is important that we realise the magnitude of the change when considering how to regulate imitation firearms.

The Home Office regulatory impact assessment says that an amendment to firearms legislation to prohibit the sale of imitation firearms to under-18s could cause an estimated loss of sales of between £15 million and £20 million. A ban on the sale and manufacture of realistic imitations would cause an identical loss of sales. Having spoken to the industry, we believe that those figures are conservative.

Despite the Government's belated recognition of several respectable and law-abiding interest groups, my objective is to ensure that their and others' interests are properly represented, and that those groups are excluded from the scope of the Bill as categorically as possible and that their pursuits and activities are as unaffected as possible.

Although it is good that the Government realise the serious but unintended potential of the clause to harm groups such as re-enactors and museums, the Government's approach merely provides such groups with a defence to a criminal offence. That is not fair on law-abiding citizens, who should have been exempted from the scope of the Bill from the outset. What about the interests of private collectors who want to realise the value of their collections, and those who participate in the sport of airsoft? We believe that their interests remain unaddressed by the Government's amendments.

Government amendment No. 300 is welcome in that it allows the deactivation of weapons to continue. Coupled with new clause 21, it excludes deactivated weapons from the scope of the clause. It is amazing that it has taken the Government so long to do that, which highlights the lack of proper thought and consultation. Antique firearms, too, are excluded from the definition of realistic imitation firearms. What about the imitation of antiques that have not been deactivated, which are used to fire blanks? They are commonly used in historical re-enactments and films. I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with that matter.

Much of the Bill applies to imitation firearms and not just to realistic imitation firearms. Will toys, bananas or even table legs be included in the broad definition of an imitation firearm as opposed to a ''realistic'' imitation firearm? In March this year, Robert Downey used a banana in a blue carrier bag to threaten William Claridges Ltd. in Tower Hamlets. He was heard to say that if he did not get the money he would shoot the staff.

Then there was the man carrying a table leg, who was shot by an officer who mistook the table leg for a gun. Harry Stanley, a 46-year-old, was shot in the head in 1999. He was walking home from a pub in Hackney in east London with a table leg in a plastic bag when someone, thinking that Stanley was carrying a sawn-off shot gun, called the police. The police claimed that they shouted, ''Stop—armed police!'' When Mr. Stanley turned around, they fired.

There was also the recently reported case of a 10-year-old boy in Salisbury allegedly being threatened with arrest by armed police officers for using a cap gun in the street during a game of cowboys and Indians.

Such scenarios illustrate the immense difficulty and the possible absurdities of trying to create a workable definition of ''imitation'', and the need to consult interested bodies and a variety of experts. If a courgette or a water pistol can pass as a firearm in a dark alley, then the whole exercise of creating a subjective definition could be futile. In the right context, virtually anything could be confused with a firearm. In any event, there are plenty of other offences that would cover a banana being used in a robbery—such as that of robbery, for instance. The Government are on the verge of making it an offence to carry a banana in public place.

On Second Reading it was acknowledged that it might be difficult to find a definition, but that should not deter us from finding one.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he has talked about the interests of businesses and historical re-enactment societies—but why does he not talk about the interests of the taxpayer, who has to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds every year on firearms units being called out to incidents in which it turns out that the young person involved has an imitation weapon? Has he no concern for the interests of the taxpayer?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I have every concern for the interests of the taxpayer, and I shall address them later. In the meantime, I shall continue to address the amendment.

On Second Reading it was acknowledged that the definition is difficult, but that should not deter us from finding one. In its consultation paper, ''Controls on Firearms'', the Home Office says that previous suggestions included placing restrictions on the sale of imitations. It goes on:

''These options have been rejected in the past because of impracticalities of enforcement. It has proved difficult to find a workable legal definition of an 'imitation firearm' and we do not believe that the level of effort required by agencies to administer additional restrictions is offset by public safety gains. This is why we introduced the new offence of possession in a public place without legal authority or reasonable excuse. We do not therefore propose that imitations are licensed or their sales restricted.''

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the document goes on to cite a number of countries and US states in which there are practical examples of restrictions and bans on replicas and imitations?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

It would be nice to see the results of the Home Office consultation, but we have not had that pleasure. I have made a freedom of information request to the Minister for details of that consultation, but we have received nothing. The hon. Gentleman might be making an interesting point, but if we had seen the returns on the evidence he might have a better point. In the meantime, I return to the original document and ask why the Home Office has had such a dramatic turnabout on this issue, especially without any further evidence—certainly none that has been given to us. Where is the evidence to support that dramatic change of tune? Why are we not waiting to see the impact of the new offence of possessing an imitation firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, which was created by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003?

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

The hon. Gentleman asked why Ministers had introduced the Bill. Is he aware that the latest figures show that offences involving imitation firearms went up by 66 per cent. last year? [Interruption.]

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) reminds me that earlier in the debate, the Minister advised the Committee how wonderfully the Government are doing in this area. Perhaps the hon. Lady thinks otherwise; I would be interested to hear what the Minister thinks of her figures.

Many interested parties have written to me say that they support wholeheartedly any action that will reduce violent crime, and that they will obey any law that is passed, but none of them can fathom how the proposals will reduce violent crime. How will they remove the difficulties encountered by the police? How will they stop them incorrectly shooting a young man with what they think is a real gun but turns out to be an imitation?

The purpose of amendments Nos. 266 and 267 is to refine the definition of a ''realistic imitation firearm''. By including in the definition that it must be capable of being mistaken for a firearm for which a firearm certificate or the authority of the Secretary of State would be required, we would prevent this and other clauses from capturing toys and weapons that they are not intended to capture. The amendment would make the definition more stringent, and would refine it sensibly so that it would not encompass guns that are not a threat.

The proposed formulation is consistent with existing firearms legislation, particularly section 1 of the Firearms Act 1982, which provides for an imitation firearm to be treated as a real firearm in law. The amendment would mean that an air weapon must not look like a firearm for which a certificate would be required, but that a paintball gun would not be caught by the definition unless it looked like a gun for which a firearms certificate would be required. The Minister did not give much of an explanation as to why that would not work. She said that her problem was that shotguns would not be covered. Would she be more amenable to the amendment if it were expanded to cover them?

For the reasons that I have discussed, amendment No. 266 would alter the definition of imitation firearms for the purposes of the Bill only, but the wider amendment No. 267 would alter the definition of imitation firearms in the Firearms Act 1968 and, therefore, across the raft of firearms legislation. We think that that might be preferable, to avoid further anomalies in the firearms legislation.

Despite the fact that the Government have now dedicated an entire clause to the definition of a realistic imitation firearm, we cannot stress enough that that will not avoid the anomalies that I have described. No matter how complicated the definition is made, if a table leg can be mistaken for a firearm the effectiveness of the amendments must surely remain in doubt. How are the police expected to enforce this complex clause in practice? It seems to be asking a lot of the police force. For those reasons I shall consider pressing amendment No. 266 to a vote.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

I hope to catch your eye later on clause stand part, Mr. Benton, but I want to support the Government amendments too. For a long time some of us—led by the Police Federation, I remind Opposition Members—have called for a ban on imitation firearms, and for a long time we have been told about the problem of definition. I support the Government in their attempt to deal with that problem and respond to the demand for a ban on imitations. Because the Government are a listening Government, as debate progresses they may want to table further amendments. However, I congratulate them on dealing with the issue of definition without letting it stop the important policy thrust of stopping the growth in the use of imitation weapons in crimes.

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

What the Government are trying to do is valid, and I support it. The amendments were late, but better late than never. They are important because they protect people who need protection. Having served on the Metropolitan police authority and visited SO19 I have some experience of imitation firearms. I well remember walking into a room in which there were pairs of guns, one of each pair being imitation and the other real. There was no way of distinguishing between them other than by lifting them up, when the weight and the feel of the material was different. That is what the Government are trying to tackle.

Will the Minister clarify a point? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) wrote to the right hon. Lady about one of her constituents and received a reply telling her that

''The Bill looks to ban the importation, manufacture and sale of realistic imitation firearms. It does not look to ban their possession and legitimate use.''

I wonder if the Minister will define their legitimate use. Will she also clarify—she has already mentioned military vehicles—that military vehicle owners will be able to exhibit their vehicles as they always have, with deactivated weapons on display?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I refer the hon. Member for Huntingdon to new clause 21 and ask him to accept that the Government are trying to arrive at as close a definition as possible, to deal with the mischief at which the Bill is aimed—the misuse of realistic imitation weapons.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, there has for a long time been reluctance to introduce measures of this kind because of the difficulty of arriving at a workable definition. All our amendments have been aimed at giving legitimate owners some certainty about what will or will not be caught by the provisions, and to narrow down the definition. Clause 30 would have enabled us to deal with those matters by regulation—but rather than go down that path, I have endeavoured to put into the Bill as much as I can about colour, shape and size, to give people a good indication of what will be caught.

I ask the hon. Member for Huntingdon to look carefully at new clause 21. A realistic imitation firearm is defined as one that:

''has an appearance that is so realistic as to make it indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from a real firearm''.

That is a good workable definition. The hon. Gentleman raised some spurious issues about the use of items such as bananas to threaten people, but these clauses concern manufacture, sale and import, not use or possession. We seek to cap off the supply, so as to prevent the increase in numbers of such items, while recognising that some will continue to circulate. We want to ensure that we do not find millions more of them on the streets, able to be used in dreadful ways.

If people use items to threaten other people, they might well be committing any of a range of criminal offences, such as using threatening or intimidating behaviour or other public order offences. However, we are discussing manufacture, sale and import, not use. Therefore, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I found his questionable remarks about the use of table legs and other such items disappointing. I wish that he had addressed the amendment.

The hon. Gentleman asked why we were taking these steps. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said, the incidence of imitation firearms use has increased by 55 per cent.—and in the latest figures by 28 per cent.—but the use of real weapons has been reduced dramatically: shotguns down by 13 per cent., handguns down by 8 per cent., and 14 per cent. fewer people have been killed by real firearms. Criminals are changing their behaviour. They are moving out of real weapons into imitations, so we want to cap off the supply of imitations to prevent their continued manufacture, sale, import and use. There is a real problem, and I would have hoped that all parties would unite in trying to find a workable definition that does not penalise law-abiding citizens—that is not what we want to do. We are determined to reduce the availability of realistic imitations that can be used in our communities.

I am not aware of the letter from the hon. Friend of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, but I shall undertake to search for it and give her an appropriate response at a later date.

Sammy Wilson (DUP, East Antrim)

I support the general thrust of the clause, but I have some difficulties with it. First, a lot of groups that engage in historical re-enactments and so on, and transfer imitation firearms from one to another, have genuine concerns that their activities might be stopped. The latest amendments will help to address those concerns. However, there is a large market among both groups and the individuals within them who hold deactivated weapons and sell them to each other. It is not clear from the amendments whether sale between individuals or groups will be permitted. I should like some clarification. In many cases, the weapons are quite valuable. Some individuals have extensive collections that they move around with the intention of selling them and buying other weapons. I should like to think that that trade will not be stopped.

Secondly, although we need to reduce the number of imitation firearms in circulation, it is probably over-egging the pudding to say that that will lead to a significant reduction in violent crime. For example, in parts of Northern Ireland there have been attempts to tighten up on dealers who sell imitation firearms, and people simply moved on to claw hammers, screwdrivers or whatever other weapon they could bring to hand to engage in the robbery of off-licences and so on. Although the provisions will help the situation, it would give the wrong picture to the public to say that they will reduce the problem totally.

One aspect that I do not think has been addressed is that some deactivated weapons could not possibly, and would not be, used in everyday crime. Many of the deactivated weapons that I have seen and that have been brought to my attention by groups in East Antrim have usually been of the long-arm type: Bren guns, for example. People do not hold up off-licences with that sort of gun, but many such weapons are sold between holders, and if their sale is prevented, all that that will do is stop a legitimate pursuit. It will have no effect on levels of crime.

I want some assurance from the Minister that sales between the holders of deactivated guns such as those, which may look like guns—indeed, they are guns—but nevertheless cannot be used to carry out a crime because they are deactivated, will not be prevented.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The hon. Gentleman makes a lot of important points, which I will address later.

I said earlier that I was minded to ask the Committee to vote on amendment No. 266. However, the Minister has clearly expressed a genuine willingness to move towards an acceptable definition—and although it is not there yet, and the Government might have introduced a level of complexity that could work against the interests of the clause, having heard her general approach I will not ask for a vote.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I welcome the broad support for the proposals shown by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I do not think that we have ever said that any single measure will do away with violent crime at a stroke. We are trying to introduce a range of measures, which we genuinely feel will reduce it. He is right to say that in addition to dealing with realistic imitations we also need to do a huge amount of education work in our communities. We have a Connected fund that has issued lots of small grants to groups such as Mothers Against Guns all over the country. We have had a guns amnesty, when 40,000 guns were handed in. There is a huge amount of work to be done, but if we can cap the supply of realistic imitations in this country, that will be another helpful measure.

I can confirm that deactivated weapons will not be subject to the ban on manufacture, import and sale. We are aware of the collectors' issues and the legitimate uses—the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green raised the issue of military vehicles and using them for display purposes. We want to direct our activity to the harm that is called by the imitations that are circulating far too widely in our communities, but we do not want to hit legitimate and responsible people.

Amendment agreed to.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 259, in clause 30, page 32, line 10, after 'firearm', insert 'in Great Britain'.

Joe Benton (Labour, Bootle)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 260, in clause 30, page 32, line 12, after 'Britain', insert

'for the purposes of sale or distribution'.

No. 55, in clause 30, page 32, line 13, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

No. 262, in clause 30, page 32, line 13, after 'regulations', insert

', following proper consultation and consideration with a working group consisting of a wide spread of expert practitioners,'.

No. 263, in clause 30, page 32, line 15, after '(1)', insert

'with the burden of proving that a person does not fall within one of these exemptions lying with the prosecution'.

No. 271, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—

'(9A) The Secretary of State shall provide for payment of compensation in respect of loss suffered or costs incurred in consequence of the exercise of power conferred by or under this section.'.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Enormously valuable collections, representing some individuals' pensions and sometimes even their livelihoods, could be rendered valueless by the enactment of this clause. A world war two Lewis gun would fetch around £15,000 at auction. At some point, if only on the death of the owner, such items have to be sold and the investment realised. The only hope of any financial recompense would be to export, but the practicality of that must be doubtful.

Clause 30 as it stands is limited to Great Britain. Unless the contrary intention appears, I believe that the position is that an Act of Parliament does not extend to the acts of Britons who are outside the UK, except in cases in which specific provision is made in regard to acts committed abroad. The whole body of the criminal law of England deals only with acts committed in England.

Has the Minister yet spoken to her European counterparts about the 30 million firearms that are deemed realistic, and that could now be flooding into their countries as collectors and owners attempt to realise lifetime investments by selling those highly valuable weapons in countries such as France, where it seems that they will be allowed to sell them legally? Does she see that as being fair on our European neighbours? Is that what the Government mean when they say that they want Britain to be at the heart of Europe?

In relation to amendment No. 260, if re-enactment societies' deactivated weapons are to be exempt from the provisions, a large part of the problem goes away. However, if someone wanted to take their realistic imitation abroad—to a show, for example—I cannot see why they should be banned from bringing that imitation back into the country if it is not for the purposes of sale. That is why we proposed to add the words

''for the purposes of sale or distribution''

to the end of subsection (1)(d).

Amendment No. 55 would ensure that the comprehensive and non-exhaustive list of exceptions and exemptions was compiled as a matter of urgency. Despite the introduction of a defence for certain bodies, those defences do not go far enough. The amendment would help to give peace of mind to the millions of interested parties that stand to be affected by the clause.

We believe that amendment No. 262 is necessary to prevent further haphazard legislation of the sort that has plagued firearms law. Proper consultation with experts may go some way to limiting the damage that would be inflicted by the clause. The Government abolished the Firearms Consultative Committee and its replacement, the Firearms Advisory Committee, has yet to be seen. We believe that the Government should not continue to legislate without expert independent advice on firearms, especially where individuals' criminality, and livelihoods, will be determined by what is in the regulations.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Would the hon. Gentleman anticipate that his widespread group of experts would also include people who had been victims of the misuse of imitation weapons, and police officers or representatives of the Police Federation?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I do not believe that the Firearms Advisory Committee's remit is limited to imitation firearms.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

I was talking about the amendment.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I am perfectly open to discussion about who should be on that committee. I simply make the point to the hon. Gentleman that by now we should have such a committee, and it does not exist. Will the Minister reassure the Committee that the FAC will be established, and will play an active role in assisting the Government in compiling the list of exceptions and exemptions?

The purpose of amendment No. 263 is to shift the burden of proof from the accused, who may be carrying a gun safely and responsibly, on to the prosecution to show that the accused does not fall within one of the exemptions or defences that are being created, and was indeed holding the gun for an illegal purpose. If respectable and law-abiding citizens are to be criminalised, albeit that they will have a defence, it should be clear and unambiguous that it is not for the re-enactor or museum owner to show that he is not guilty of the offence. It should be for the prosecution to show that that person cannot rely on the defence.

The amendment preserves the presumption of innocence, and will allow actors, re-enactors, collectors, airsoft participants and even museums to go about their legitimate activities without threat or constant fear of contravening these complicated provisions relating to imitation firearms. It should still prove sufficiently straightforward for the prosecution to show that an accused person does not fall within one of the exemptions or the defence and therefore to ensure that justice prevails. The amendment is an attempt to safeguard civil liberties.

Amendment No. 271 would provide for compensation for the many holders of valuable imitation firearms, as well as to the businesses that stand to lose substantial parts of their revenue due to the clauses—

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at Four o'clock.

Violent Crime Reduction Bill - Standing Committee B

Clause 30 - Manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 260, in clause 30, page 32, line 12, after ‘Britain’, insert

‘for the purposes of sale or distribution’.

No. 55, in clause 30, page 32, line 13, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.

No. 262, in clause 30, page 32, line 13, after ‘regulations’, insert

‘, following proper consultation and consideration with a working group consisting of a wide spread of expert practitioners,’.

No. 263, in clause 30, page 32, line 15, after ‘(1)’, insert

‘with the burden of proving that a person does not fall within one of these exemptions lying with the prosecution’.

No. 271, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—

‘(9A)The Secretary of State shall provide for payment of compensation in respect of loss suffered or costs incurred in consequence of the exercise of power conferred by or under this section.’.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Mr. Simon Bromley, an elected member of the management council of the Military Vehicle Trust wrote to me to protect the interests of more than 5,000 members who stand to be affected by the Bill, as do their millions of pounds of investments.

The conservative Home Office regulatory impact assessment estimate of a £300 million valuation and associated significant administration costs and compliance costs is based on an estimate that imitation guns are worth £15 each. That is simply not an accurate estimate, but it shows just how large the figure might realistically be for compensating those whose pensions, businesses and indeed livelihoods are dependent on imitation firearms.

We must remain aware of the additional cost to the police and prosecution authorities after the enactment of the Bill, as well as the significant effect on business sales. Banning sales could mean a huge fall in the investment value of imitation guns, and compensation should be paid.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Clause 30 seeks to impose a ban on the manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms. We have already discussed the fact that misuse of realistic imitation weapons has increased to an unacceptable level.

Amendment No. 259 seeks to restrict clause 30 to sales in Great Britain, but that precise effect is already achieved by clause 45(5), which covers territorial extent, so the amendment is redundant. The Bill already allows sales abroad, and those sales could include a transaction between a seller in Great Britain and a buyer abroad if it were arranged in such a way that the sale took place outside Great Britain—for example, by exporting the imitation firearm before the contract is concluded. I am sure that provision can be made so that the title and the goods do not actually pass until the sale is concluded outside Great Britain.

I suspect that the amendment has been prompted by concern that some owners of imitation weapons will suffer a loss in the value of those weapons when there ceases to be a market in this country, but I can provide reassurance in several respects. We will allow a suitable period before the legislation comes into force to allow people to dispose of any current stock, and we propose in later amendments that deactivated firearms are not covered by the new offence, partly in recognition of their value and historical importance. As I said, given that some existing owners, particularly collectors, might want to dispose of their guns in due course, we think it reasonable that they should be allowed to sell them abroad.

I have already explained that the principal reason for clause 30 is to cap off the future supply of realistic imitation firearms, which are all too often used to scare and threaten people and to help to commit serious crimes. We want to stop people selling them, except for certain limited purposes, and to stop people importing them.

We would leave the door wide open to anyone who wanted to import these guns for personal and sometimes criminal use if we accepted amendment No. 260, which would limit import restrictions to apply only to persons bringing in, or causing to be brought in, realistic imitations only for sale or distribution. Although we would reject that amendment, we would not oppose an amendment that exempted theatrical performances, museums and re-enactment groups from the provisions in clause 30. If necessary, we can also provide for further exemptions through the regulation-making power in subsection (2).

When we advanced our proposals for banning realistic imitation firearms, we readily acknowledged that there would need to be a range of exemptions and exceptions, for which we have provided. We have tabled amendments that make specific provisions to deal with some of the complex issues, but it is important to keep the regulation-making power because we might need flexibility in future if other issues are brought to our attention. The usual fear is that the Government will overuse such a power, so it is ironic that amendment No. 55 seeks to make its use compulsory rather than discretionary. I appreciate that the amendment was probably tabled to ensure that re-enactment societies and others were recognised, but I hope that hon. Members are reassured by the Government amendments. We should not insist on regulations regardless of whether they are needed, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment. I ask Opposition Members not to press amendment No. 262 either, not because we are reluctant to consult but because it would be generally unhelpful and inflexible to include it in regulations.

The membership and terms of reference of the firearms consultative committee were raised. Amendment No. 262 talks of a wide range of “expert practitioners”. It is difficult to say how wide a range and what fields of expertise would be involved. The Home Office already has dialogue with the main shooting organisations, the police and other interest groups when particular issues arise. We are reconsidering whether a two-tier firearms advisory committee could be constituted once we have determined how to deal with the review of firearms controls.

I assure the Committee that I have listened closely to representations in favour of making regulations under clause 30(2). I remind the Committee that such regulations would be subject to annulment by either House should Members be unhappy with our proposals.

We have no wish to cast the ban on realistic imitation firearms so wide that it bears down disproportionately on legitimate users. There is a balance to be struck.

Amendment No. 263 would require the prosecution to prove that a person charged with an offence did not fall within one of the exemptions. I hope to assure hon. Members that the general criminal law has sufficient provisions to protect people in such circumstances without the need for the amendment.

In bringing criminal prosecutions, the prosecution clearly bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt all the elements in an offence necessary to establish guilt. If a defendant invokes a defence or seeks to rely on an exception, he will, depending on the legislation, bear either an evidential burden or a legal burden. The evidential burden is the lighter, as the defendant merely has to raise sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case for his defence. The legal burdens mean that he has to prove, on a balance of probabilities, one of the facts that goes to make up the defence. If a legal burden is imposed, it has to be reasonable, or it will contravene the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.

That trot through the criminal law shows that defendants already have ample protection; they can never be unreasonably put to proof of a defence or an exemption, so I see no need for amendment No. 263. The normal criminal law ensures that not too heavy a burden will be placed on defendants when they seek to take advantage of one of the exceptions. The amendment would go even further, requiring the prosecution positively to prove that none of the exemptions applied, even if none could have applied in the first place. That would be far too onerous a burden on the prosecution, and it would be outwith normal practice in the criminal law. If we open the door too wide, we will totally negate the principal purpose of the Bill, and requiring the prosecution to do that would make it much more difficult to police the legislation.

As for compensation, it is the duty of any Government to take action to preserve public safety when a problem arises. That is why we are trying to bear down on the misuse of imitation firearms. Our proposals for banning the future manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms are tough; we want to cut the problem at source. It is a legitimate objective. I believe that it can be justified if a fair balance can be struck between the interests of owners and the wider public interest. The Bill will achieve the right balance.

Concerns have been expressed about the value of rare deactivated firearms; we are exempting them under clause 31. We are also meeting concerns about antique loading presses and antique realistic imitation firearms. Existing owners will be able to retain their property; there is no question of their being deprived of it by the state. Those dealers who currently trade in realistic imitations will be able to sell their stocks abroad before the ban is implemented. However, there is no question of compensation for loss of business or of good will; that was clearly established at the time of the handgun ban in 1997. We are looking at control of use rather than deprivation of property. I therefore invite hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I was interested to hear that transactions abroad will be legal. In some ways, I am happy that owners of realistic imitation handguns will have a sales outlet. However, it confirms my fear that owners will be forced to sell overseas, so we shall export to our European neighbours the problem that the Minister says we have. I am not sure how neighbourly that is, or to what extent she has discussed it with her counterparts in other European countries. I asked her before, but she did not care to discuss the matter. She might wish to do so now.

In relation to exemptions and exceptions, I hear what the Minister says. We shall come to those in the next series of amendments, so I shall not go into detail now. The Minister somewhat cold-shouldered my point that the Government need to consult more widely. She said that she will look at some kind of two-tier consultation proposal, and I am not sure that she explained what those tiers are, but if she can send a note to the Committee, we will be grateful. However, I again make the point that changes should happen now. She should have a consultation committee with which to consult when she puts the changes in place, and not in “due course”.

The Minister’s statement about prosecutors needing to make their case was welcome. We will consider what she called a trot through the relevant law. She will appreciate that I cannot get to grips with it on the spot, but we shall consider it in detail and will return to the matter as the Bill progresses. Again, on compensation, we need to revisit the issue as the implications of the clause become clearer. As I have said before, the Government filed their amendments only last week so we have not yet been able to consult with anybody who is going to be affected or to determine to what extent the amendments will alleviate the need for compensation. I shall not press the amendments to a vote, but we reserve our right to review the position in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I beg to move amendment No. 301, in clause 30, page 32, line 12, at end insert—

‘()Subsection (1) has effect subject to the defences in section (Specific defences applying to the offence under s. 30).’.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 264, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—

‘(9A)In relation to subsections (2), (3) and (8), the following should be included in the exceptions and exemptions from what constitutes a realistic imitation firearm—

(a)deactivated firearms,

(b)deactivated weapons manufactured before 1983,

(c)deactivated weapons of .50” calibre and over,

(d)large machine guns, armoured vehicles and field guns and military equipment where the deactivated weaponry is intrinsic to the equipment,

(e)realistic imitation firearms used in security dog training and security guard training,

(f)realistic imitation firearms used in hunt dog training,

(g)realistic and deactivated firearms used by educators, colleges and schools,

(h)reproduction components for weapons of .50” calibre and over,

(i)starting pistols,

(j)weapons intended for use in “Airsoft” with a muzzle energy of less that 4 joules including BB guns, air guns and paint balls,

(k)realistic imitation firearms for use in theatre, cinema, museums, castles and historic houses, television and sporting events,

(l)parts of weapons required in relation to the weapons listed in paragraphs (a) to (k),

(m)specialist suppliers and armourers relating to the weapons listed in paragraphs (a) to (k).’.

Amendment No. 269, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—

‘(9A)Nothing in this section shall apply to an antique firearm which is sold, transferred, purchased, acquired or possessed as a curiosity or ornament.’.

Amendment No. 270, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—

‘(9A)Nothing in this section shall apply to a firearm of antique appearance that fires black powder.’.

Government new clause 20—Specific defences applying to the offence under section 30.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

On Second Reading, the Home Secretary recognised that a legitimate case could be made for exempting certain uses from our ban on the future manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms. He was very cautious in saying what those might be and he made it clear that activities should not be allowed if there were a danger that they would subvert the purpose of the legislation. Nevertheless, he undertook to listen carefully to representations, and that is what we have been doing in the past few months.

We have made provision in new clause 20 for specific defences to be available to persons charged with an offence under clause 31 of manufacturing, modifying, selling or importing a realistic imitation firearm. Those defences will be available if the realistic imitation was made available for the purposes of a museum or gallery, for TV, film or theatrical productions or for historical re-enactments. We need to be careful in the case of re-enactments that the defence will not be available to people who spuriously claim to be re-enactors. I know that re-enacting is widespread and conducted by a range of extremely respectable and responsible persons, who enact everything from the wars of the roses to many other events. I have been enlightened by the correspondence that I have received in the past few months about the extent of the activity and the pleasure that people gain from it. However, I am concerned lest people falsely claim to be re-enactors, and that danger is best addressed by a regulation-making power to specify or describe the groups of people who might be involved in such activity.

We are also providing for an exemption for deactivated firearms and for certain antique imitations as well as for imitations of antique firearms made before 1870. I am informed by my officials that that is the correct cut-off point between what is considered a modern firearm and what is considered an antique firearm. I hope that, taken together, the amendments address many hon. Members’ concerns.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

I am perusing proposed new clause 20, and confess that I understand the Government’s problem. How does one define a historical re-enactment? The Government attempt defines it as

“any presentation or other event held as a re-enactment of an historical event”.

What exactly will that exclude?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am tempted to say any event that is not a presentation or other event held as a re-enactment of an historical event, which is the logical answer.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Can the Minister be more specific?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

No; I have given him a fairly good form of words. We have also said that we want a regulation-making power to specify the various groups or descriptions of persons who could be involved, because we want to ensure that the measure covers genuine historical re-enactors, and not people who spuriously claim to have realistic imitations because they are personally re-enacting something that happened on 4 December 1932, but who are not involved in a proper historical re-enactment. We will have to put our thinking caps on and do some work with the regulations to get that as tight as we can.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

May I ask the Minister for her advice on a specific scenario? If someone were to give a lecture to a group of children on the activities of the home guard, dressed in the uniform with a Lee Enfield .303, which was the home guard’s weapon of choice when they stopped using shovels, would that be within the definition of a historical re-enactment?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Don’t panic!

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am tempted to say they don’t like it up them. That was one of my favourite television programmes.

I do not want to pre-empt what might be in the regulations, and it would be wrong of the hon. Gentleman to lead me into that territory. We will draft the regulations to try to accommodate legitimate activities. I know how much schoolchildren appreciate the opportunity to learn about historical events in a real way. It is important that we accommodate such events in the regulations, and we will try to do so. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with us. I am conscious of his point; old people going into schools and reliving their memories is one of the best ways to make history come alive and really mean something to young children.

Component parts are not covered by the Bill. Neither are reproduction components for existing weapons, which are covered by firearms legislation if they are pressure-bearing parts that can be used in real guns. So people will be able to get components for realistic imitations, but not if they can be used to turn those imitation guns into real weapons. We do not accept that anything with a muzzle energy of less than 4 J should be exempt. We have discussed that. It is widely accepted that 1 J is the threshold above which something becomes potentially lethal and is therefore a firearm by definition. I do accept, however, that there is an issue in relation to airsoft, which we will consider further. I am conscious not only of the weight of representations that I have received, but that many people are involved in airsoft activity, so I want some more time to think about that issue. I am not satisfied that it is necessary to have realistic imitations for dog training or starting races.

I am not sure whether amendments Nos. 269 and 270 seek to exempt antique firearms, or imitations of antique firearms. If the former, it is clear that something that is a firearm cannot be regarded as an imitation, so it cannot be covered anyway; if the latter, our amendments will help.

In the light of the amendments that we have introduced and the availability of the regulation-making power in clause 30 should difficulties arise, I invite hon. Members to withdraw their amendments. I recognise that other issues may benefit from further examination and I will certainly listen closely to what hon. Members have to say and consider the issues again before Report.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Will the Minister please explain why the defences incorporated by Government amendment No. 301 were deemed preferable to the outright exemption of many legitimate bodies from the scope of the clause? Why should law-abiding citizens be criminalised in the first place? New clause 20, although it moves some way to appeasing interested law-abiding citizens, is still just a defence to a criminal offence.

There are still grave concerns and they are not only about the extent of the clause. For instance, in subsection (3) of new clause 20, the suspected person will have a defence available only if sufficient evidence is adduced and the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The basic question is what sufficient evidence will be. Those are woolly concepts and will not fully alleviate the concerns of the hundreds of thousands of people and businesses that stand to be affected by the clause.

Many associations that represent those who participate in leisure activities involving imitation weapons have strongly argued that the Bill will put their sports and pastimes in jeopardy. We believe that their protection should be asserted not just by means of a defence but by exempting them from the ambit of the clause altogether.

First, numerous small and medium-sized independent businesses are involved in the restoration and sale of deactivated weapons to private collectors, museums and historical re-enactment groups as well as hire to television and film companies. One company, Sherwood Armoury Ltd. of Kent wrote that its business, which deals solely in historic weaponry, would be severely affected. Furthermore, the proprietors have considered the large stocks of weapons owned by Sherwood to be their pension and savings, and now face a uncertain future should those historic weapons become unsaleable.

When the Government talk about removing antiques from the ambit of the clause, can the Minister confirm how old the weapons should be? She mentioned things that looked like antiques, but would the relevant date for antiques still be 1870? Would they have to be 100 years old or date from the second world war? That seems to be unclear, but it is of vital importance when it comes to the millions of weapons involved.

Another company, Battle Orders Ltd. of East Sussex, which sells replica weapons to historical re-enactment groups and is the UK’s leading supplier of weapons to the film industry, wrote to express its fears. Despite the size of the business and the potentially devastating consequences of the legislation, Battle Orders had not been consulted and did not know of any company that had. It seems absurd that such long-established and reputable dealers stand to be put out of business without having been properly consulted.

The toy gun industry is even larger and just as worried. The British Toy and Hobby Manufacturers Association, which represents 90 per cent. of UK toy manufacturers, has expressed incredulity that measures could limit the availability of harmless and popular toys, of which it estimates there are between 15 million and 30 million in circulation. It surely cannot be right that access to toys should be limited due to the actions of a tiny minority.

Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent South)

I must stress that the purpose of the Bill is to curb the manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms, not toys. Although the Opposition talk about shooting on their estates, we are trying to curb the shootings that we see on our estates in the inner cities. When someone is faced with someone holding a gun to their head, and it looks real, they do not think about whether it is a real gun or an imitation but about their life and whether they are going to lose it. That is what the Bill is intended to addresss.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I have not discussed shooting on any estates. More to the point, we are discussing realistic imitation firearms, which have as much to do with shootings on estates as they have with ballooning. Perhaps the hon. Lady might like to make her point on clause stand part.

All the businesses concerned expressed great sympathy for the aims of the Bill but feared that it was not likely to achieve them; they also thought that the Bill did not encompass any consideration for the grave consequences that would ensue for people involved in perfectly legitimate businesses and for the public who enjoyed the pastimes that those businesses facilitated.

One such hobby, from whose enthusiasts I have received many letters of concern, is airsoft. The potential impact of the Bill on airsoft was discussed on Second Reading, but it may be worth restating that it is a popular hobby, similar to paintball, using replica weapons to fire small pellets instead of paintballs. There are currently estimated to be about 10,000 regular airsoft players in the UK. About 70 game sites around the country stand to be affected. No provision has been made in new clause 20 even for a defence for airsoft enthusiasts, which means that their sport as it currently exists will be ended.

One airsoft enthusiast, Mr. John Neal, of Southampton, wrote to me that

“this is a very safety conscious sport, enjoyed by thousands of law-abiding people across the country”.

The pellets fired by the weapons—if one can describe them as weapons—weigh approximately 0.2 g and are fired with less than 1 J of energy, which was, I think, the dividing line mentioned by the Minister. That is hardly likely to inflict pain. Indeed, I am informed that it is similar to the force of lightly bouncing a tennis ball on the floor. Above all, the participants do not use the same kind of cheap, easily obtainable replicas that are used by criminals. No criminal is likely to spend around £400, which is the price at which airsoft replicas retail, for an imitation firearm, when they could obtain a real weapon for a fraction of the price.

Furthermore, airsoft replicas are some of the most difficult replicas for a criminal to attempt to convert. In the words of Mr. Neal:

“If anyone was foolish enough to try to convert one of these things, then they’d end up with perhaps one of the most lethal weapons ... lethal to the moron firing it, that is!”

In any case, given the price of the replicas, anyone with sufficient criminal contacts to enable them to obtain real 9 mm bullets for a converted airsoft gun would be more likely to buy a real gun.

Steve McCabe (Labour, Birmingham, Hall Green)

Why cannot the airsofters simply paint their weapons bright orange or red, so that they fall within the definition? We should not then have to worry.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The Minister may have come to the Committee today with a few brightly coloured photographs saying that that is what she intends the entire shooting community to do, but the airsoft community will, I assure the hon. Gentleman, have no idea what the Government expect. Furthermore, why should they have to kowtow before the Government? Why should they not be able to enjoy their legal pursuit?

Amendment No. 264 would offer airsoft an exemption. Government new clause 20 ignores it altogether. The Minister has said that she will review the matter and I hope that she will, but we are here today to consider what has been offered.

Historical re-enactment is another matter on which I have received dozens of representations. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) has said that he has serious concerns on the question, and the Minister said that regulations would be introduced—but again, that will be after we have dealt with the Bill. We have no idea what is intended, and hundreds of thousands of re-enactors are concerned about what will happen to their activity.

The Government have attempted to exclude historical re-enactors from the section 30 offence, but there is concern that that approach will not work as intended, not least because the definition of historical re-enactment is inadequate. The definition of historical re-enactments in new clause 20(6) reflects a stereotyped and outdated understanding of historical re-enactments and once again reveals the Government’s inadequate consultation. Would that narrow definition assist somebody acquiring an imitation firearm for the purpose of giving a costumed talk to schoolchildren on, say, the role of the Home Guard during the second world war? I think that that was the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso).

A costumed talk or lecture is not a re-enactment of an historical event, so might not fall within the definition. Would a fictionalised adaptation of an actual historical event fall within the definition? The Sealed Knot society does not re-enact historical battles blow by blow. Will that be taken on board? For those reasons, we have included an exemption for educators, colleges and schools in paragraph (g) of amendment No. 264 as well as providing exemption for cultural or theatrical purposes in amendment No. 265.

In addition, defining qualifying historical enactments by reference to the organisers’ identities is fraught with difficulty. We struggle to see how it will be possible to compile an exhaustive list of recognised persons or bodies. As one anxious re-enactor, my constituent Mr. Stephen Lloyd of Huntingdon, has told me,

“historical weapons ... are invariably very expensive (hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds) and so are entirely different from the cheap (tens of pounds) replicas causing the majority of crimes”.

The Desert Raiders Association, a group specialising in world war two special forces re-enactments, writes that

“the vast majority of weapons used by groups such as ours are so old and unwieldy that they would make the most unsuitable weapons for modern violent crime”.

Indeed it is difficult to imagine criminals making use of the group’s collection of historic heavy machine guns, anti-aircraft cannon and anti-tank guns. That might sound amusing, but we believe that such groups should be exempted from the possibility of committing a criminal offence in the first place.

Members of the Desert Raiders Association fear that their current living history educational activities—

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

In the unlikely scenario that somebody were holding an imitation gun to your head, would your first question be, “How much did that gun cost?”

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. May I remind hon. Members that they should not use the personal, but should stick to the traditional form of address in Committee.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I just want to make the point that if a criminal could afford to spend £1,000 on a realistic imitation gun, he would spend that money on a much more effective real gun.

Members of the Desert Raiders Association fear that their current living history educational activities at public shows will be badly affected. If resale of private collections becomes illegal and the UK market effectively ceases to operate, it might even become impossible for such groups and private collectors to insure their valuable

weapons. Those individuals accepted and endorsed the objective of reducing violent crime, but did not believe that this was the right way to do so. As another re-enactor, Mr Mick Wilson, wrote,

“I can understand you need to lower gun crime, but I have never heard of ... a WW2 Thompson sub-machine gun used in a crime. We have recently bought a de-activated 1942 Bofors Anti-Aircraft gun, which is on four wheels and weighs two and a half tonnes ... is this a likely criminal weapon?”

Amendment No. 264 would expressly exempt such large weapons.

Paul Wisken has written to me expressing concern that training events for re-enactments, which are not performed before an audience, should also be excluded from the clause 30 offence. Those are similar to rehearsals for theatrical performance. Will the Minister confirm that such rehearsals are covered by the defence in new clause 20?

Similarly, new clause 20 refers to the re-enactment of historical events. Does it refer only to set piece re-enactments of events such as battles, or more broadly to all historical periods and living history? Similarly, there is considerable concern from owners of historic collections, such as the Cobbaton combat collection in Devon, a privately owned and operated museum containing the largest collection of 20th century militaria in the south-west. The owner, Mr Preston Isaac, wrote that his collection might become worthless, raising concerns for the survival and future development of public and private collections. British collections of historic weaponry are, says Mr. Isaac, the “envy of the world” and it would be a tragedy to see historic weapons taken abroad to be sold at market prices, never to be seen in this country again. He continues,

“Equally, there are many historic armoured vehicles awaiting or undergoing restoration, often with main armaments missing. Manufacturers of replica gun barrels, for example, which a museum such as this needs to restore an historic tank, might face prosecution”.

I appreciate that new clause 20 provides a defence for a museum or gallery that does not distribute any profits, but we do not consider it to be wide enough.

Another example is the military collection at Muckleburgh, which was founded in 1988 and based on an historic military site and world war two camp. It houses a large collection of tanks, guns and vehicles and, since it opened, has been visited by more than 1 million tourists, including children and veterans. It has even been used as the site for films and documentaries, as well as for lectures and training. Will such private collections fall within the defence provided in new clause 20? If not, will she consider creating an exemption for such collections?

Lieutenant-Colonel Mark Whyte, director of special operations at Pilgrims Security Services, has written to us to express concern that the new clause would restrict the company’s ability to use blank firing handguns and/or soft fire air weapons during its hostile environment training courses for media personnel and its specialist counter-terrorism training courses. Its use of such weapons is restricted to military training areas, the use of which is licensed on each occasion through appropriate Ministry of Defence channels and is delivered by former military and police instructors with due regard to the highest standards of safety.

One begins to see the true potential, and perhaps unintended, impact of the new clause when one reads letters such as this, which express grave and legitimate concerns. I accept that there will now be a defence for some of these activities, but that is not enough. Moreover, the defences do not cover all the activities that I have mentioned.

The list that we have proposed in amendment No. 264 is far broader than the defences that the Government have suggested, and it provides for outright exemption rather than a mere defence. I believe that all deactivated weapons are now excluded from the definition of a realistic imitation firearm, but will the Minister confirm that?

Paragraph (d) of amendment No. 264 refers to large machine guns, armoured vehicles and machine guns. These are hardly the sort of weapons used in violent crime, and they should be exempted. They are often historical weapons that pose no threat, but may not be deactivated. It is reasonable that members of the public and not only museums should be able to continue to own and use them.

Paragraph (e) proposes the exemption of realistic imitations that are used in security dog training and security guard training. Such training seems to be an obvious exemption, so will the Minister explain how those uses will be protected? Paragraph (f) would exempt imitation firearms that are used in hunt dog training. These firearms are used for a safe and constructive purpose, and again are not the sort of weapons used by criminals.

Paragraph (g) emphasises the need for an exemption for educational purposes. Paragraph (i) exempts starting guns used at sporting events. Paragraph (j) exempts imitations used in airsoft. Paragraph (k) covers theatre and cinema, which are covered by the defence, but we also seek exemption for castles and historic houses, as well as sporting events. The very large number of people involved in those activities deserve to be exempted and not merely offered a defence against the crime.

For the sake of certainty, paragraph (l) would exempt parts of the imitation weapons that I mentioned, although the Minister has already addressed that. Paragraph (m) seeks exemption for the specialist suppliers and armourers of the weapons that I have mentioned.

The Home Office’s regulatory impact assessment on imitation firearms states:

“There is an extensive range of offences in place to deal with incidents involving the misuse of imitation firearms. These measures are starting to have some impact and a total of 2,766 offenders were charged, cautioned or convicted in 2004 for the offences under”

the relevant sections. This is another clear example of the Government ignoring their own advice. Hon. Members might now be asking themselves on what basis the Government drafted the Bill and where these clauses came from. The Bill does not seem to have come from the consultation or from the advice that they have been giving people.

The figures obviously suggest that we should enforce existing laws and realise the impact of recent law changes before rushing into yet further legislation that will only affect hundreds of thousands of businesses and people pursuing their hobbies. Surely that would be a far more measured and reasoned approach than pushing the new clause through, with all its restrictions on imitations, without first showing the impact of existing measures that the Government put in place only two years ago.

The exemption for antiques is consistent with the Firearms Act 1968—indeed, it is desirable considering the high value of some antiques and the extensive collections throughout the country. I commend the Government for finally realising that, and am pleased that antiques will not be considered to be realistic imitation firearms, although I have asked the Minister to clarify what is covered by the term antiques.

Amendment No. 270 is necessary because the clause does not clarify whether firing replicas—working replicas such as black-powder muskets—are excluded. The Minister asked what exactly I was getting at: that is it. Black powder is the propellant that most period muskets use, and is often used for historical re-enactment, theatre and cinema, as are imitations of antiques. I urge the Government to exclude imitations of antique firearms from the definition of a realistic imitation firearm. Most 15th to 20th-century living history societies use modern replicas of muskets, or similar, because the originals are unobtainable or too precious to use. It would probably be assumed that firing weapons are excluded, but the Bill does not say so. The amendment serves to clarify the definition and to provide an exemption for antique-looking firearms that fire with black powder.

I ask the Minister again: why go for the defence option, rather than the exemption option outright? We still believe that the list of exemptions, or defences, is too limited, which is why we intend to press the amendment to a vote.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about his amendments, some of which I have considerable sympathy with, and to the Minister’s comments. There is a principle behind what we are trying to do. We recognise that we have a serious problem with gun crime in this country, which, unfortunately, occurs more in urban areas than rural settings. It is difficult to work out how best to address the problem and get the right balance between stopping those things that are clearly a cause of crime and prohibiting legitimate activities that are justifiably pursued by people. That brings us to the issue of imitation, deactivated and similar weapons.

I shall touch first on the issue of airsoft. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) received a briefing from people who practise airsoft, and I understand that they are happy to have their weapons painted pink in order to continue pursuing that hobby. Less helpfully, however, she has also discovered problems with that approach: apparently, in America, criminals have started painting their weapons orange to counteract it. I am not sure if that is a serious problem. Clearly, there may be a solution there. I am well aware that the Minister has considered airsoft; I hope that there is a way around the problems and that it can continue.

The final point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) about antique weapons and black powder is a valid one. I hope that the Minister will consider antique and imitation antique firearms, which are clearly different. I suspect that a muzzle-loading period piece is not the first weapon that an aspiring street criminal would seek to obtain. I submit that the real problem is with pistols and smaller personal machine guns, such as the Uzi or Heckler and Koch.

There is one thing that the Bill does not tackle, and it was not tackled in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 or the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, which were enacted just before and just after the 1997 general election. That is the glorification of guns and gun crime by the media. While films and television productions consistently portray death and injury as not terribly worrying and consistently portray the use of weapons as something that the average macho man should do, I believe that they will add to the culture of glorifying the gun. Somewhere along the line, I hope that the Government will tackle that.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

The Bill is rightly designed to address the criminal use of firearms and imitation firearms and to limit their use, as so eloquently described by many Labour Members. Should not the Government bear the burden of proof by demonstrating that some of the weapons, particularly those described in amendment No. 264, have contributed to criminal behaviour? Is she aware of any rash of criminal behaviour that involved starting pistols or the sort of weapons used in hunt dog training, or the many other examples contained in the amendment? If she is not aware of such instances, is it not appropriate that those weapons should be excluded from the ambit of the criminal law?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I shall deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon—why a defence and not an exemption? I hoped that my fairly rapid description of the general criminal law had addressed that point, but I am sure that he will have the opportunity to consider the matter in more detail.

People simply have to raise the fact that they could fall within one of the defences, and if they raise that fact, it comes before the court. It is then the duty of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it does not apply. That is a long-established and accepted way of drafting legislation. Those who have a defence are not put to an undue standard of proof, or the burden on them is that they have to prove their defence beyond reasonable doubt. It simply raises the fact that they could have access to a defence. It is then a matter for the prosecution to prove all elements of that prosecution.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

Does the Minister accept that the benefit of an exemption is that it would remove the need to got to court? Given the state of the judicial system, that might be welcome.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, but someone may seek to raise a spurious defence. It is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction and whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution. At that point, the person may say that he wants to raise a defence. The case will then be litigated in the normal manner. If someone falls within one of the definitions, there would be no prospect of a conviction and it would not be in the public interest to bring a prosecution. Innocent people will not be charged with offences and find themselves in court. I think that there are sufficient checks and balances in the system to ensure that that is not the case. I assure the Committee that the Bill is not drafted differently from similar legislation but simply sets out the defences that might be available.

The hon. Members for Huntingdon and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) spoke about antique imitation weapons. If you have a real antique that fires, it is a firearm. That is not covered by the Bill but is dealt with in firearms legislation and would need a certificate and so on. An antique imitation from before 1870 will not be caught by the Bill. We are talking about realistic imitations of modern weapons. That is what we want to deal with, and the cut-off point is 1870.

As for hunting dogs and blank-firing pistols, I have seen the guns that are used and they are realistic imitations. I see no reason why those guns could not be painted or made in a different way so that they no longer fell within the definition of a realistic imitation. I do not know why it is necessary for a gun that is used to train a dog to collect its quarry, or a gun used to start a race, to be a realistic imitation firearm. The same noise can be made with a gun that is red, transparent or of a different manufacture. I see no problem about that.

Jim Sheridan (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North)

Will the Minister advise the Committee whether she has any information about how the imitation weapons in question are transported from one event to another? Does she understand the confusion and panic that would be caused if someone were to walk through King’s Cross station with an imitation shotgun? What advice would the police be given about dealing with someone with an imitation weapon at King’s Cross station?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Clearly, having imitation weapons without lawful authority or good excuse has been made an offence under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. We shall later debate amendments that would increase the penalty for such behaviour. As my hon. Friend said, that could cause alarm and distress to the public, and it is right that it should be possible to prosecute someone for doing it.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked whether there had been consultation with manufacturers or with television and film companies, and I confirm that there were extensive discussions with the gun trade associations and the armourers who supply television and film companies. They have been aware of the proposals as they have been developed over the past few months.

If black-powder weapons were real firearms, they would need a certificate. If they were antique imitations, they would not be included in the provisions.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am afraid that I cannot recall what item of legislation is relevant, but I believe—I stand to be corrected—that black-powder weapons are treated differently under the firearms legislation.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The hon. Gentleman may have the better of me, but my advice from my officials is that those are real firearms and therefore would not come within the definition of realistic imitation firearms. I undertake to check that aspect in more detail and return to the Committee, but that is my information at present, and as the hon. Gentleman does not have any more detail either, I am in some difficulty.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I believe that the relevant legislation relates to muzzle-loading weapons, which include all black-powder weapons.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am not aware of the detail of that legislation, or whether it takes the weapons concerned out of the ambit of the provisions affecting real firearms. Are the hon. Gentlemen telling me that muzzle-loading black-powder firearms are not real firearms?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Correct.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am in some difficulty, as I am being advised that they are firearms. Perhaps I should undertake to carry out some research to resolve that dispute.

The point that I wanted to make is that antique imitations are excluded. If it turns out that I am correct about whether the relevant guns are firearms, those imitations will be excluded.

I understand hon. Members’ concerns, and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is right to say that we must get the right balance. That is what I want to do. I shall be pleased if the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green has received indications from airsoft players that they would be prepared to adapt their weapons so that they no longer fall within the definition of realistic imitations. That would be significant progress, because I do not want to stop people taking part in airsoft. They enjoy it, and it is great exercise. I have no doubt that it is very good for team-building, morale and motivation. I do not want to stop it, but I do want to stop people getting access to realistic imitation weapons that may be used in those activities.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Can the Minister give the Committee an idea of when airsoft users will know what they have to do to their weapons to make them non-realistic?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The amendments that we have already passed relate to colour, transparency and size. We have said that we will put in the regulations some more clarification of the kind of colour, with references to British standard numbers rather than to red, yellow or green, which could be subject to interpretation. The amendments would put colour, size and transparency on the face of the Bill.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Will the regulations appear in draft form before the Bill goes to be reviewed by their noble Lordships?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. We are endeavouring to work on the regulations as quickly as we can, and I have tried throughout this Bill—during discussion of the alcohol provisions as well—to give members of the Committee extensive indications of the factors that we are considering, but the regulations will clearly not be available at the time mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

We are trying to get the balance right. There is a real mischief. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) acknowledged that there is a problem. He has asked for information about whether blank starting pistols or pistols for gun dogs have been involved in particular crimes. I do not have the evidence to supply him with in detail, but I understand that those guns could be converted to fire live ammunition and could be involved not only in imitation crimes but in crimes involving real ammunition. I am concerned about such guns, and no one has yet given me any information to convince me why they cannot be bright red, transparent or of some description that does not make them look like realistic imitation firearms. I am yet to be convinced on that point and ask hon. Members not to press the amendments.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I was pleased by the Minister’s clarification on antique imitations, although not particularly happy with the answer. Second world war re-enactors who have non-deactivated guns will also probably not be happy. I still do not see how a non-deactivated heavy duty machine gun could be used in a violent crime.

The defence or exemption argument is something that we will have to come back to. We will want to review that later, although I want to point out that the Minister has excluded certain items, such as deactivated guns. We wish to make the point that large numbers of people are still being ignored, not only in the clause but following the Government’s amendments. They will probably be more concerned now than they were before the Government amendments were added, and on that basis we will later ask the Committee to vote on amendment No. 264.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 54, in clause 30, page 32, line 17, at end insert—

‘(c)provide that the manufacture, modification or sale of an item for the purpose of display for educational or cultural purposes shall be exempt from the provisions of subsection (1)(c).’.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 265, in clause 30, page 32, line 17, at end insert—

‘(c)provide that the manufacture, modification, sale or bringing into the United Kingdom of a realistic imitation firearm or component part for the purpose of display only for educational, cultural or theatrical purposes shall be exempt from the offence under subsection (1); and

(d)provide that the manufacture, modification, sale or bringing into the United Kingdom of a realistic imitation firearm or component part for the purposes listed in Schedule () be exempt from the offence under subsection (1).’.

No. 308, in clause 30, page 33, line 14, at end insert—

‘(10)It shall be a defence for any person charged in respect of any conduct of his relating to an imitation firearm to which this section applies—

(a)with an offence under subsection (1) above; or

(b)with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (improper importation),

to prove that the conduct in question was for the purposes of making the imitation firearm available to a museum or gallery.

(11)In this section “museum or gallery” includes any institution which has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the preservation, display and interpretation of material of historical, artistic or scientific interest and gives the public access to it.

(12)It shall be a defence for any person charged in respect of any conduct of his relating to an imitation firearm to which this section applies—

(a)with an offence under subsection (1) above; or

(b)with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979,

to prove that his conduct was for the purposes of making available an imitation firearm to persons in the service of Her Majesty for the purposes of ceremonial functions carried out by the authority of a Royal Warrant.

(13)It shall be a defence for any person charged in respect of any conduct of his relating to an imitation firearm to which this section applies—

(a)with an offence under subsection (1) above; or

(b)with an offence under section 50(2) or (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979,

to prove that his conduct was for the purposes of making the imitation firearm available to persons—

(c)taking part in a theatrical performance or in a rehearsal for such a performance, or

(d)taking part in the production of a cinematograph or television film or a wireless telegraphic broadcast, or

(e)taking part in a historical re-enactment or the commemoration of historical events.’.

Amendment No. 308, which was suggested by the Corporation of London, highlights the potentially harmful effects of the clause on museums, the arts community and certain military-related activities. Government new clause 20 went some way towards addressing the point of the amendment, but concern remains in relation to certain military-related activities.

Subsection (12) of the amendment is intended to address the concern that subsection (1) of the clause could jeopardise certain quasi-military interests. One example is the Company of Pikemen and Musketeers. The company is governed by the terms of a royal warrant, which is essentially an Order in Council granted to it by the Queen in 1955. In addition to undertaking various City duties, most notably in escorting the lord mayor, the company takes part in events such as the royal tournament and the festival of remembrance. The company has a large reserve of replica weapons that lend its activities a sense of occasion and drama. Clearly, this is a legitimate interest that we support and that deserves the protection of the amendment or of inclusion in the defence under new clause 20.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The issue of replica weapons for the purpose of ceremonial functions is new to me. We have tried to bring forward exceptions and amendments to meet all the issues that have been discussed with us, but this one was not raised with me when we considered representations. As it is a new issue, and as it appears that the pikemen and musketeers play a role that is very much welcomed by the City of London, I undertake to consider the matter. It is not my intention to outlaw perfectly legitimate uses of imitation weapons, and if we are talking about a properly controlled situation, and one that people find useful, I certainly undertake to consider it. I ask the hon. Member for Huntingdon to withdraw the amendment on the basis that I will consider it.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

While the Minister is considering that, will she also consider the case of the Atholl Highlanders? I am not certain whether, as the only private army in the United Kingdom, it is considered a serving unit of the British Army. Is it covered by the legislation?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

If the weapons that the Atholl Highlanders use are capable of firing live ammunition, they are real guns, and so will not be caught by the legislation, and imitations from before 1870 will not be caught, either. What we are talking about are imitations post-1870. If the weapons used by either the Company of Pikemen and Musketeers or the Atholl Highlanders are from before 1870, they do not fall within the provisions of the Bill.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I can perhaps help the Minister. The Atholl Highlanders is a regiment of the British Army, but a private army. Queen Victoria, having visited Blair castle, granted the Duke of Atholl the right to raise a private army. As such, during both wars, the Atholl Highlanders saw honourable service, but parade only ceremonially now. Usually, they have the old Lee-Enfield .303 from the last war as their arms. I am concerned that, inadvertently, they might have fallen between two stools. I think that they are probably covered by being part of the Army, but as they are a private army I would be grateful if the Minister could make sure.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for yet more erudite elucidation of the issues. I presume that the Lee-Enfields that they use are real weapons.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Yes.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

In which case the Atholl Highlanders will be covered under the real weapons legislation and not under the Bill, because we are talking about firearms. If the weapons were imitation Lee-Enfields, we might be in territory in which I would have to consider the matter even further. I am sure that the army to which the hon. Gentleman refers is well equipped with its weapons. In protecting the good people of the area, it no doubt provides a sterling service—

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Stirling is somewhere else.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

It seems Stirling is in a different place, but I have no idea where Atholl is and shall have to look at a map.

If there is an issue around ceremonial events, I undertake to look at that further, and to see if we need to come back with any more amendments.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

On the basis of the Minister’s helpful response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

The debate has been dominated by the interests of hobbyists, businessmen and historical re-enactors. Therefore, it would not be right to let the debate pass without putting on the record the policy context of this important clause.

Although, in common with other Committee members, I have received dozens upon dozens of letters from business people, hobbyists and historical re-enactors, I have not of course received any letters from the thousands of my constituents who have woken up on a Monday morning to see the police incident boards that tell them that yet another shooting has taken place at the end of their road. I have not received any letters from the people who have been injured by drive-by shootings or by accidental shootings at nightclubs and parties. I have not received any letters from mothers who every Saturday night cannot sleep until they know that their children have returned safely from such parties or nightclubs. Above all, I have not received any letters from those mothers and parents from Hackney—and from communities throughout the country—who have had to do what a parent should never have to do, which is to bury their child who has been killed as a consequence of gun crime. It is to speak to those letters unwritten, and those issues untouched on by Opposition Members, that I rise to speak.

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

Does the hon. Lady accept that it must be possible to draft legislation that deals with the perfectly legitimate concerns she is raising, yet also protects the legitimate interests of those people mentioned by Opposition Members?

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

Of course I do. I think the Government are genuinely trying to do that in their amendments. Until now, the debate has been one-sided, and the hon. Gentleman must accept that on behalf of my constituents and of people who live in Harlesden, Manchester and Birmingham. It would be wrong not to put on the record the concerns of all the people throughout the country who have suffered from gun crime and to put the clause into some sort of context.

The first thing to say is that we as a Government and a society have come a long way on gun crime. It may be a new issue to some Committee members, but it has been an issue in Hackney for 10 or 15 years. I well remember a new chief superintendent in Stoke Newington coming to ask me about what issues he should take up. When I said to him that as a black person, mother and member of the community, I was concerned by the increasing number of anecdotes about young people who went out for a night’s clubbing with a gun as a style accessory and about young people not necessarily firing guns, but showing them as part of their interaction as gang members, that chief superintendent said to me, “Well, they are not using them on my men, so it’s not my problem, is it?”

I am sorry to say that there was a time when the assumption was that because black people were shooting other black people—as some policemen used to put it, “bad on bad”—gun crime was not of wider concern. However, I am glad to say that the Metropolitan police has moved on and I commend the work of Trident and policemen up and down the country. I am glad to say that the Government have moved on; I commend them for their efforts to raise the penalties for carrying a gun and for this important clause, which will make imitations illegal.

I have heard much from Opposition Members about historical re-enactments, and I have nothing against hobbyists. However, let me remind Opposition Members of the views of the police. For some time, the Police Federation has been of the opinion that a complete ban on imitations must be part of any serious war against gun crime. Let me cite what was said at the Association of Chief Police Officers annual conference in Birmingham. Deputy chief constable Alan Green said that the problem of imitations must not be ignored. He went on to say,

“I feel the service is going to be in the dock for having shot some young person ... The threat from imitation firearms isn’t that of slight injuries to young people, it is that you are likely to shoot someone at the age of 13 in the not too distant future. The service will then have to answer some serious questions about what we’ve done to tackle gun crime.”

Given that the policemen at the sharp end of the fight against gun crime are so clear about the importance of banning imitations and so insistent about the problems that imitations bring—when faced with a gun, they do not know whether it is imitation or real and fear that children might be shot—I am surprised that Opposition Members take the issue so lightly.

Mark Prisk (Conservative, Hertford and Stortford)

The hon. Lady is making a powerful and passionate presentation, and rightly so. This issue is crucial and the former attitude of the police that she described was disgraceful. I share her pleasure in seeing that it has changed. However, does she not accept that at the heart of this issue—whether we are talking about imitations or other things—is the culture that underlies it, and that the guns are merely totemic of that?

Diane Abbott (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington)

That opinion is comfortable for people who want to protect the interests of those who shoot for fun—hobbyists or whoever. However, there is no question but that, serious as the gun crime problem is in this country, it makes up only a fraction of that in the United States because we have much stricter, firmer regulations on the use and possession of guns.

What we do about the availability of guns—legal or illegal—the imitations and the hardware has a bearing on the number of people caught up in violent incidents and, ultimately, shot. This is not the time nor the place to talk about the gun culture of some of the young people walking the streets of our city, but I tell the hon. Gentleman this: what was described in the past as a black youth culture approach to gun crime is bleeding—I use the metaphor advisedly—out to other communities.

In Hackney, there are issues with Turkish gun crime, and in the west midlands, Asian youngsters have guns, so let us not talk only about youth culture, but turn again to the hardware. The problem in London is that more than half the weapons seized by the police are converted replicas. I do not want to inconvenience people who want to dress up as cavaliers or world war two soldiers, but that problem is why the amendment has been tabled.

Opposition Members will say, “But the weapons are replicas after all, so what harm can they do?” Well, as I said earlier, the amount of criminal offences involving imitation firearms has rocketed by 66 per cent. The most important fact, and why the police are concerned, is that it is almost impossible to distinguish many imitation weapons from real weapons. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green explained about her work at the Metropolitan Police Authority and said how, when she saw guns—imitation and real—side by side, she could not tell the difference. How is a policeman to tell?

One reason why the police have campaigned on the issue for so long—apparently unheard by Opposition Members—is that they are frightened. When they are called to an incident at which there is a young man with a gun in his hand, how are they to know whether it is real or imitation? We have heard the public furore on all sides of the political debate about the unfortunate shooting of the Brazilian at Stockwell. What would the public say if a 13-year-old was shot because he was carrying an imitation gun that looked too much like a real weapon?

Replica guns are responsible for a substantial proportion of United Kingdom gun crimes. Many of the guns are converted readily at low cost into lethal weapons. We believe that stemming the flow of imitation and replica firearms could have a positive impact on reducing the number of people who die or are injured by firearms. Replica guns put policemen under pressure. It costs thousands of pounds each month for armed policeman to be called out to incidents when it turns out that the gun involved was only a replica. Moreover, the wide availability of replica weapons strengthens the argument for the police to be armed routinely, which neither the police nor I want. It would simply escalate issues on the ground in the communities.

Reference has been made to toys. I do not think children should be using guns as toys. I shall refer to an incident that happened last week: four handguns—two of which were loaded—and a pump-action shotgun, and more than 60 rounds of ammunition, were found hidden in a children’s bedroom. That is the sort of culture that I want to stamp out in my community. Children should not be inducted into the gun culture by being encouraged or allowed to have imitation weapons. An early interest in guns, which may take the form of imitation guns, might lead young people into the illegal market of real handguns. Those guns are currently being carried as a fashion accessory, and failure to ban imitation guns would send out completely the wrong message.

It is inevitable in such a Committee that we deal with detail. It is the proper role of Opposition Members to query Ministers about details and to tease out the thinking behind those details. However, it would be wrong for a Member of Parliament who represented an area such as mine, which has one of the highest levels of death by guns and one of the highest levels of gun crime in the country, not to draw the Committee’s attention from the detail to the reality that the clause is designed to address. I have campaigned for a long time for a ban on imitation guns, and I welcome the clause. I certainly believe that it should stand part of the Bill.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made a moving and thoughtful speech. It is proper to recognise that she has contributed greatly to the debate on gun crime and that she has, indeed, spoken out against it. However, that is not an adequate reason to pass bad law, and we have great worries about the clause.

Following Dunblane, the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 and the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2.) Act 1997 generally prohibited handguns of .22 calibre or above. The latest available firearms statistics that I have seen relate to the year ending December 2004. As for the type of weapons used, handguns accounted for the majority of offences. Since they were banned, their use in crime has doubled in less than four years, while the use of rifles and shotguns in crime has remained fairly constant in absolute terms and has fallen as a proportion of all crime involving firearms.

The only effect of banning handguns was to deprive law-abiding citizens of their sport. It did not reduce the number of firearms used in violent crime. The opposite happened. Following the ban, more guns were used. We believe that enactment of the clause may only repeat the mistakes of the past. As almost every interested party has pointed out to us, it will further restrict the rights of millions of law-abiding citizens to pursue their hobbies and sports, while doing little to address the issue of guns being used in violent crime. I must say to the hon. Lady that I have not received one letter in support of the clause. Even if we accepted the premise of the clause, and even after the mishmash of amendments proposed by the Government only last week, we still believe it to be poorly drafted and, frankly, unworkable.

Let us consider the legislation that exists at the moment. There are three main controls in law on the misuse of imitation firearms. The first is section 1 of the Firearms Act 1982, which provides for an imitation firearm to be treated as a real firearm in law if:

“(a)it has the appearance of being a firearm to which section 1 of the 1968 Act ... applies; and

(b)it is so constructed or adapted as to be readily convertible into a firearm to which that section applies.”

That law was introduced principally to prevent the sale of blank-firing imitation firearms of the kind that could be converted to fire live ammunition by fairly simple changes. The second main control is through the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1994. That creates a criminal offence of possessing a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to cause fear or unlawful violence. The measure was intended to allow the police to deal with the misuse of imitations as a threat by criminals.

Several sections in the Firearms Act 1968, aiming at the prevention of crime and the preservation of public safety, also deal with the misuse of imitations. For example, under section 17, it is an offence to make use of a firearm or an imitation firearm with intent to resist or prevent arrest. Furthermore, a person found in possession of an imitation when arrested for certain specified offences is guilty of an offence unless he can show that he had it for a lawful object. Under section 18:

“It is an offence for a person to have with him a firearm or imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, or to resist arrest or prevent the arrest of another”.

Section 20, on trespassing with a firearm, also applies to an imitation firearm by virtue of section 2(1) of the 1994 Act.

The third main control is through section 19 of the 1968 Act, which was amended by section 37 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 to create a new arrestable offence of possessing an imitation weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The aim was not to interfere unduly with the legitimate use of imitations, but to allow the police to deal with those who were either misusing them or carrying them around in suspicious circumstances.

As the Home Office regulatory impact assessment points out, the current definition of an imitation firearm in section 57 of the 1968 Act is wide-ranging, and could include exact metal replicas designed as collectors’ items, soft airguns designed to fire plastic pellets with very low muzzle energy, some children’s toys and, probably, antiques. The RIA says that the definition works in practice by virtue of the fact that it is subject to a qualifier relating either to design—that is, to whether the imitation is readily convertible—or to misuse; that is, to whether it is possessed to cause fear of unlawful violence. The Home Office RIA on imitation firearms says that that is a workable definition because of the existing legislation.

The Bill removes the qualifiers that make the definition workable. No qualifiers means that the definition becomes unworkable. We can pass as many laws as we like, but ultimately the question must be one of enforcement. The Home Office RIA says that a total ban on the possession of imitation firearms

“would make new imitation firearms unavailable and would significantly reduce the existing stock. However, it is likely that given the large number of imitations already sold, without any records being kept, many would remain in circulation.”

The Government again seem to be ignoring their own advice. Hon. Members should keep in mind the figures that I have quoted. When the RIA talks about large numbers, we are talking about some 30 million imitation firearms in the UK, excluding toys, of which there are another 30 million to 50 million.

The RIA goes on to say that a ban on the possession of imitation firearms would create the biggest burden for business. Excluding toys, sales are estimated at £30 million to £40 million. There would be additional costs to the police and prosecution authorities in pursuing offenders.

Another anomaly created by the clause is that although import, sale or modification of imitation firearms would be banned, ownership would not be. However, there would continue to be no requirement for a record of ownership, thus making illegal transfer between people absurdly easy. That demonstrates once again that only the law-abiding will be affected by the Bill. The clause is fraught with difficulty and has the potential to produce serious unintended consequences. As the save airsoft campaign petition notes:

“The proposed revisions to the Firearms Acts specifically relating to ’realistic imitation firearms’ are merely more draconian measures that promise the unbelievable, unfairly trample upon minorities and further erode our civil rights. The proposal that making it illegal for responsible people to own replicas will deter the criminal fraternity is pure nonsense.”

There are three key issues that the Committee should consider. First, in practice, “imitation” could mean anything. We discussed that matter earlier in the debate, including the case of the individual who held up a bank with a banana in a paper bag.

Secondly, there are 30 million realistic imitation weapons in circulation, the vast majority of which are owned, used or collected by honest individuals. The argument that millions should suffer for the sake of a handful of criminals is one that should be examined carefully.

Thirdly, will the clause work? We say that it will not. Handguns were banned, but they are now used more than ever before. The existing laws that I have mentioned are better than the one that we are considering, but they are not being adequately enforced. Airsoft replicas retail at hundreds of pounds—much more than the cost of a real handgun. With 30 million imitation weapons in circulation, we suggest that the only way of addressing the situation that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington mentioned would be to have a total ban on replicas. I would not have agreed with such a ban, and would have argued against it, but it would have given us the basis for a more rational debate. The hon. Lady did not support a total ban; she supports the Government’s clause, which will not work for the reasons that I have given. We shall vote against the clause.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. There is much in what he said with which I agree. There are severe problems with the clause. The discussions that we have had on a number of the issues have shown that there is room for the clause to be developed. As it stands, it is by no means ideal.

However, having had the privilege of starting my parliamentary career in another place, and being on a downward trajectory, I am somewhat more sanguine about the process of legislation, as I know the work that will be done in the other place. I believe that the message that we should send to the other place is not that the clause should be struck down, but that it should be amended so that it becomes more workable. I could not support the hon. Gentleman in his previous amendment because I felt that there was too much in it: it opened up the clause too much.

If the hon. Gentleman were to press the present amendment to a vote, we would support the Government, not because we think that this is the best clause since sliced bread—we certainly do not—but because we think that the overarching issue is of such importance that the message to their Lordships should be “The clause stays, but please amend it as much as you can.”

Stewart Hosie (Scottish National Party, Dundee East)

The hon. Member for Huntingdon made a number of points, but I fear that he overstated his case. He mentioned Dunblane, and suggested that handgun crime had increased. The raw statistics in the UK may indicate that, but there is no universal trend. After the 1997 Acts came into force, 6,500 large-calibre handguns, 1,700 small-calibre handguns and some 144,000 rounds of ammunition were surrendered in Scotland. Where that legislation was taken to heart, it was extremely successful. As I pointed out earlier, the number of handgun crimes in Scotland is incredibly small.

I associate myself with the statement made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. The gun crime that she described is worrying and real, and anything that can be done in the Bill should be done, because I do not want the handgun crime that occurs in Hackney and elsewhere to spread to my constituency and other parts of the country, where there is little or no such crime at present.

Much of what the Government are doing in the clause about imitations is quite right, not least because many such weapons can be changed to fire live rounds, and action must be taken to prevent that wherever possible. However, I agree that the clause is not perfect and I am sure that the Minister will give us some comfort that some of the issues that have been raised on both sides of the Committee will be properly addressed.

Although this is a serious debate, I make one plea as regards re-enactments. The Minister suggested that proper, real re-enactment societies would be safe and would be covered by the exemptions or the criminal defence provided. However, I ask her and her Department to consider seriously people who do spoof re-enactments as shows. I know one or two people who do this at birthday parties and other events as a business. These are not real or proper re-enactments, but people nevertheless dress up in period costumes and sometimes have the accoutrements. I ask the Minister to consider that as a point of principle.

We have all had a great deal of correspondence about airsoft, and people have visited our constituency offices. This lunch time, I had an e-mail from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil), in the Western Isles. He had just noticed that the Committee was sitting and asked that we please keep the airsoft club there open. I make that pitch on behalf of my hon. Friend.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

This has been a very interesting debate, with contributions from a range of Members. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, who set out in graphic, real terms, which drew on her own experience, the problem at which the Bill is aimed. There is no better illustration of the problem that we face.

I hope that the hon. Member for Huntingdon and other Opposition Members accept—the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has done so before—that there is a real problem out there and that we are doing our best to draft legislation that targets that mischief, but which, at the same time, is not so broad as to bring within its ambit people who are genuinely going about their business, whether it involves historical re-enactments, TV and film, or museums and cultural displays. That is not what the Bill is aimed at: it is aimed at people with realistic imitations that could be used to frighten and threaten others and to cause them the distress and anxiety that we have discussed. Last year, there were 3,268 offences involving imitation weapons, so there is clearly a significant problem. Although the majority of such offences are concentrated in our big cities, the issue concerns us all, irrespective of what kind of constituency we represent.

I agree with hon. Members that banning realistic imitations will not of itself ensure that we do away with the gun crime problem in this country; it would be absurd of me to suggest otherwise. However, the Bill is an additional measure, which will help us and give the police extra tools to tackle the problem. All the examples given by the hon. Member for Huntingdon related to the use of realistic imitations, but the Bill is about banning their manufacture, supply and import so that we can reduce the supply of those weapons; it is not directed at their use.

I do not pretend that the clause is perfect and I have undertaken to consider a number of issues further to see whether we can introduce measures. We have the regulation-making power in subsection (2)(b) so that we can look at circumstances in which we might need to consider exemptions and exceptions. When we drafted the Bill, we included a provision saying that there would need to be exceptions and exemptions and that we would, of course, come forward with them; we did not introduce the Bill saying that we could outlaw all realistic imitation weapons for everyone. Indeed, the Home Secretary made it clear on Second Reading that we would consider making exceptions and exemptions. It would be difficult to draft legislation otherwise.

The Committee should not forget that many people, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and for Brent, South (Ms Butler), have been campaigning for a long time, but they have always been told that it is too difficult to draft a definition that does not unduly interfere with the rights of decent, law-abiding people. They were told that it was beyond lawyers to come up with that sort of definition, but we have done it. I do not say that it is a perfect definition, finely crafted, and honed within an inch of its life, and that it will cover every determination. I have no doubt that we will come forward with other words and propositions to tighten the provision and to make it as appropriate as we can. Indeed, we have already undertaken to reconsider ceremonial events.

There is a real problem out there. We have tried to address it by making the legislation as proportionate as we can, but I am determined that we should not allow an increase in the supply of realistic imitation weapons, which all too often are being used by young people in some of our communities. That campaign is supported by the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers, who say that they want to see it happen. That makes it a pretty reasonable thing to do.

I must tell the hon. Member for Huntingdon that although the clause is not perfect in every specific, tiny detail, it is not appropriate to say that we should do nothing. If we took that view as legislators, we would be defeated not only because of the difficulties of technical drafting but because of a lack of political will. We on the Government Benches have the political will—I hope that the Liberal Democrats will join us—to target the mischiefs that unfortunately cause far too many people to live in fear and to feel threatened; those people should have the right to go about their day-to-day business in peace, comfort and tranquillity.

Clause 31 - Specification for imitation firearms

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 297, in clause 31, page 33, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

‘(1)If the Secretary of State is satisfied that any imitation firearm, or type, model or class of imitation firearm, will create a danger to public safety, he may by regulations, made after consulting such persons or bodies appearing to him to represent those trading in, or using, imitation firearms as he shall consider appropriate, prohibit—

(a)the manufacture of such imitation firearms;

(b)the modification of firearms or imitation firearms so that they become such imitation firearms;

(c)the sale of such imitation firearms; and

(d)the bringing into Great Britain of such imitation firearms,

unless the imitation firearms conform to such specifications and conditions as may be set out in the regulations.’.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 277, in clause 31, page 33, line 16, after ‘requiring’, insert ‘realistic’.

No. 278, in clause 31, page 33, line 21, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a realistic’.

No. 279, in clause 31, page 33, line 23, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a realistic’.

No. 280, in clause 31, page 33, line 25, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a realistic’.

No. 281, in clause 31, page 33, line 27, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a realistic’.

No. 282, in clause 31, page 33, line 28, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a realistic’.

No. 283, in clause 31, page 33, line 40, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘a realistic’.

No. 284, in clause 31, page 33, line 42, after ‘of’, insert ‘realistic’.

No. 285, in clause 32, page 34, line 13, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘realistic’.

No. 286, in clause 32, page 34, line 15, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘realistic’.

No. 287, in clause 32, page 34, line 30, in column 2, leave out ‘an’ and insert ‘realistic’.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Amendment No. 297, a probing amendment, was suggested by the British Shooting Sport Council. A realistic imitation firearm is broadly defined as being indistinguishable from a real firearm by someone other than an expert on close examination or as a result of an attempt to load or fire it. The decision about whether something is a mere toy, an imitation firearm or a realistic firearm would depend on the circumstances of the case. Juries are likely to come to different conclusions about identical imitations, resulting in the law becoming vague and unpredictable.

The amendment would provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations prohibiting the manufacture, sale, import and modification of firearms or imitation firearms if he is satisfied that such firearms would create a danger to public safety. It would also amend the clause so that regulations can be made only after consultation with the persons or bodies who represent those trading in or using imitation firearms. The amendment would also remove the unnecessary complication of having to distinguish between realistic imitation firearms and imitation firearms.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 277 to 284 is to make clause 31 consistent with other clauses that relate to realistic imitation firearms. The strict specifications should apply only to imitations that could be thought to be realistic imitation firearms, not non-realistic imitations.

In the RIA that the Home Office published on the amendment to introduce tougher manufacturing standards to ensure that imitation firearms cannot be converted to fire live ammunition, it was acknowledged that it is not possible to make an imitation that cannot be converted by a person of real skill and knowledge. Indeed, it is not possible to prevent such a person from making a gun from scratch. Nevertheless, the Government believe that it is important to introduce much stricter standards to tackle the problem at manufacturer and importer level.

Why are the Government once again ignoring their advice and proceeding with the stricter specifications when they know that the impact on crime would be negligible, while the impact on business would be significant?

Amendments Nos. 285 to 287 are identical consequential amendments that relate to clause 32. The amendments also avoid the possible nonsense of someone under 18 being unable to buy a toy water pistol, or even a potato gun.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Clause 31 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that require imitation firearms to conform to specifications. Those specifications may be set out in regulations or approved by persons in a way set out in the regulations.

A person will be guilty of an offence if he or she manufactures or imports an imitation firearm that does not conform to the specifications. It is also an offence to modify an imitation or real firearm to create an imitation that does not conform to the specifications.

To help the Committee, I shall explain that the provisions are aimed primarily at blank-firing imitations, whether they are realistic or not, and to deactivated firearms. We propose to make regulations that will require any blank-firing imitation to be made with an inclusion that will make it almost impossible to convert it to fire live ammunition. That inclusion is a metal insertion that cannot be drilled out in order to convert the firearm.

The amendments would limit that power, either by linking it to specific imitations that are considered to pose a threat to public safety or by confining it to realistic imitations only. Therefore one could have an unrealistic imitation that could be converted to fire real ammunition. That is a real mischief.

The amendments would defeat the legislation’s purpose. Were they made, an unrealistic imitation that could still be converted would not have to conform to the specifications. To protect the public, we want to ensure that both realistic imitations and non-realistic imitations must conform to those specifications.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

If they apply to non-realistic imitations, presumably toys could be included within the clause’s ambit.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

If unrealistic imitations could be converted to fire live ammunition, that is a mischief at which we are aiming. If a toy could not be converted to fire live ammunition, it would not fall within the definition given.

We also want the provisions to ensure that firearms are deactivated to strict standards. At present, no legal requirement exists for the proof house to approve a firearm that is being deactivated. If the proof house approves the deactivation, that evidence could persuade people that the firearm has been properly deactivated. There is no strict legal requirement, however, to have it deactivated to that very high standard. We want to use the regulations to ensure that when a firearm is deactivated to produce a non-realistic imitation it will not be possible to reactivate it. We want to close a loophole to ensure that firearms are deactivated to a proper standard and are no longer a threat to the public.

The next set of amendments would restrict the offence of purchase by a person under 18 of an imitation firearm to the purchase of realistic imitation firearms. I have some sympathy with the idea that children should be able to buy toy firearms if they are sufficiently non-realistic. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington does not think that children should ever be allowed to buy them or probably even to play with them, and I am sure that some hon. Members will take that view.

It has been our clear view for a long time that we want to deal with the availability of imitation weapons in general, quite apart from the issue of imposing more stringent restrictions on realistic imitation weapons. However, I am prepared to consider whether we should study the area more closely. I am conscious of the issues relating to paintball guns and airsoft guns—although I am encouraged to learn that airsoft guns will become non-realistic. Matters remain to be resolved about paintball guns, however, and the age at which they can be purchased.

I am prepared to consider the matter more closely, to see whether we can avoid a ridiculous state of affairs in which it would not be possible to buy a water pistol but possible to buy something that might be more dangerous. I shall endeavour to close any loopholes.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I am grateful to the Minister for her response and her willingness to look again at the workings of the clause. On that basis we shall return to it later in the Bill’s progress, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 32 - Supplying imitation firearms to minors

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

We note that our amendment suggested by the trading standards authorities was not selected by the Chairman—for good reasons, I am sure. The amendment was a response to concern about the way in which clause 32 would amend the Firearms Act 1968. The defence set out in subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed new section 24A is flawed and out of date. The existing language has been shown to be unenforceable in practice. It is therefore preferable that the Government should adopt the standard approach to those defences, as set out in section 146 of the Licensing Act 2003.

The amendment would also have provided for exemption of children used in test purchasing by trading standards. We believed that that was a sensible inclusion to prevent the clause from having unintended victims, as well as to ensure that the relevant laws could be tested and enforced properly.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The clause is an important part of the package of measures in the Bill to tackle the misuse of imitation firearms. Clause 30 will ban the manufacture, importation and sale of realistic imitation firearms, but there will be exemptions. Those will be tightly drawn to prevent misuse, but as an added precaution the exempt items cannot be purchased by young people.

There is a risk that some imitations that do not fall within the realistic appearance test under clause 30 will still be purchased and misused by young people. The clause will prevent that by making it an offence to sell an imitation firearm to a person under 18, or for a person under 18 to purchase one. The age limit of 18 is consistent with that proposed for air weapons and knives.

We accept that the measure will apply to some children’s toys that will not be sufficiently realistic to be banned altogether, but which nevertheless have the appearance of firearms. In other words, the definition of an imitation firearm in section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968 will continue to apply, in addition to the more specific definition of a realistic imitation firearm in clause 30(8). In those cases it is right that a parent or other adult should make the purchase.

We recognise that it will sometimes be difficult for retailers to tell a purchaser’s age. In such cases we would expect retailers to request proof of age, but that is not always foolproof. That is why we have included a defence for a retailer, of showing that he had reasonable grounds for believing that a purchaser was 18 or over. That is in line with current provisions on the sale of air weapons. We believe that restricting young people’s access to imitation firearms in that way will further reduce misuse.

Clause 34 - Sale etc. of knives and other weapons

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

I beg to move amendment No. 158, in clause 34, page 35, line 33, leave out subsection (2).

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 67, in clause 34, page 35, line 34, leave out ‘eighteen’ and insert ‘nineteen’.

No. 159, in clause 34, page 36, line 11, at end insert—

‘(d)for the purposes of official battle re-enactments and similar events including veterans’ fairs.’.

Government amendment No. 303

No. 56, in clause 34, page 36, line 19, at end insert—

‘(6)A court shall, on a person’s first conviction for an offence under Section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Placed article), pass a minimum custodial sentence of 3 months, unless exceptional circumstances exist in relation to the offence or the offender which justify its not so doing.’.

Government amendment No. 106

Lynne Featherstone (Liberal Democrat, Hornsey and Wood Green)

The lead amendment was tabled to establish the Government’s thinking on the clause. We strongly support the intention to strengthen the restrictions and prohibitions on knives. The increase in knife crime and the number of people turning to knives as it becomes more difficult to use guns for crime is concerning. Only last weekend in Birmingham, tragically, someone was murdered with a knife and someone with a gun. I do not make a distinction—death is death—and I very much welcome the clause. However, we are concerned as to how it will work. How can the law on restricting sales to under-18s be enforced? There is a difficulty with the logic that one can get married at 16, yet not be able to buy a knife for the kitchen until one is 18. The Police Federation says that there is no safe way of policing the measure unless the police stand outside virtually every store that sells knives. Perhaps there should be a specification or description of prohibited knives to make policing a realistic prospect.

The Police Federation is also concerned that a person under the age of 18 may ask a third party to buy them a knife. Should there be an offence of giving a knife to someone who is under 18, or of accepting a knife as a present from an older person? Will that put people in the predicament of having to decide whether that person is responsible? Those are our concerns about the clause. I reiterate that we totally support the idea of raising the age to 18, but are unsure how the Government propose to make the measure work.

Amendment No. 159 raises the re-enactment issue again. People who take part in battle re-enactments and veterans’ fairs tell me that they are not just a hobby, but are educational, and they believe that they should be exempted. Surely, the Government do not intend hinder such events.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

I shall focus entirely on amendment No. 56, and have nothing to say on amendment No. 67, which is also in my name. On the amendment paper, there is a slight misprint in the amendment, which would require a minimum custodial sentence for the offence of carrying a bladed article. It reads:

“A court shall, on a person’s first conviction for an offence under Section 139(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Placed article)”—

that should read, “Bladed article”—

“pass a minimum custodial sentence of 3 months, unless exceptional circumstances exist in relation to the offence or the offender which justify its not so doing.”

I want to give the Committee a terrifying statistic. The Government have confirmed in a parliamentary answer that no fewer than 20,000 children aged 11 to 16 admit to having carried a knife in school for offensive purposes, and no fewer than 40,000 children aged 11 to 16 admit to having carried in school a knife for so-called defensive purposes—that is 60,000 children.

The culture of the blade is on the up, and I am afraid that it is becoming firmly rooted in our society. Knife crime has rocketed in the past eight years. Recent reports show that knife crime in England and Wales has leapt by as much as 90 per cent. in two years in some areas.

Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 show nearly 25,000 knife crimes last year logged by the 30 police forces that supplied the figures. The highest rise in knife crime was recorded by Nottinghamshire police. There, offences involving blades went up from 338 in 2002 to 650 last year, a rise of some 92 per cent. Muggings involving the use of a knife or blade have shot up. I quote the assistant chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, Tony Melville, who is the spokesman on knife crime for the Association of Chief Police Officers:

“Lots and lots of people are carrying knives in public places. In many parts of society it now seems to be a credible and normal thing to carry a knife.”

Doctors report a marked increase in the number of patients attending casualty with stab wounds. I sit as a recorder in the Crown Court, and as a district judge in magistrates courts, and day after day I see around me young people charged with offences under section 139 of having a bladed article. It is almost as if that is the norm, and nobody understands that it is wrong.

That sort of crime is not only on the increase, but it is deadly serious and must be stamped out. One has only to listen, as I have done, to witnesses giving evidence in cases in which a knife has been taken out and waved at them in public. They recount the sheer terror, and each of us can imagine that. It has never happened to me, but I venture to suggest that those to whom it has happened will never forget the experience of terror.

That is the background. The amount of crime involving knives and bladed articles, or having a bladed article in a public place, goes up and up, but the number of prosecutions is abysmally low, as are the levels of detection in relation to knife crime. As I have said so many times in this Committee and elsewhere, passing laws is one thing, but enforcing the existing law is vitally important. Sadly the courts are not passing stiff enough sentences. We are forgetting the importance of deterrence in our criminal justice system, and relying too much on other—no doubt worthy—approaches.

Let me illustrate what I mean about enforcement of existing law by reference to some parliamentary questions that I have asked, and the answers that I have received in the past six months or so. All the time, let us keep in mind the horrifying statistic that I gave some moments ago—a minimum of 60,000 children carrying knives in school for offensive or defensive purposes.

There is a very important section of our statutes involving people who market knives. The Knives Act 1997, which relates to the marketing of knives and the offence of so doing, is a serious Act of Parliament. I am talking about marketing extremely nasty knives. I asked the Home Secretary how many people had been charged with or convicted of offences relating to the unlawful marketing of knives and of an offence of publication in connection with the marketing of knives under sections 1 and 2 of the Knives Act 1997. The answer was that in the last five years for which figures were available, only 18 persons have been charged with the unlawful marketing of knives under section 1 of that Act, and only five convicted.

What about prosecutions under section 2 of the Knives Act, which states:

“A person is guilty of an offence if he publishes any written, pictorial or other material in connection with the marketing of any knife and that material—

(a)indicates, or suggests, that the knife is suitable for combat”?

In the last five years for which figures are available, only one person has been prosecuted under that provision, and even he—it might have been she—was found not guilty. There lies a statute which has not properly been used.

What about the offence of selling to a person under the age of 16 a knife, knife blade, razor blade, axe and any other article that has a blade that is sharply pointed and made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person? What a heinous offence. It is the sort of thing that Governments often rail at. In the last five years for which figures are available, only 39 persons have been proceeded against under that statute. So much of this is about proper enforcement of the existing law.

I moved on to convictions under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Remembering the vast number of offences involving the use of knife-bladed articles, I asked how many persons had been prosecuted for having an article with a blade or point in a public place in the last five years for which figures are available. There were many more prosecutions for such offences but my point is about how the court disposed of those prosecutions.

I agree with most district judges that having a bladed article in a public place is a very serious offence, which must be stamped out. One would expect the courts to take a seriously robust attitude to these offences. In 2003, 6,800 persons were proceeded against, of whom 5,300 were found guilty. The figures for the previous four years were approximately 5,000 a year for two of those years and 3,500 for another two years. I venture to ask the Committee whether it would like to suggest what percentage of those convicted went into custody. The answer is somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent. only. The rest were simply sent away from court with a sentence that permitted them to carry on taking knives around in public places.

We need to take a much stronger attitude towards the carrying of knives, which is why my amendment would impose a minimum sentence of three months on anyone who is caught with a bladed article in public, subject to the usual defences and there is a defence, so ’an innocent explanation is entirely proper. I am thinking of the message that we should be sending to the young people out in the streets who think that going tooled-up with a knife is a great idea and that going into school with a knife is a great idea. I am old-fashioned enough to say that I am depressed with the kind of society in which we live at the moment where too little emphasis is placed on deterrent and far too much on education.

Were you as shocked as I was, Mr Forth, to read the story—the Minister will no doubt tell us of the background—of a council that was forced to pay £11,000 to a boy expelled for taking a knife to school? Greenwich was ordered to apologise to the teenager and pay his mother £5,000 compensation for anxiety and uncertainty, plus £6,000 for home tuition of her son. Teachers reacted with fury: the union said that the boy should have been prosecuted for carrying a blade. The pay-out was ordered by the Local Government Ombudsman. It makes one scratch one’s head in sheer disbelief, if this story is true—is it true that a boy with a knife in school finds himself going to the ombudsman with his parents and getting some taxpayers’ money for the privilege?

Another aspect that troubles me is the approach taken by the Government, who should focus much more on getting the police on the streets where such offences are taking place and arresting, charging and securing convictions in appropriate cases with the courts reacting more strongly. A parliamentary question was asked a year or two ago by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) in her then capacity as a Home Office Minister—I like this one:

“To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government are taking to tackle the problem of assaults on children involving knives”,

which is a pretty fair question. Listen to the answer from the Government—I do not suppose that we would disagree with the first sentence:

“It is unacceptable for young people to carry knives and the Government take their responsibility for public safety in this area extremely seriously. There is a range of legislation and police powers in place aimed at preventing the possession or use of knives and offensive weapons and this is kept under constant review to ensure it is comprehensive and effective”—

Most of the Committee will be asleep already—

“It is essential to educate young people about the dangers and consequences of becoming involved in criminality associated with weapon-carrying”—[interruption.]

All right, perhaps is the quotation is a little long.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Yes it is.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Minister says it is, but when is something going to be done about the problem that is happening on the streets at the moment, in terms of proper enforcement, arrest, conviction and sentence? Where has the old issue of deterrence gone? It seems to be disappearing fast—things are always someone else’s fault. The answer continued:

“It is essential to educate young people about the dangers and consequences of becoming involved in criminality associated with weapon-carrying and the Home Office funds and operates a number of community-based initiatives aimed at encouraging good citizenship and turning vulnerable young people away from crime.—[Official Report, 3 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 301W.]

So said the then Minister. Well, do we all feel safer as a result of that?

Jeremy Wright (Conservative, Rugby and Kenilworth)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty is that the Government are trying to give a clear message that carrying knives is wrong; yet that message is mixed by the fact that the result of doing so is inevitably simply a slap on the wrist?

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

My hon. Friend typically makes a good point. It is all very well to have the headline, “Carrying knives is wrong,” and it is all very well to say that we are trying to educate the public, but go back to the facts of life. The youth justice survey established clearly that in our schools tens of thousands are wilfully flouting the law. There will be a debate on that issue under the next clause. I have purposely mentioned schools very little.

We face a culture in which there is no guilt and no one says, “That is wrong. You will be punished”. That is the dangerous slope along which we are sliding. It is time for us in Parliament, not to grab the headlines, but to say that we have existing law at the moment and why on earth is it not being enforced? There is a compelling case for a minimum sentence for this appalling offence. The Government seek to have minimum sentences and the precedent is well established elsewhere.

However, if the Minister cannot satisfy me that there is no case, I believe that I speak on behalf of the vast majority of law-abiding people who want to feel safe when they walk our streets at night. They will feel a lot safer if they know that the person with a bladed article will be sent to jail for a first offence unless there are exceptional circumstances. Our duty in this House should be more to the law-abiding than to the law breakers.

John Thurso (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I come back to amendment No. 158, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green moved. My question concerns those who are training in the hotel industry, as I did. One of the first things that one is asked to do when one works in the kitchens is to purchase a set of knives. Typically, that will include a long-bladed knife for chopping, a boning knife and a paring knife. Each individually would fall within the scope of the legislation. What provision will there be for those entering apprenticeships or studying for qualifications at colleges to continue to practise their trade without falling foul of the law?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I shall resist amendments Nos. 158 and 67, because they seek to lower the age to 16. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green seeks to lower to 16 the age at which knives can be bought. I appreciate that her aim is to probe as to how the law would work in practice, but her amendment reduces the age to 16. It should be an offence to sell a knife to a young person aged under 18. That would be practical to enforce; it is the same age limit as for alcohol and the age at which people can obtain a credit card. Requiring payment by credit card is one way in which respectable sellers of knives by mail order ensure that customers are aged 18 or over. That is an important cut-off point.

The measure should not unduly interfere with the legitimate use of knives. The sale is an offence rather than the use. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has raised the issue of people who undertake catering courses and trainee chefs. People in such circumstances will have to get somebody aged over 18 to buy their initial set of tools for them. That is not an onerous requirement—presumably tutors already play a role in advising young chefs about which knives are best to purchase, so I do not think that that represents a practical impediment.

We are trying to ensure that young people under 18 cannot buy knives. That sends out a clear message. Significant problems are caused by young people who carry knives, and it is important to have a range of measures to address them. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) made much of enforcement, yet he will note from the letter that I sent him last week that the figures on prosecutions for people carrying a blade or point in a public place are high—6,589 people were prosecuted in 2002 and 6,839 in 2003 for having a bladed article in a public place, of whom more than 5,000 were found guilty. The police do not turn a blind eye to the fact that people carry blades in public.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross takes issue with the sentences imposed by the courts. I shall come to those in detail shortly. However, I do not think that he can fairly say that the laws are not being enforced when more than 6,000 prosecutions have taken place.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

That is 6,000 prosecutions out of how many offences?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Goodness me; the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. In order for there to be an offence, there has to be a prosecution and a conviction. From more than 6,000 prosecutions, 5,281 resulted in conviction.

Humfrey Malins (Conservative, Woking)

The Minister has missed my point. If 60,000 children carry a knife in school, and only seven or eight prosecutions take place against them, that is low. I suggest—can she say the contrary?—that the 6,000 prosecutions under section 139 represent the tip of the iceberg of the number of people who are offending.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I do not accept the phrase “tip of the iceberg”. The figure of 6,000 shows that there is a pretty robust enforcement policy and that the police are out there on the streets trying to ensure that young people are not carrying knives. Inevitably, the numbers who engage in this activity will be greater than those who are prosecuted, convicted and sentenced, but I was seeking to make the point that 6,000 prosecutions shows that the police are not ignoring the problem.

Dawn Butler (Labour, Brent South)

Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that the next clause in the Bill, which talks about enforcement in schools and the ability to search pupils in schools, will probably bring about an increase in the number of prosecutions and arrests of pupils carrying knives?

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.