|
John Thurso: 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: I can tell the hon. Member for Huntingdon that the Government are not
Column Number: 223
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.
11.30 am
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
Column Number: 224
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.
Mr. Djanogly: 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: 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.
Mr. Djanogly: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lynne Featherstone: I beg to move amendment No. 154, in clause 28, page 30, line 1, after 'person', insert 'knowingly'.
The Chairman: 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
Column Number: 225
'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: 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?
Mr. Djanogly: 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
Column Number: 226
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.
|
