Column Number: 253
Standing Committee B
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairmen:
Mr. Joe Benton,
Mr. Eric Forth
†Abbott, Ms Diane (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
†Blears, Hazel (Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety)
†Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff, West) (Lab)
†Butler, Ms Dawn (Brent, South) (Lab)
†Clappison, Mr. James (Hertsmere) (Con)
†Cooper, Rosie (West Lancashire) (Lab)
†Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan (Huntingdon) (Con)
†Featherstone, Lynne (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD)
†Hosie, Stewart (Dundee, East) (SNP)
†Jones, Mr. Kevan (North Durham) (Lab)
†Keeble, Ms Sally (Northampton, North) (Lab)
†Malins, Mr. Humfrey (Woking) (Con)
†McCabe, Steve (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
†Pound, Stephen (Ealing, North) (Lab)
†Prisk, Mr. Mark (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
†Ruane, Chris (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
†Sheridan, Jim (Paisley and Renfrewshire, North) (Lab)
†Thurso, John (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
†Waltho, Lynda (Stourbridge) (Lab)
†Wilson, Sammy (East Antrim) (DUP)
†Wright, Jeremy (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con)
Geoffrey Farrar, Sarah Hartwell-Naguib, Committee Clerks
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 255
Tuesday 25 October 2005
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Eric Forth in the Chair]
Clause 30
Manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms
Amendment moved [this day]: No. 259, in clause 30, page 32, line 10, after ‘firearm’, insert ‘in Great Britain’.—[Mr. Djanogly.]
4 pm
The Chairman: 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.’.
Mr. Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): 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.
Column Number: 256
The Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety (Hazel Blears): 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
Column Number: 257
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
Column Number: 258
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.
Mr. Djanogly: 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
Column Number: 259
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.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 13 October be amended, in paragraph (2), by leaving out ‘7.00p.m.’ and inserting ‘10.00p.m.’.—[Hazel Blears.]
Hazel Blears: 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).’.
The Chairman: 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,
(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: 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
Column Number: 260
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.
4.15 pm
Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): 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: 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.
Mr. Prisk: Can the Minister be more specific?
Hazel Blears: 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
Column Number: 261
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 (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): 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?
Stephen Pound (Ealing, North) (Lab): Don’t panic!
Hazel Blears: 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.
Column Number: 262
Mr. Djanogly: 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
Column Number: 263
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.
|
