Violent Crime Reduction Bill |
|
John Thurso: 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
Stewart Hosie (Dundee, East) (SNP): 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. 5.30 pmAlthough 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: 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. Column Number: 283 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. Column Number: 284 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. Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. The Committee divided: Ayes 14, Noes 5. [Division No. 8] AYES Abbott, Ms DianeBlears, Hazel Brennan, Kevin Butler, Ms Dawn Cooper, Rosie Featherstone, Lynne Hosie, Stewart Jones, Mr. Kevan Keeble, Ms Sally McCabe, Steve Pound, Stephen Thurso, John Waltho, Lynda Wilson, Sammy
NOES Clappison, Mr. JamesDjanogly, Mr. Jonathan Malins, Mr. Humfrey Prisk, Mr. Mark Wright, Jeremy Question accordingly agreed to. Clause 30, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31 Specification for imitation firearms Mr. Djanogly: I beg to move amendment No. 297, in clause 31, page 33, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
Column Number: 285
The Chairman: 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’. Mr. Djanogly: 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
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: 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. Mr. Djanogly: If they apply to non-realistic imitations, presumably toys could be included within the clause’s ambit. Hazel Blears: 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
5.45 pmThe 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. Mr. Djanogly: 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. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 32 Supplying imitation firearms to minors Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Djanogly: 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
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: 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. Question put and agreed to. Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 34 Sale etc. of knives and other weapons Lynne Featherstone (Hornsey and Wood Green) (LD): I beg to move amendment No. 158, in clause 34, page 35, line 33, leave out subsection (2). The Chairman: 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’. Column Number: 289 No. 159, in clause 34, page 36, line 11, at end insert—
Government amendment No. 303 No. 56, in clause 34, page 36, line 19, at end insert—
Government amendment No. 106 Lynne Featherstone: 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. Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking) (Con):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:
that should read, “Bladed article”—
Column Number: 290 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:
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. Column Number: 291 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:
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
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:
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:
Most of the Committee will be asleep already—
All right, perhaps is the quotation is a little long. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 27 October 2005 |