VCR Bill 2nd Reading

As I have mentioned in the news the 2nd Reading of the proposed VCR bill was discussed on Monday 20th. Here follows columns 550 - 558 that deals directly with the proposals to ban the sale and import of imitation firearms, Airsoft is mentioned a few times and I have tried to highleight parts that are of direct interest to our hobby.

The second major issue that the Bill addresses is the abuse of weapons, particularly guns and knives. Again, there are five specific measures to which I want to draw attention, the first of which concerns using someone to mind a weapon. It is already an offence illegally to possess an unlawful firearm, and to carry knives and other weapons in public without reasonable excuse. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced a mandatory
 
20 Jun 2005 : Column 551
 
minimum sentence of five years for illegal possession of an unlawful firearm, but the truth is that offenders can skirt the law by using other people—their friends, family or siblings—to carry their weapons or to hide them for them, in a manner not dissimilar to that which my hon. Friend referred in respect of the purchase of alcohol. As well as such a person's being put at risk of harm from the weapon, they are also at risk of prosecution, while the offender escapes scot-free. In cases where children are used, they may be at risk of the longer-term harm of involvement in gun and knife crime, as a result of such early association with weapons.

It is clear that we need to close this loophole, so the Bill will make it an offence to use a person to hide or to carry a knife or firearm. In addition, if a young person under the age of 18 has been used, it must be regarded as an aggravating factor, which will affect the length of the sentence handed down. The penalties for this offence will be in line with those already existing for possession and send a very clear message that we will not tolerate the possession of such weapons in our society and that passing them on to another person, particularly if that person is a child, will not leave someone in the clear.

The second measure in this part of the Bill deals with air weapons—a matter of great concern across the House.

Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con): If, as the Home Secretary says, it is right—I am sure that it is—that using a young person to mind one of these weapons is an aggravating factor, is there not a case for applying an even more severe sentence for such an offence than would apply for mere possession?

Mr. Clarke: There is a case for that and I am prepared to consider amendments to that effect in Committee. It is important to get this matter right and the Committee will look into it in detail. Overall, it is right for the offences to be introduced in the way that I said.

Airgun safety and incidents of misuse are matters of real public concern and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have had such concerns put to them by their constituents. In 2003–04, air weapons were used in 13,756 crimes—a fall of 0.5 per cent. from the previous year, but a 59 per cent. increase from 1998–99. Most offences were criminal damage, but even so there were 2,238 slight injuries and 157 serious injuries. We would all have read with horror the details of the tragic deaths of two-year-old Andrew Morton in Glasgow and 12-year-old Alex Cole in Doncaster. They underline the concerns expressed, and arouse—universally in the House, I am sure—a feeling of deep sympathy for the families and friends.

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): The Home Secretary refers to the tragic case of Andrew Morton, which has excited considerable press comment and, indeed, political comment in Scotland. Has he discussed the provisions of clause 26 with the First Minister or the Minister for Justice in Scotland and, if so, have they pronounced themselves content?

Mr. Clarke: I have discussed that specific clause and the issue with both the First Minister and the Minister for Justice. We are still working to see whether any
 
20 Jun 2005 : Column 552
 
further amendment could usefully be made to deal with circumstances in Scotland. Both parties held a press conference during the election campaign and subsequently there were ministerial discussions and my officials and those of the Scottish Executive are discussing all the time how best to make progress in these areas. As to whether they are content, that is a difficult word to use in this context and I shall explain why.

The call was made for a licensing regime for all airguns. I did not go down that path because there were substantial representations from the police—including the police in Scotland—to the effect that expressly licensing airguns in the same way as firearms would lead to a bureaucratic and ineffective system that would not deliver the result that people wanted. There are still those who believe that we should nevertheless go down that route and I have no doubt that it will still be debated as the Bill proceeds and perhaps also in the Scottish Parliament. It remains important to reflect carefully on it.

Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op) rose—

Mr. Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP) rose—

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to both hon. Members in a few moments, but I want first to set out what we intend to do about airguns.

There is already a wide range of controls on air weapons, but in view of the high number of offences, we need to tighten up on certain aspects. Much of the misuse is attributed to young people, which is why we will be raising from 17 to 18 the minimum age for possessing or acquiring air weapons. We also propose to make it an offence for any person to fire an air weapon beyond the boundary of premises. We view that as particularly important, as weapons discharged from premises generally are a real danger around and about, so the new offence is right. It is already an offence for a person under 17 and adults who misuse air weapons can be prosecuted for other offences, but that measure has not always been effective. I am mindful of a case where two men fired shots from their balcony and hit a woman. Although the men admitted firing the guns, the police could not prove intent or who fired the crucial shot. The new offence will close that loophole.

Mark Lazarowicz: Although the measures that my right hon. Friend has outlined are welcome, will he think again about a licensing scheme or indeed a ban on airguns? Although some police officers are against such a scheme, many senior figures in the police are in favour of a licensing scheme. Even if there were discussions to introduce such a scheme or a ban in Scotland, which I would welcome, the issue applies throughout the UK. I do not want people to be able to buy guns in Berwick-upon-Tweed or Carlisle and use them in Edinburgh where there may be a different regime.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right about the need for a similar regime throughout the UK. I can assure him and other Members that I will listen carefully to debate on these matters and to the points of argument that are put. All my instincts—I know this is true of my
 
20 Jun 2005 : Column 553
 
hon. Friend, too—would be against those who used airguns in such ways and we need effective regulation. We have carefully considered the best way to do that, but I shall certainly listen carefully to debates in the House, in Committee and elsewhere about how best to address the problem in a way that works. I am sure that my hon. Friend and I share the view that we should act only in a way that is actually effective and that is the key test that we have to establish.

Mr. Weir: Given the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), the Home Secretary can see that there is cross-party consensus in Scotland on the matter. There may indeed be a desire to go further than the provisions in the Bill. The Home Secretary said that he prefers a UK-wide system, but if it were demonstrated that there was cross-party consensus in Scotland to go further, would he look into transferring to the Scottish Parliament the power to consider setting up a stronger system in Scotland?

Mr. Clarke: The view taken at the time of the original devolution legislation was that the distribution of guns was rightly a UK issue, for precisely the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz)—that people could buy guns on one side of the border and take them to the other. There should be UK resolution of that issue, so I do not have in mind the prospect of devolving that aspect of legislation to the Scottish Parliament. With respect, I know that the focus of the hon. Gentleman's party is on where the devolution line falls—or does not fall—but he would be on stronger ground if he talked to his colleagues in other parties about the best means for dealing with air weapons across the UK.

In relation to ammunition, we shall be unrelenting in our efforts to ensure that police and local communities are successful in tackling gun crime. As I have already indicated, there have been successes, but although it is an offence to possess full rounds of ammunition without a certificate the current law does not apply to component parts. That has given rise to police concern that some criminals try to escape prosecution by holding ammunition in its component form and we intend to make that illegal.

Mr. Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent, South) (Lab): May I return briefly to an earlier point? Recently, an air weapon was fired into a school playground in my constituency and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would consider making that an aggravated offence.

Mr. Clarke: I certainly shall consider that proposal, which is a fair point to raise. Indeed, making it illegal to discharge an airgun from any premise would bear directly on the incident that my hon. Friend described. The offence of aggravation for discharging a weapon—for example, into a school playground—could be properly considered in Committee.

The third measure on weapons relates to imitation firearms.

Mrs. Siân C. James (Swansea, East) (Lab): Can my right hon. Friend give any assurance to my constituent,
 
20 Jun 2005 : Column 554
 
Mr. Peter Dyson, who has written to me expressing concern that plans to limit the use of replica guns will affect him and others who enjoy the sport of airsofting in a responsible and law-abiding manner?

Mr. Clarke: I, too, have received correspondence on that matter and if my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall respond on airsoft and one or two of the other lobbies in a second, when I have outlined our overall approach.

The overall approach set out in the Bill on imitation firearms acknowledges the fact that in 2003–04 such weapons were used in 2,146 crimes, an increase of 18 per cent., on top of a 46 per cent. increase in the previous year. That accounts for 21 per cent.—more than a fifth—of firearms crime if we exclude offences committed with air weapons. Some 75 per cent. of offences involving imitation weapons constituted violence against the person. That is wholly unacceptable, and the whole House would agree that it is necessary for us to legislate on those issues.

It is true that a range of existing controls governs the misuse of imitation weapons. Those controls will remain in place and continue to be enforced, but they have been proved insufficient to halt the upward trend, which seems to be fuelled in part by the success of measures to tackle the misuse of real firearms, such as the five-year minimum sentence for possessing a prohibited firearm.

Of course, defining an imitation weapon has always been difficult. At present, the law refers to anything that has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of discharging any shot, bullet or other missile. That definition works in practice by virtue of the fact that it is subject to a qualifier relating either to the weapon's design: whether it is readily convertible; or to its misuse: whether it is possessed to cause fear of unlawful violence. However, it is a wide-ranging definition, and we want to bear down most of all on those weapons that closely resemble real firearms, which are being increasingly used to threaten, intimidate or rob.

If most of us saw one of the imitation weapons that I am talking about lying on a table alongside a real gun, we would not be able to tell the difference between them without picking them up. We will therefore make it an offence to manufacture, import or sell a realistic imitation. Under the definition that we use, an imitation will be caught by the new offence if it is indistinguishable from a certain make or model, or is sufficiently similar to a generic type of firearm.

We know only too well about the problems for the police when armed units are called out in response to reports of people seen with guns. Often, the person is a youngster, brandishing an imitation that they are misusing deliberately, recklessly or with little appreciation of the consequences. A restriction on the age at which any imitation can be sold or purchased will help to reduce the incidence of misuse, and we propose a minimum age of 18.

We have accepted that a total ban on the possession of imitation firearms is impractical for a variety of reasons, which is why we propose to double the penalty for possessing an imitation firearm in a public place without reasonable excuse. We are saying, loud and clear, that messing around in public with anything that resembles a gun is simply not acceptable, and unless people heed that message, they could go to prison for up to 12 months.
 
20 Jun 2005 : Column 555
 

The point about airsoft made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James) also applies to paintballing, re-enactment societies and use in television and film, where a legitimate case may be made for a certain use—I emphasise the word "may"—so we set out in clause 32 the power for the Secretary of State to regulate exemptions in such circumstances. I will listen to such representations, but those representations would have to make a very powerful case for a certain exemption. That is the criteria that I would use.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews (Medway) (Lab): On this part of the Bill, will the Home Secretary accept my appreciation in respect of two matters? First, I appreciate the clarity with which he has dealt with the perceived problem of definitions, so that this important and long-overdue measure can become law. Secondly, I appreciate the courtesy and the care with which he has received representations from many organisations that are interested in this matter, not least the Gun Control Network, in which, as he knows, I have a tangential interest. He will also know what a great pleasure it is for me to be able to give wholehearted support to an important Home Office Bill, although he will appreciate that that cannot go on very much longer.

Mr. Clarke: I very much appreciate my hon. and learned Friend's support. The phrase "tangential support" could take me into other entertaining language, but I will not go further down that path.

Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (Lab): As my right hon. Friend knows, I very much welcome the direction of the Bill, and I have previously introduced a private Member's Bill on airguns. On the specific issue of replica weapons, there is a slight difference of emphasis between clauses 30 and 31. Clause 30 stresses the need to avoid replicas that can be confused with genuine weapons, whereas clause 31 considers the possibility of allowing such replicas in circumstances that the Home Secretary may specify. He mentions an exemption for airsoft as one possibility. May I suggest that, when a specific club seeks such an exemption, it would be possible to allow some kind of registration procedure, so that people can prove that they are members of a re-enactment society, club or whatever, as a condition for owning such weapons?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that that is the kind of way to deal with the matter. As I said earlier, when there is a genuine interest—I have more understanding of the interest of the re-enactment societies than that of some other bodies—we should simply look at a regime that will work. My hon. Friend's proposal might well be right, but I do not want to allow a situation in which any such activities can somehow be used as a diversionary path to try to avoid the legislation, which is why I am being cautious in my response.

Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): I appreciate the worries of colleagues who are concerned about societies involved in games and re-enactments, but the majority of so-called Yardie shootings in inner London have long been perpetrated by people using reactivated imitation weapons. I have
 
20 Jun 2005 : Column 556
 
long argued in the House for a ban on imitation weapons. In the context of falling crime, gun crime has cast a peculiar shadow over communities such as Hackney, Harlesden and other parts of the inner city, so I would like to join those who have welcomed the Bill and especially its clear action on imitations.

Mr. Clarke: I appreciate my hon. Friend's support and pay tribute to the work that she has done. I remember from when I lived in Hackney the work that she did in her constituency to try to deal with such serious issues, some of which involved a gun shop.

Mr. Denham: My right hon. Friend has produced a clear definition of an imitation firearm. However, I am worried about firearms that are not clear imitations, yet could be taken to be firearms in bad light or during the practical operational work of the police. Is my right hon. Friend happy that he might be introducing a distinction into law meaning that a police officer who fired a shot in such circumstances at someone carrying a toy or wooden weapon could be judged by the courts to have acted badly because the weapon was not a real imitation firearm? He needs to think about the possible knock-on consequences of the definition that he is bringing into law.

Mr. Clarke: I accept what my right hon. Friend says, but this is a difficult area of definition. One of the arguments put forward for a long time against going down precisely the path in the Bill has been that the definitions are so difficult that we should not do so. After careful consideration, I have reached the view with my colleagues that despite the difficulty that he fairly identifies, the ill that we are trying to deal with—the abuse of replica guns and the danger that they can cause—means that we must legislate in such a way. I am willing to look carefully at specific points, whether that is in Committee or through other representations, but I am not prepared to accept that we should not legislate to deal with replica and imitation firearms simply because there is a difficulty with definitions. I do not deny that there is a problem, but we should not allow that to stop us from legislating.

Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Will the Home Secretary tell us what measures will be put in place to prevent the sale of replica guns and plastic ammunition from catalogues sent out by companies based both here and abroad?

Mr. Clarke: We are still carefully examining that point and the related matter of sales on the internet. The delegation mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) showed me shocking examples of what can be purchased on the internet, so we are still actively considering how to deal with that specific concern.

Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab): I join other hon. Members in applauding the Home Secretary for taking action on imitation weapons. I note that the Home Office consultation paper on the matter ruled out the possibility of taking such action, so I welcome the change of heart. However, the same consultation paper referred to concerns about internet
 
20 Jun 2005 : Column 557
 
sales and implied that action would be taken. I urge my right hon. Friend to go one step further, otherwise, the measures on imitation weapons will have virtually no effect because people will buy them off the net and bypass conventional sales.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments and pay tribute to his work on this subject. However, I do not accept the phrase "virtually no effect". Even if nothing is done on internet sales, the measures that we propose will have a substantial effect. I accept the thrust of his remarks, though, and we need to look carefully at how we can regulate sales and carry the policy through. As I said, we are doing just that.

Lynne Featherstone: What work has been done on how the number of people carrying guns will drop with the increased sentence of just six months? Why six months? What will that do exactly?

Mr. Clarke: People who carry a gun can be given up to 12 months. There is a lot of speculation about what difference the sentence will make and how it will operate. We will keep the situation under review, but the measures will make a significant difference.

Mr. Christopher Fraser (South-West Norfolk) (Con): If someone uses a gun or firearm legitimately for their recreation and they need a replacement part, such as a barrel or ammunition, how do they overcome the accusation that they are manufacturing a replica?

Mr. Clarke: By pointing to the truth of it. If someone legally holds a firearm in a licensed way and if he has participated in the process that is being developed, he will be able to establish that that new part is needed. Again, if there is an ambiguity, it is reasonable to discuss in Committee how we can eliminate it. I shall be flexible and consider particular proposals.

The fourth element on weapons is the sale of knives. Comprehensive legislation is in place to deal with knives and other offensive weapons, but public concern remains, so we intend to raise the age limit of who can be sold a knife from 16 to 18 to limit the distribution of knives among young people. It is already an offence to carry a knife or offensive weapon in a public place without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a folding pocket knife with a blade of less than 3 in, and we have taken other steps to ban the manufacture, sale and importation of certain knives. However, the additional measures will further tighten controls and send the message that we will not tolerate the carrying of knives and other weapons in our streets.