Mr.
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): I beg to move amendment No.
108, in page 29, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
Mr.
Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment
No. 109, in page 29, line 40 [Clause 28], after 'weapon', insert
'with a muzzle energy in excess of 1 joule'.
Amendment No. 110, in page 30, line 24, leave
out Clause 29.
Government amendment Nos. 46, 47 and 48.
Mr.
Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm
that if, as now appears likely, there is no debate on the final group of amendments,
which begins with amendment No. 112, that absence is not through lack of interest
or importance but would relate solely to the terms of the Government's guillotine
motion?
Mr.
Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is right. We are proceeding
in the way in which the House has already agreed. The time spent on each group
of amendments is entirely a matter for those taking part.
Mr.
Djanogly: With little time on the clock, I declare my interest as
the holder of a shot gun licence, the owner of an air rifle and a member of
the British Association for Shooting and Conservation.
I
am belatedly pleased that the Government have tabled amendments to deal with
some matters that we raised in Committee. However, many thousands of people
continue to be worried by the uncertainty that has been caused by the manner
in which the Bill has progressed. We wholeheartedly support measures that will
have a genuine, practical effect on reducing gun crime in the UK and making
our systems safer. However, we do not support clauses that create laws for
the sake of being seen to be tough on gun crime, but whose effect will be felt
almost exclusively by legitimate users of weapons, not the criminals on whom
we intend to crack down.
The
root of the remaining problems with part 2 is that we do not believe that sufficient
consultation has been held with affected as well as expert bodies. Where is
the firearms advisory committee, which should have been
14 Nov 2005 : Column 773
the proper body to consult about the Bill? The Government said that they would
form that committee before abolishing their previous consulting committee,
but they failed to do that.
The
Government have yet to publish anything that relates to the 4,000-odd responses
to the May 2004 consultation paper on controls on firearms. I submitted a request
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but it elicited the entirely unsatisfactory
response that the information would still not be released. This adds further
weight to our grave concerns about the fundamental basis of this part of the
Bill.
On
amendment No. 108, our position remains that the impact of the changes to the
law two years ago should be assessed fully before yet further laws penalising
legitimate users of air weapons are introduced. Clause 27 requires anyone who
sells air weapons by way of trade or business to register with the police as
a firearms dealer. The Minister said in Committee that the registration fee
was likely to be £150 per establishment. Will she please confirm that
that is the case?
In
Committee, the Minister undertook to provide information on how the licensing
regime was to work. On Thursday night last week, we received a letter which
hardly explained the situation. Perhaps she could now explain, for example,
what a fishing store would have to do in order to continue to be able to sell
air weapons, and how long it would take to do it. Clause 27 would prohibit
any person other than a registered dealer from selling or transferring air
weapons. Where is the evidence that airguns are misused through being obtained
through trade sources rather than private sales? It is hard enough to accept
these changes to the Bill so late in the day, but to do so without being given
anything to support, explain or justify the clauses relating to air weapons
is quite another matter. As I said in Committee, clauses 27 and 28, when taken
together with clause 29, will have a serious and unjustifiably adverse effect
on legitimate users of airguns and on persons carrying on the business of selling
them.
Amendment
No. 108 seeks to remove the burdensome, impractical and pointless requirement
to keep a register of air weapons. I want to address the amendment in the context
of clause 27 as a whole, because they are inextricably linked. I raised this
issue in Committee, but the Minister did not address it at the time. There
are an estimated 7 million air weapons in circulation in this country. I do
not think that the Government are proposing that those 7 million weapons should
be registered; I believe that only future sales will be affected. Perhaps the
Minister will confirm that. If that is the case, how would the measure work
in practice? If clause 27 does not propose to register the existing 7 million
air weapons, will not subsection (2)—which would require a register of
transactions—be futile? There will be 7 million unregistered air weapons
in circulation, and this proposal would merely impose a disproportionate administrative
burden on registered firearms dealers. The requirement to maintain full records
of air weapons sales in a firearms register would simply be unnecessary red
tape.
14 Nov 2005 : Column 774
Fewer
than 50 per cent. of airguns are sold by registered firearms dealers. The majority
are sold by sports shops, fishing shops and similar outlets. No evidence has
been produced to show that airguns sold through registered firearms dealers
are more or less likely to be misused than those sold through other retail
outlets. There is no evidence that retailers who are not registered firearms
dealers are irresponsible in selling airguns to the public. Nor is there evidence
to suggest that the proposed restrictions will improve public safety.
A
simpler system would involve creating a lawful check on the sale of firearms,
but without the need for registration. One such system could involve ensuring
that any person who wished to sell air weapons should apply in writing to the
police for written authority to do so. This would essentially be a much simpler
system of licensing. If the police believed that the applicant was not a fit
person to sell airguns, they could refuse to give their authority. The applicant
could then be given the right of appeal. As we said in Committee, a modified
form of licensing would be more acceptable, but no changes have been forthcoming
from the Government since then. Rather than requiring full registration, regulation
could be achieved by using simpler, less restrictive regimes. What I continue
to find most bizarre is that the Home Office consultation paper of May 2004
stated that
"we do not therefore believe that there
should be a system of licensing or further restrictions on the sale of air
guns".
I
must ask the Minister why the Government are ignoring their own advice.
Banning
the sale of air weapons except through registered firearms dealers approved
by the police is an impractical, draconian, burdensome and disproportionate
measure, and the Government have failed to provide any evidence that it will
have any effect on violent crime. It will serve only to penalise business people
and sports persons involved in shooting.
In
the Home Office regulatory impact assessment, the Home Office recognises that
licensing all air weapons would result in a significant decrease in sales of
air weapons and a significant impact on business. The assessment stated:
"We understand that the majority of
air weapons are sold through small dealers and tackle shops, so small firms
would be affected disproportionately."
It
remains unclear exactly how many small sellers would actually convert to getting
a firearms licence. The cost and inconvenience could be disproportionate, and
again, business as well as sport could suffer.
The
more important point for the Minister to show is exactly how that will reduce
violent crime involving air weapons. While the clause will make it more difficult
for lawful users to acquire air weapons, there is no evidence that that will
affect the level of misuse.
Stewart
Hosie (Dundee, East) (SNP): I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman,
as I did in Committee. He is very much opposed to a licensing scheme, and I
know that he was very much opposed to a personal purchaser licensing scheme.
In the light of that, can he explain why the Conservative group on Dundee city
council, along with the Labour and Liberal group, voted tonight for such a
licensing scheme?
14 Nov 2005 : Column 775
Mr. Djanogly: I have no idea why the Conservative group voted
for such a scheme. The policy of this Conservative group is that the scheme
as proposed by the Government is unworkable and impractical. If we are to have
any scheme at all, that which is offered tonight is not the correct one.
Amendment
No. 190 relates to clause 28, which requires the sale of air weapons by way
of trade or business to be face-to-face. Once again, we find ourselves asking
where exactly the evidence is to support this draconian measure. It is appreciated
that the clause is intended to outlaw all sales via the internet or mail order,
but in Committee the Minister raised more questions than she answered. We tabled
the amendment to draw attention to that. Under the amendment, the clause would
be restricted to apply only to air weapons with a muzzle energy in excess of
1 J. As we discussed in Committee, that is not regarded as a lethal barrelled
weapon, and is the kind commonly used in airsoft and other legitimate activities.
To recap on our little Committee chat on muzzle energies, which Members will
remember, 1 J is the equivalent impact to a tennis ball being bounced against
the floor.
Mr.
Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I am grateful to my hon. Friend
for raising the sport of airsoft. I have been contacted by Mr. Christie from
my constituency, on behalf of 100 airsofters in Kettering who are very worried
about the implications of the Bill. I welcome my hon. Friend's contribution
on that subject.
Mr.
Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes a valid intervention, not least because,
as a result of timetabling, unfortunately, we will not reach the relevant amendments
on airsoft, which, he will be pleased to know, we defended in Committee, and
I would have done so again today if I had had the opportunity.
The
point about the muzzle velocity is that it is very low impact—that is
the sort of air weapon that I suspect would be involved in the majority of
mail order sales. Precisely for those reasons, we believe that air weapons
with a muzzle energy of 1 J or less should be exempted from this unnecessary
red tape. We raised legitimate concerns about internet sales from outside the
United Kingdom, and the Minister assured us that she was doing all that she
could in relation to internet sales and ensuring international co-operation
on that front. Will she tell us how she plans to achieve that international
co-operation, and what plans are in place to facilitate that?
In
relation to internet sales, a major source of concern is sales originating
outside the United Kingdom, where guns are more readily available and often
cheaper. About 2,500 registered firearms dealers are spread across Great Britain,
of which between 1,000 and 1,200 sell airguns by retail. The remainder are
specialist dealers or those who do not sell by retail. There are between 1,000
and 1,200 retailers of airguns that are not registered firearms dealers. Thus
there are some 2,400 retail outlets for airguns spread across England, Wales
and Scotland. It follows that in many areas, particularly rural ones, direct
access to a retailer of airguns would involve considerable time and expense
without mail order.
As
we well know, clause 29, to which amendment No. 110 relates, raises the age
from 17 to 18 at which a person may purchase or hire an airgun or ammunition
for an
14 Nov 2005 : Column 776
airgun. The clause also raises the minimum age from 17 to 18 at which a person
may have with him an airgun or ammunition for that airgun. We remain totally
unconvinced as to the justification for raising the age limit for buying an
air weapon from 17 to 18. The Minister has repeatedly avoided giving any evidence
to show that 17-year-olds are heavily involved in air weapon misuse.
The
fact is that the evidence needed to justify the clause has not been forthcoming.
Airguns are the gateway to other shooting sports and unjustified diminution
in airgun sales will therefore have a knock-on effect on all shooting sports.
Furthermore if a reduction in the number of retail outlets is coupled with
a requirement for face-to-face sales, people in rural areas will be hit especially
hard, and many will be deterred from acquiring airguns.
Jim
Sheridan: So far the hon. Gentleman has concentrated on sports clubs
and rural communities. Has he anything to say about the Bill's effect on
urban communities, particularly in inner city areas such as those in London
where gun crime is rife and people have been killed and maimed daily?
Mr.
Djanogly: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that restricting airgun sales
to those aged 17 or 18 will have any material impact on violent crime by youths
in our inner cities, he has another think coming.
Mr.
David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): May I ask a question that is
relevant to what was said by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire,
North (Jim Sheridan)? Surely the effects of airgun use on an inner city estate
are very different from the effects on a constituency such as mine or that
of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), where most people who use
airguns will use them responsibly as part of their sport. Should we not be
extremely careful about imposing unnecessary restrictions on the sporting use
of guns—a road down which we have gone before—if it will not have
the practical effect for which we all hope, which is the reduction of illegal
gun use in cities?
Mr.
Djanogly: That is a fair point. The truth is that the measures that
we are discussing now will not have the effect that the Government want. Of
course, we are discussing elements of a much larger Bill. Along with other
Conservative Members and, indeed, Liberal Democrats, I made it clear in Committee
that we wanted to reduce gun crime. We have a problem with specific issues,
and this is one of them.
As
I have said, changes in firearms legislation should be soundly based on consultation
and evidence, not just on a perceived need to be seen to be doing something
for the sake of it. According to the regulatory impact assessment, the vast
majority of the 4,000-odd responses to the consultation paper that commented
on air weapons—incidentally, we have not had access to those responses:
they were received by the Government, but not by us—favoured tackling
misuse, but suggested that that should not be achieved through further restrictions
on possession or sale.
The
Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 tried to deal with airgun abuse—for instance,
by raising the age at which airguns could be purchased to 17—but it is
less than two
14 Nov 2005 : Column 777
years old, and there has not been time for its effects to be properly monitored
and evaluated. Having consulted widely, we maintain that it would be wrong
to impose further restrictions in the absence of alternative evidence.
Tightening
the restrictions will penalise the shooting community, and there is no evidence
that it will have any benefit in reducing airgun misuse. It will merely deprive
17-year-olds of the opportunity to be taught safely and responsibly how to
handle firearms. Training young people to shoot can be valuable in teaching
skills, discipline and responsibility. Introducing them to safe, responsible
firearms use makes it far less likely that they will ever misuse guns. 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.
Bizarrely,
on page 11 of its consultation paper of May 2004 relating to specifically to
age limits, the Home Office categorically recommends that there should be no
further restrictions on the sale of airguns because of the disproportionate
enforcement effort.
David
T.C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): Will my hon. Friend confirm that when
we last tried to restrict the sale of handguns for sporting use, there was
no increase in illegal gun use, and that it has gone through the roof since
this Labour Government took office?
Mr.
Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I would have
brought up myself if we had enough time, but we will need to move on to other
groups of amendments. I agree with what my hon. Friend said.
It
is obvious that all improper use of airguns should be an offence, irrespective
of the age of the perpetrator, but existing legislation provides for that.
The way to crack down on weapon misuse is through better enforcement of existing
legislation. That is what will impact on gun crime. Tinkering with age limits
in respect of air weapons will do little but anger and upset people who use
guns safely and responsibly. The Minister has simply failed to explain how
the clause is likely to reduce crime, never mind violent crime, so we believe
that clause 29 should be removed entirely from the Bill. I intend to divide
the House on amendment No. 110.
Finally,
I want to say that in respect of Government amendments Nos. 46 to 48, we are
very pleased to see that the Minister has listened to our legitimate concerns
about shooting beyond premises with consent. We want to thank the Minister
for acting on our concerns in that regard, even though once again, she has
unfortunately provided a defence rather than an exemption.
Mr. Paice: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon
(Mr. Djanogly) on the way in which he has proposed the amendments. I support
them all, but I want to comment particularly on amendment No. 110 and the matter
of raising the age from 17 to 18. As my hon. Friend noted, the Anti-social
Behaviour Act 2003 raised the age limit from 14 to 17 only two years
14 Nov 2005 : Column 778
ago. At that time, I took on the same role as my hon. Friend of challenging
the Government. It is fair to say that, even at that stage, there was little
evidence that increasing the age at which one could buy or use, without supervision,
an airgun from 14 to 17 would make any difference. What is abundantly clear
now is that, since that Act came into force, there is no evidence that it has
made any difference and there is certainly no evidence that the gap between
17 and 18 is a problem issue.
That
is not to say, as I said umpteen times in Committee, that there are no problems
with airgun misuse. We know that there are—in rural as well as urban
areas—but there are already 30 different offences on the statute book
for the misuse of airguns. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the answer lies
with proper enforcement of those 30 existing offences. That is what the Government
should be concentrating on, rather than this wilful act that appears to come
from the "something must be done" school. What can we do about airguns?
Let us raise the age limit from 17 to 18 without any evidence that it will
do any good. If the Minister seriously believes that it will make any difference
to airgun crime, let us hope that in the few minutes left for debate, she will
stand up and present the evidence.
How
many young people between 17 and 18 have been convicted for one of the 30 offences
to which I referred earlier? In how many cases would the offence not have been
committed if those young people had been unable to get hold of an airgun? It
would be helpful if the Minister provided us with that information. Since the
Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, how much violent crime has been reduced by
the fact that the age was increased from 14 to 17? Can the Minister provide
us with some clear examples and statistical evidence—not just wishful
thinking or what the Government think or believe—from the Dispatch Box
this evening to justify taking away the opportunities of a group of 17-year-olds
whose only interest is in using airguns lawfully, legally, safely and often
in connection with their occupation in the countryside? That is the sort of
evidence that she must put before the House if we are to accept that clause
29 will make any difference whatever.
Finally,
we want to hear the Minister's justification for her stance, so she should
tell the House what is wrong with simply ensuring that the 30 existing offences
are properly enforced. Before she answers that, she might just check her book,
so that she can give us the statistics on how many people have been prosecuted
in the past few years. She will find that the figure is woefully small, compared
with the existing problems. If the Government enforced the law properly, they
would not need to take steps such as this.
Hazel
Blears: I have not seen such passion in the House for some time. It
is clear that Conservative Members are very attached to their guns—and
they doubtless mean to stick to them during this debate.
I
will resist the Opposition's amendments and I shall explain why. It is worth
reminding the House of how serious this problem is. In 2003–04, 13,756
crimes were committed in which air weapons were used; in 2,395 cases, they
caused injury; in 156 cases, they caused serious injury. Occasionally, someone
is killed with an air weapon, as happened in the tragic cases of two-year-
14 Nov 2005 : Column 779
old Andrew Morton and 12-year-old Alex Cole. The misuse of air weapons is a
serious problem and this Government are determined to meet it with effective
action.
David
T.C. Davies: Will the Minister give way?
Hazel
Blears: No. We have heard a lot tonight about legitimate shooting
and I have no doubt that there are legitimate shooters who act responsibly,
but the Bill's purpose is to deal with people who use weapons irresponsibly,
just as its purpose is to deal with those who use alcohol irresponsibly. It
is about directing our action at the mischief that undoubtedly is caused in
our communities. If the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) represented
a slightly different area, he would know that older people, in particular,
have been plagued by the misuse of air weapons. Various members of the Committee,
such as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler), pointed out
that some older people are cowering in their homes because people are taking
pot-shots at them and their families. So I make no apologies for trying to
ensure that sufficient restrictions are in place.
Amendment
No. 108 would remove the requirement for air weapon retailers to keep a register
of transactions, but that register is an important part of the controls. It
removes purchasers' anonymity and should deter casual and irresponsible sales,
which is what we want to achieve. At the moment, people can buy air weapons
at car boot sales, through mail order and on the internet. Requiring that a
register be kept and that air weapons be sold face to face brings a little
more rigor to the system. I do not pretend for a moment that we are introducing
a licensing system for the millions of air weapons in existence, but we are
doing what we can, in a practical and proportionate way, to ensure that the
sale of air weapons is at least a little safer. I realise that the licensing
fee is £150, but that is for three years, so it is not an onerous requirement
for those stores and shops that want to be responsible air weapon retailers.
I am sure that many of them will be delighted to register with their local
police force to enable them to sell their weapons properly.
Amendment
No. 109 would modify the requirement in clause 28 by applying it only to air
weapons with a muzzle energy in excess of 1 J, but such weapons are already
included. I discovered in Committee that weapons of 1 J or greater are the
only ones that meet the firearms definition of a lethal barrelled weapon in
the Firearms Act 1968. Lethality does not occur until a muzzle energy in excess
of 1 J is reached, so a weapon with a muzzle energy of less than 1 J is not
a lethal barrelled weapon and does not fall within the definition of a firearm.
It is very strange for me to be telling the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr.
Djanogly), an avowed shooter and an expert on the technicalities of such matters,
that his amendment is therefore superfluous; nevertheless, I ask him to withdraw
it.
Amendment
No. 110 would remove from the Bill the increase in the age limit. It is right
and proper that we bring the air weapons provision into line with that for
knives, because we want to ensure that young people have access to potentially
dangerous weapons only in the proper circumstances. Young people will still
be able to shoot at approved clubs under adult supervision, or,
14 Nov 2005 : Column 780
if they are aged 14 or over, on private premises with the occupier's consent.
That gives them sufficient ability to shoot under proper conditions.
I
am glad that Government amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 have been welcomed by
the Opposition. They clarify the situation in cases where people fire an air
weapon beyond the boundary of one premises and into another, with consent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: No. 110, in page 30, line 24, leave out clause
29.—[Mr. Djanogly.]
Question put, That the amendment
be made:—
The
House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 315.
Division
No. 92
[8.59 pm
AYES
Afriyie, Adam
Amess, Mr. David
Ancram, rh Mr. Michael
Arbuthnot, rh Mr. James
Atkinson, Mr. Peter
Bacon, Mr. Richard
Baldry, Tony
Barker, Gregory
Baron, Mr. John
Bellingham, Mr. Henry
Benyon, Mr. Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Binley, Mr. Brian
Blunt, Mr. Crispin
Bone, Mr. Peter
Boswell, Mr. Tim
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Brokenshire, James
Browning, Angela
Burns, Mr. Simon
Butterfill, Sir John
Carswell, Mr. Douglas
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Clappison, Mr. James
Clark, Greg
Clarke, rh Mr. Kenneth
Clifton-Brown, Mr. Geoffrey
Cox, Mr. Geoffrey
Crabb, Mr. Stephen
Davies, David T.C. (Monmouth)
Davies, Philip
Djanogly, Mr. Jonathan
Dorries, Mrs. Nadine
Duddridge, James
Duncan Smith, rh Mr. Iain
Ellwood, Mr. Tobias
Evennett, Mr. David
Fallon, Mr. Michael
Francois, Mr. Mark
Fraser, Mr. Christopher
Gale, Mr. Roger
Garnier, Mr. Edward
Gauke, Mr. David
Gibb, Mr. Nick
Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl
Goodman, Mr. Paul
Gove, Michael
Gray, Mr. James
Grayling, Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, Justine
Greenway, Mr. John
Hague, rh Mr. William
Hammond, Mr. Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, Mr. Greg
Harper, Mr. Mark
Harris, Dr. Evan
Harvey, Nick
Hayes, Mr. John
Heald, Mr. Oliver
Heathcoat-Amory, rh Mr. David
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, Nick
Hogg, rh Mr. Douglas
Hollobone, Mr. Philip
Holloway, Mr. Adam
Horam, Mr. John
Horwood, Martin
Hunt, Mr. Jeremy
Hurd, Mr. Nick
Jack, rh Mr. Michael
Jackson, Mr. Stewart
Johnson, Mr. Boris
Jones, Mr. David
Kawczynski, Daniel
Key, Robert
Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Knight, rh Mr. Greg
Laing, Mrs. Eleanor
Lait, Mrs. Jacqui
Lancaster, Mr. Mark
Leigh, Mr. Edward
Lewis, Dr. Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr. Ian
Lidington, Mr. David
Loughton, Tim
Mackay, rh Mr. Andrew
Maclean, rh David
Main, Anne
Malins, Mr. Humfrey
Maude, rh Mr. Francis
May, rh Mrs. Theresa
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr. Patrick
Miller, Mrs. Maria
Milton, Anne
Moss, Mr. Malcolm
Murrison, Dr. Andrew
Newmark, Mr. Brooks
O'Brien, Mr. Stephen
Öpik, Lembit
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, Mr. James
Paterson, Mr. Owen
Pelling, Mr. Andrew
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Pickles, Mr. Eric
Prisk, Mr. Mark
Pritchard, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr. John
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Robertson, Hugh
Robertson, Mr. Laurence
Ruffley, Mr. David
Scott, Mr. Lee
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, Grant
Shepherd, Mr. Richard
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Mr. Keith
Spelman, Mrs. Caroline
Spink, Bob
Stanley, rh Sir John
Steen, Mr. Anthony
Streeter, Mr. Gary
Stuart, Mr. Graham
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
Syms, Mr. Robert
Taylor, Dr. Richard
Tredinnick, David
Turner, Mr. Andrew
Vaizey, Mr. Edward
Vara, Mr. Shailesh
Villiers, Mrs. Theresa
Wallace, Mr. Ben
Waterson, Mr. Nigel
Watkinson, Angela
Whittingdale, Mr. John
Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann
Wiggin, Bill
Wilshire, Mr. David
Wilson, Mr. Rob
Winterton, Ann
Wright, Jeremy
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr. John Randall and
Michael Fabricant
NOES
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, rh Mr. Bob
Alexander, Danny
Alexander, rh Mr. Douglas
Allen, Mr. Graham
Anderson, Mr. David
Anderson, Janet
Armstrong, rh Hilary
Atkins, Charlotte
Austin, Mr. Ian
Austin, John
Bailey, Mr. Adrian
Baird, Vera
Baker, Norman
Balls, Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barlow, Ms Celia
Barron, rh Mr. Kevin
Begg, Miss Anne
Bell, Sir Stuart
Benn, rh Hilary
Betts, Mr. Clive
Blackman, Liz
Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blizzard, Mr. Bob
Borrow, Mr. David S.
Bradshaw, Mr. Ben
Brennan, Kevin
Brooke, Annette
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr. Nicholas
Brown, Mr. Russell
Browne, rh Mr. Des
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burgon, Colin
Burnham, Andy
Burt, Lorely
Butler, Ms Dawn
Byers, rh Mr. Stephen
Cable, Dr. Vincent
Caborn, rh Mr. Richard
Cairns, David
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Campbell, Mr. Ronnie
Caton, Mr. Martin
Cawsey, Mr. Ian
Challen, Colin
Chapman, Ben
Chaytor, Mr. David
Clark, Ms Katy
Clark, Paul
Clarke, rh Mr. Charles
Clarke, rh Mr. Tom
Clelland, Mr. David
Coffey, Ann
Cohen, Harry
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Creagh, Mary
Cruddas, Jon
Cummings, John
Cunningham, Mr. Jim
Cunningham, Tony
Darling, rh Mr. Alistair
David, Mr. Wayne
Dean, Mrs. Janet
Devine, Mr. Jim
Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit
Dismore, Mr. Andrew
Dodds, Mr. Nigel
Doran, Mr. Frank
Dowd, Jim
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Eagle, Angela
Eagle, Maria
Efford, Clive
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Ennis, Jeff
Etherington, Bill
Farrelly, Paul
Farron, Tim
Featherstone, Lynne
Field, rh Mr. Frank
Fisher, Mark
Flello, Mr. Robert
Foster, Mr. Michael (Worcester)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings and Rye)
Gapes, Mike
Gerrard, Mr. Neil
Gibson, Dr. Ian
Gidley, Sandra
Gilroy, Linda
Godsiff, Mr. Roger
Goggins, Paul
Goodman, Helen
Griffith, Nia
Griffiths, Nigel
Gwynne, Andrew
Hall, Mr. Mike
Hall, Patrick
Hamilton, Mr. David
Hamilton, Mr. Fabian
Harris, Dr. Evan
Harris, Mr. Tom
Havard, Mr. Dai
Healey, John
Hemming, John
Henderson, Mr. Doug
Hendrick, Mr. Mark
Hepburn, Mr. Stephen
Heppell, Mr. John
Hesford, Stephen
Heyes, David
Hill, rh Keith
Hillier, Meg
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon
Holmes, Paul
Hoon, rh Mr. Geoffrey
Hopkins, Kelvin
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Howarth, David
Howarth, rh Mr. George
Hoyle, Mr. Lindsay
Hughes, rh Beverley
Huhne, Chris
Humble, Mrs. Joan
Hunter, Mark
Iddon, Dr. Brian
Illsley, Mr. Eric
Ingram, rh Mr. Adam
Irranca-Davies, Huw
Jackson, Glenda
James, Mrs. Siân C.
Jenkins, Mr. Brian
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Ms Diana R.
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr. Kevan
Jones, Lynne
Jones, Mr. Martyn
Joyce, Mr. Eric
Keeble, Ms Sally
Keeley, Barbara
Keen, Alan
Keen, Ann
Kemp, Mr. Fraser
Kennedy, rh Jane
Khan, Mr. Sadiq
Kidney, Mr. David
Kilfoyle, Mr. Peter
Knight, Jim
Kramer, Susan
Kumar, Dr. Ashok
Lammy, Mr. David
Laxton, Mr. Bob
Lazarowicz, Mark
Lepper, David
Lewis, Mr. Ivan
Linton, Martin
Lloyd, Tony
Llwyd, Mr. Elfyn
Love, Mr. Andrew
MacDougall, Mr. John
Mackinlay, Andrew
MacNeil, Mr. Angus
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mallaber, Judy
Mann, John
Marris, Rob
Marsden, Mr. Gordon
Marshall, Mr. David
Marshall-Andrews, Mr. Robert
Martlew, Mr. Eric
McAvoy, rh Mr. Thomas
McCabe, Steve
McCarthy, Kerry
McCarthy-Fry, Sarah
McDonagh, Siobhain
McFadden, Mr. Pat
McGovern, Mr. Jim
McGuire, Mrs. Anne
McIsaac, Shona
McKenna, Rosemary
McNulty, Mr. Tony
Meacher, rh Mr. Michael
Meale, Mr. Alan
Michael, rh Alun
Miliband, rh Mr. David
Miliband, Edward
Miller, Andrew
Mitchell, Mr. Austin
Moffat, Anne
Moffatt, Laura
Mole, Chris
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine
Moran, Margaret
Morden, Jessica
Morley, Mr. Elliot
Mountford, Kali
Mudie, Mr. George
Mulholland, Greg
Mullin, Mr. Chris
Munn, Meg
Murphy, Mr. Denis
Murphy, Mr. Jim
Murphy, rh Mr. Paul
Naysmith, Dr. Doug
Norris, Dan
O'Brien, Mr. Mike
O'Hara, Mr. Edward
Olner, Mr. Bill
Osborne, Sandra
Palmer, Dr. Nick
Pearson, Ian
Plaskitt, Mr. James
Pope, Mr. Greg
Prentice, Bridget
Prentice, Mr. Gordon
Price, Adam
Primarolo, rh Dawn
Prosser, Gwyn
Pugh, Dr. John
Purchase, Mr. Ken
Purnell, James
Raynsford, rh Mr. Nick
Reed, Mr. Andy
Reed, Mr. Jamie
Reid, Mr. Alan
Reid, rh John
Riordan, Mrs. Linda
Robertson, Angus
Robertson, John
Robinson, Mr. Geoffrey
Robinson, Mrs. Iris
Robinson, Mr. Peter
Rooney, Mr. Terry
Roy, Mr. Frank
Ruane, Chris
Russell, Bob
Ryan, Joan
Salmond, Mr. Alex
Salter, Martin
Sanders, Mr. Adrian
Seabeck, Alison
Shaw, Jonathan
Sheerman, Mr. Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Short, rh Clare
Simon, Mr. Siôn
Simpson, Alan
Skinner, Mr. Dennis
Slaughter, Mr. Andrew
Smith, rh Mr. Andrew
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
Smith, Angela E. (Basildon)
Smith, Geraldine
Smith, rh Jacqui
Smith, John
Snelgrove, Anne
Soulsby, Sir Peter
Southworth, Helen
Spellar, rh Mr. John
Starkey, Dr. Phyllis
Stewart, Ian
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Swinson, Jo
Tami, Mark
Taylor, Ms Dari
Taylor, David
Taylor, Matthew
Teather, Sarah
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, Mr. Stephen
Tipping, Paddy
Todd, Mr. Mark
Touhig, Mr. Don
Trickett, Jon
Truswell, Mr. Paul
Turner, Dr. Desmond
Turner, Mr. Neil
Twigg, Derek
Ussher, Kitty
Vaz, Keith
Vis, Dr. Rudi
Walley, Joan
Waltho, Lynda
Wareing, Mr. Robert N.
Watson, Mr. Tom
Watts, Mr. Dave
Whitehead, Dr. Alan
Wicks, Malcolm
Williams, rh Mr. Alan
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Stephen
Willis, Mr. Phil
Willott, Jenny
Wilson, Sammy
Winnick, Mr. David
Winterton, Ms Rosie
Wishart, Pete
Wood, Mike
Woolas, Mr. Phil
Wright, Mr. Anthony
Wright, David
Wright, Mr. Iain
Wright, Dr. Tony
Wyatt, Derek
Tellers for the Noes:
Claire Ward and
Mr. Vernon Coaker
Question accordingly negatived.
14 Nov 2005 : Column 783
Mr. Deputy
Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the
disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
Remaining Government amendments agreed to.
Order for Third Reading read.
Hazel
Blears: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I
am grateful to Members on both sides of the House for their constructive approach
during consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Report. Many helpful points,
including points of clarification, were raised in Committee, which have enabled
us to make more explicit the intention of the Bill and to improve it. I thank
the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend
the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) for their excellent chairmanship of our
discussions.
I
also thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John
Thurso), who is not in the Chamber. I learned more about the Atholl Highlanders
during the proceedings of the Bill than I could ever have contemplated. I also
know more about managing a rural estate, which is how the hon. Gentleman seems
to spend some of his time. The Committee stage was extremely good-natured.
I
hope that Members will agree that we responded positively to many of the points
raised and that the Bill we are sending to the other place has been significantly
improved by the scrutiny process. I welcome the broad measure of cross-party
support for many of the provisions. In Committee, we shared the desire to tackle
gun and knife crime and to try to reduce the unacceptable, alcohol-fuelled
violence and disorder, which we unfortunately see on too many of the streets
of our towns and cities, to protect the decent, law-abiding majority of people.
14 Nov 2005 : Column 784
The
British crime survey data show considerable falls in violent crime since 1997—a
total fall of 34 per cent., which is significant by anybody's reckoning—but
we are not complacent, nor would the public want us to be. Too many people
are still victims of crime, including violent crime. Too many people live in
fear of crime and we need to tackle that, too. We are doing everything we can
to try to make a real difference and the Bill contains a good cross-section
of provisions, giving the police and local communities the powers they need
further to reduce violent crime, particularly in relation to knives, guns and
alcohol.
Although
most people drink responsibly, we all agree that the scale of alcohol-fuelled
violence is too high. I believe that responsibility for ending the binge-drinking
culture rests both with individuals, because it is important that they make
correct choices about drinking, and with the people who run pubs, clubs, supermarkets
and off-licences. I realise that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) wanted
to make a distinction between on and off-licence premises in terms of responsibility,
but I reject such a distinction. If Members consider the results of the recent
test purchasing in off-licence premises, they will see that there is still
a significant problem of such premises selling to under-age youngsters. It
is not simply a problem for the on-licence trade. Everybody has to take responsibility
and the alcohol disorder zone provisions are about ensuring that collective
responsibility.
We
debated drinking banning orders at some length. I hope that Members will accept
the difference between drinking banning orders and ASBOs, although I do not
have a great deal of real hope in the case of the hon. Member for Woking. There
is a significant difference. We want the orders to be used proactively by the
courts whenever people come before them.
There
is a series of exceptions to the drinking banning order, because we want to
ensure that people can access their home, education and place of work, even
when they are under a drinking banning order. We also said that people should
still be able to attend their place of worship. That could help them to desist
from the demon drink, so it will certainly be included as part of the guidance.
We
debated alcohol disorder zones again today. The Bill tries to build on the
efforts already made by responsible licensees. My hon. Friend the Member for
Brighton, Pavilion (David Lepper) referred to business improvement districts.
We talked about the city safe scheme in Manchester and similar schemes in Swansea,
Leicester, Cardiff and York, where licensees are working voluntarily with their
police and local councils to tackle the problems.
Members
have expressed concerns that good operators will be caught with the bad ones.
The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) put the point extremely well:
everybody is culpable but there should be differentiation in the degree of
culpability. We shall try to achieve that in the regulations.
I
am disappointed that the Liberal Democrats have continually moved amendments
that—in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North
(Ms Keeble)—would ensure that the provision for alcohol disorders was
unworkable. We should be honest enough to say either that we support the principle
of
14 Nov 2005 : Column 785
such zones and ensure that we have practical, effective legislation or that
we do not support such zones and would do away with them. What causes me immense
frustration is that, time and again, the Liberal Democrats will the ends but
not the means.
The
Liberal Democrats say that they are against antisocial behaviour, but they
will not support ASBOs. They say that they are against gangs hanging around,
but they will not support dispersal orders. They say that they want to tackle
alcohol-fuelled violence, but are not prepared to support alcohol disorder
zones. In politics, it is very important that we are very clear about what
action we want to take. Theirs is a party that has not been in government and
is not likely to be in government. It simply wills the ends but not the means
to get there. Sometimes, government is about making some pretty hard decisions.
Mr.
Kevan Jones : Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that the Liberal
Democrats say one thing in the House and do another thing in the country, but
that, tonight, Liberal Democrat Front Benchers have supported the perpetrators
of crime, rather than the victims?
Hazel
Blears: My hon. Friend makes a good point. When he put it to the Liberal
Democrats earlier that perhaps they would like to include in their "Focus" leaflets
their support of the human rights of the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour,
he got a resounding silence from them.
Part
2 seeks to address a number of serious problems associated with armed crime
and the misuse of imitation firearms, air weapons and knives. I am pleased
that it has generally received broad support, although some minor issues have
been raised. The appalling deaths and injuries that have been caused by gun
and knife crime deeply hurt families and communities and leave a legacy of
fear.
Ms
Celia Barlow (Hove) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree that airguns,
which are sometimes called BB guns, can be used recreationally? Although I
do not take part in such recreation, I am concerned that such legislation might
damage sports such as airsoft or historical re-enactments. Does she agree that
perhaps a distinguishing mark on the barrels of such guns could play a part
in reducing the criminal use of such items?
Hazel
Blears: It is excellent to see that Labour Members are interested
in practical legislation that can work. I am delighted at my hon. Friend's
suggestion. She will know that we have made some amendments to cover historical
re-enactments and museums, and she makes an excellent suggestion in relation
to airsoft. Clearly, if imitations are not realistic, they can be used in that
fashion.
I
may as well be even in my disappointment as between the Liberal Democrats and
the Conservatives. I was disappointed with the Conservatives in relation to
mandatory sentences for people who seek to get others to hide and mind their
guns for them. We included a provision that mandatory five-year sentences,
such as
14 Nov 2005 : Column 786
those for the possession of weapons, would be imposed for seeking to use particularly
children to mind illegal guns. Frankly, I was amazed at the Conservatives.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said:
"For this crime, it seems inappropriate
that the sentence should be mandatory".—[Official Report, Standing
Committee B, 20 October 2005; c. 187.]
The
Opposition must know that, since we introduced the mandatory five-year sentence
for being in possession of an illegal gun, people have reduced their usage
of real guns and moved to using imitations, which is why we have the provisions
on the banning of realistic imitations.
Ms
Dawn Butler (Brent, South) (Lab): I, too, was extremely disappointed
with the Opposition's attempts to remove the mandatory five-year sentence.
With a constituency such as mine, where we have a firearms-related incident
every 17 days on average, the removal of such sentences would be absolutely
detrimental to the good work that the police are doing in ensuring that gun
crime is reduced. We should act responsibly when the Government introduce measures
that will effectively save people's lives and ensure that younger people do
not take up guns because they know that doing so will carry a mandatory five-year
sentence.
Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has a great deal of personal
experience of these really devastating problems in her community. I am sure
that Labour Members not only share her disappointment, but are shocked by the
Opposition's position and the fact that they divided the House to vote against
mandatory sentences, which was a great surprise.
Mr.
Fraser Kemp (Houghton and Washington, East) (Lab): Does my right hon.
Friend agree that the restrictions on airguns in the Bill are good news for
one of my constituents, Andrew Ross, who was shot in the face three weeks ago?
He needed six stitches and nearly lost an eye. Such restrictions are an important
step forward. If, as I hope, the Bill is passed tonight, will she join my call
to urge forces throughout the country to have an amnesty for airguns? If fewer
such weapons are lying around in people's houses, it is logical that people
such as my constituent will be safer.
Hazel
Blears: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the restrictions
will help to ensure that air weapons are better regulated. As I said earlier,
there were 156 serious injuries involving air weapons last year. He suggests
an amnesty. If such weapons are no longer being used, they should be kept out
of the hands of people who could misuse them, so his suggestion would be a
positive way forward.
Gordon
Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab): I commend the Bill because
in the smallest county in Scotland, of which my constituency is part, in the
first seven months of the year, 41 of the 50 crimes involving firearms related
to airguns. There was an incident similar to that raised by my hon. Friend
the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) when a 13 or 14-year-old
boy was shot under the eye. Anything that can be done to tighten the registration
of, and
14 Nov 2005 : Column 787
restriction on, such armaments must be a step in the right direction to make
our society and communities much safer.
Hazel
Blears: Yes. I know about my hon. Friend's personal commitment to
the issue because I was delighted that he recently presented me with a petition
through which many of his constituents expressed their worry about the misuse
of air weapons.
Mr.
Hollobone rose—
Hazel
Blears: I give way to the hon. Gentleman with the striking tie.
Mr.
Hollobone: I thank the right hon. Lady for her compliment. I raise
a genuine constituent's concern. Mr. Cockayne from Kettering is a member of
the Great War Society, which has a distinguished record of re-enacting scenes
from the great war. The Governments of France and Belgium have invited the
society to re-enact the battle of the Somme in July 2006—the right hon.
Lady will know that that has special significance. Mr. Cockayne wants to know
whether members of the society will be allowed to leave the country with their
deactivated original weapons and then be allowed back into the country with
those weapons when they return.
Hazel
Blears: Yes. The Bill now provides an exemption for deactivated weapons,
so they will not fall under the category of realistic imitation weapons, which
will be banned from being manufactured and imported. If the weapons are deactivated,
those people will be able to take part in their activity. I have been keen
throughout the Bill's passage to try to ensure that we do not cast our net
too wide and affect people who do extremely good work, especially with schoolchildren,
by re-enacting and taking part in living history lessons to try to bring such
history alive. I am conscious of the excellent work done by people in my constituency
in that regard.
We
had a good debate on air weapons and I think that we have dealt sufficiently
with the matter. I was disappointed that we did not have the chance to debate
primers because I was looking forward to telling hon. Members that I had learned
about not only muzzle joule energy, but percussions caps for UN metallic-cased
ammunition. Our chance has now disappeared, but those matters have added to
the sum of my knowledge, if not to the sum of human knowledge.
We
did not have the chance to discuss imitation firearms, but I am glad that we
have been able to include in the Bill exemptions for television and theatrical
productions, historical re-enactments and museums. We have struck a pragmatic
and realistic balance between the mischief at which we are aiming, which is
the misuse of realistic imitations—the use of which has increased by
66 per cent. in the past year, so we need to crack down on that—and protecting
legitimate use.
Adam
Afriyie (Windsor) (Con): I echo a question asked by my hon. Friend
the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). How many such crimes
were committed by children aged between 17 and 18? Although the Minister cited
many other figures, she did not tell us that information.
Hazel
Blears: No, I am afraid that I do not have to hand the figures on
17 to 18-year-olds. However, a
14 Nov 2005 : Column 788
strong case has been made about the danger of young people obtaining weapons
that could be misused at the age of 18. As I have set out, there is a range
of circumstances in which youngsters as young as 14 can continue to use air
weapons provided that they do so under supervision. I am sure that the hon.
Gentleman welcomes such provisions, which aim to achieve the right balance,
so that people have the freedom to use their weapons, but certainly do not
have the freedom to misuse them and harass good, decent, law-abiding citizens.
I
have nothing further to add save to commend the Bill to the House. As I said,
violent crime has been reduced by 34 per cent. since the Government came to
power, which is an excellent record. There is always more that we can do, however,
to try to make sure that the people of this country have the right to live
in safe and secure communities. The Government will try to achieve that with
every measure that we introduce to try to ensure that the criminal justice
system and the police service are on the side of the decent, law-abiding majority.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr.
Malins: I should like to begin in the same way as the Minister by
telling the House that all the members of the Committee have good reason
to be grateful to our Chairmen, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley
and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton),
and to the Clerk of the Committee, who looked after us very well during the
course of our deliberations.
I
particularly thank the Minister, because throughout the Committee, she, like
the rest of us, ensured that our debate was reasoned and measured. Although
there were disagreements, as is always the case, there were also points on
which we agreed, and we approached everything in a constructive manner. I should
like to thank my hon. Friends who contributed a great deal in Committee. My
hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for Hertford and Stortford
(Mr. Prisk) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) were particularly
helpful, but I should like to give special mention to my hon. Friend the Member
for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) for taking on his shoulders the heavy burden
of dealing with firearms matters. I am grateful to him for that work.
The
majority of correspondence that hon. Members received before the Bill went
into Committee was sent by people who were interested for personal reasons—they
often had relevant hobbies—in the provisions on firearms. We all received
many letters from concerned constituents. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey
and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) for her contributions in Committee. We
had some useful exchanges with Government Back Benchers, including the hon.
Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Although I rarely agreed with her,
and she rarely agreed with me, that does not alter the fact that such exchanges
are worth while.
The
Bill has completed its Committee and Report stages, and it will shortly proceed
to the other place. Earlier, the Minister said that one or two of our amendments
may find favour with her, given what they set out to achieve, although not
necessarily as drafted. That shows the House of Commons at its best. From
14 Nov 2005 : Column 789
time to time—I wish it happened more often—Governments accept Opposition
amendments if they think that there is merit in them. I therefore look forward
very much to hearing the Government's proposals on those amendments, sooner
rather than later. We have been talking for weeks about the Violent Crime Reduction
Bill, which draws our attention to three areas that are of great concern to
everyone in the House of Commons and in Parliament generally. First, drink-fuelled
crime and alcohol-related disorder are a huge concern. The Minister properly
said that the figures are too high, and there is concern about the problem
on both sides of the House, particularly among Members who represent urban
areas. I understand and respect that concern, because sometimes people from
urban areas see things differently. They are not always correct, but they see
things differently from people who come from areas that are not so urban. I
understand the difference, and accept that there is a balance to be struck.
Hon.
Members have expressed throughout our debates—this is a non-party point—their
great concern about the increase in binge drinking and alcohol-related violence
on our streets. Earlier today, I remarked that all of us are concerned about
binge drinking among very young people. Something must be done about it. I
hope that hon. Members will accept in the spirit in which it is intended my
comment that a number of us may have drunk too much when we were 18, 19 or
20, but in our day it was most unusual to see binge drinking and heavy drunkenness
among much younger children such as 13, 14 or 15-year-olds. The fact that we
see that quite a lot now is troubling, not least because of the health implications.
Setting aside for the moment the obvious public and criminal costs, I fear
that there is a generation growing up now who have become used to heavy doses
of alcohol in their mid or early teens. We should all worry about that very
much.
Tackling
drink-fuelled crime is important and the Government's approach in the Bill
is to introduce two new measures: drinking banning orders and alcohol disorder
zones. I have said throughout our debates that I feel that the existing law
is in many respects sufficient to cover the mischief with which we are attempting
to deal. There is a variety of offences in the criminal law relating to alcohol-fuelled
disorder and violence, as well as the range of penalties and criminal offences
that—I repeat—the Home Affairs Committee has said are underused
by the police. What is important is to enforce existing law, rather than consistently
to give in to the apparent need to make new law, which is the Government's
answer to everything. If existing law were seriously enforced, we might not
be having this debate now. It is a great worry that current law is not being
enforced. During his remarks on guns, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East
Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) referred to 30-odd offences on the statute book
the proper enforcement and policing of which would ensure that we did not need
to debate much of what we have debated today.
I
hope to goodness that the drinking banning order proves successful. I have
my doubts, but I wish it well. We have expressed our concerns about alcohol
disorder zones and argued throughout—we voted on it—that
14 Nov 2005 : Column 790
those premises that are not to blame should not be in the same position as
those premises that are clearly to blame.
We
had a long debate on knives. All of us on both sides of the House accept that
knife crime—in particular, the offence under section 139 of the Criminal
Justice Act 1988 of carrying a bladed article—is increasing dramatically.
That is a great worry, yet the only reference to that crime in the Bill is
in the fairly narrow, perhaps relevant in their own way but not generally applicable,
clauses that deal with knives in schools—a growing problem, with up to
60,000 children aged between 11 and 16 carrying knives in school, which is
a terrifying statistic—and the offence of using someone to mind a weapon.
The offence of carrying a bladed article in public is one that we must address
much more strongly, so I was disappointed by the Government's response to our
new clause in which we proposed a new maximum—not minimum—penalty
for that offence, increasing it from two years to five years. The Government
did not take our arguments on board and made no conciliatory comments in that
respect.
My
hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon carried on his own shoulders a great
deal of the burden of our debates on firearms. Tonight, he spoke on the clauses
that deal with air weapons, and we were able to force a Division. However,
the time ran out, although I do not blame the Minister because it was one of
those things. I wish that we had had more time to debate the amendments covering
ammunition and realistic imitation firearms and re-enactments, but I repeat
that no blame attaches to the Minister.
On
firearms, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon has made it clear, and I
shall make it clear, too, that today's position is different from that a couple
of weeks ago. Conservative Members thank the Minister for her reasonable and
responsive approach to many of the matters that we raised in Committee, and
we are pleased that the Government have tabled amendments that go some way
to assuaging our concerns and those of the millions of law-abiding weapon users
who stand to be affected by the legislation. However, many thousands of people
are still concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the Bill's progress—we
know that from our correspondence.
I
repeat our support for the intent behind the clauses on weapons, because we
support wholeheartedly measures that will have a practical effect on reducing
gun crime in the UK and making our citizens safer. However, we do not support
creating laws for the sake of being seen to be tough on gun crime, the effect
of which will be felt almost exclusively by legitimate users of weapons and
not by the criminals on whom we intend to crack down. My hon. Friend the Member
for Huntingdon and I take the view that clause 32 is one of most inherently
flawed clauses in the entire Bill. It stands to penalise collectors and create
a further unnecessary administrative burden while doing virtually nothing to
combat violent crime.
Thousands
of sportsmen use ammunition loading presses and dies for a number of reasons,
including to save money, to help the environment and to improve accuracy. The
ability to reload can save up to 50 per cent. of the cost of factory ammunition,
allowing clay pigeon shooters who use a significant number of
14 Nov 2005 : Column 791
shotgun cartridges to save money. I have made those points because we were
unable to debate these important matters on Report, Mr. Speaker.
Finally,
realistic imitation firearms were thoroughly debated in Committee, but sadly
we have not debated them today, so some concerns have still not been fully
addressed. It is good news that the Government realise the serious unintended
potential of clause 35 for groups such as re-enactors and museums, but serious
concerns linger that it provides only such groups with a defence against a
criminal offence.
We
must stand up for utterly law-abiding citizens, whom we should not seek to
penalise with any of our legislation, and I hope that the other place returns
to that point. I was sad and sorry when I received hundreds of letters from
those who indulge in the harmless and in many ways laudable sport of airsoft.
Their letters—they wrote to many other hon. Members, too—asked
why they, who are innocent, must pay the price.
I
have three points for the Minister. First, I wish the Bill good fortune in
the other place. Secondly, it is vital that we focus on what works: I hope
that the Government demonstrate a real need for the particular measures in
the Bill and explain why current legislation has been deemed ineffective. Thirdly,
I hope that the general principle, with which surely all hon. Members agree,
that there is no point in punishing the innocent in the vain belief that it
will help to punish the guilty is raised in the other place. That principle
goes across the Bill, and it will affect premises that serve alcohol and law-abiding
people who are involved in the gun trade. One of my great fears is that we
are rapidly moving towards a situation that has arisen under previous Governments
whereby we tend far too much to penalise those who are innocent, honest and
genuine in the belief that we will affect the mindset of those who are wicked
and criminal. The truth is that we will not. It is very important to take that
on board.
I
say a final word of thanks to the Minister for her courtesy. Conservative Members
look forward to seeing the progress of the Bill in the other House. We are
united in our belief, as are the Government, that there are vital issues that
need to be tackled. Although we disagree with their approach to many of those
issues, we share a common purpose and will always work towards that end.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I add my congratulations to the Minister
on steering the Bill through. It is an excellent Bill that adds to the existing
menu of laws and other restrictions that are being introduced to control antisocial
behaviour in our neighbourhoods.
I
wish to concentrate on two aspects, the first of which is firearms. There are
lots of scaremongering stories in the press suggesting that the Bill limits
the freedom of people who use replica weapons. In Committee, my hon. Friend
the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—unfortunately
she is not here tonight—graphically described the siege mentality in
parts of her constituency as regards the use of replica guns. Any move to ensure
that one less life is taken on the streets of our cities has to be welcome.
I
welcome the restrictions on air weapons. My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton
and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) mentioned one of his constituents in
14 Nov 2005 : Column 792
that context. The Newcastle Evening Chronicle has run a well-supported
campaign in the north-east on introducing tougher measures on air weapons.
Its readers will welcome the Bill, which increases such powers. In my constituency,
which is semi-rural, the misuse of air weapons leads to tragic events, including
the shooting and mutilation of people's pets, as well as wildlife. The Bill
will be welcomed by numerous constituents who have written to me asking for
tougher controls on the use of firearms.
I
am pleased that the Mobile Telephone (Re-Programming) Bill, which I introduced
as a private Member's Bill in the last Parliament, has been incorporated into
the Bill. That Bill ran out of parliamentary time, although I did secure my
Christmas Day (Trading) Bill. The theft of mobile phones—a crime against
the young—is a growing menace in our cities. The amount of money involved
in the theft and reprogramming of mobile phones is mind-boggling. The police
and the industry believe that the Bill will be a welcome new piece of weaponry
in their armoury in bearing down on a crime that did not exist 30 years ago
but now plagues many communities. The police in the north-east have told me
that there is a clear connection between the stolen mobile phone trade and
drug dealing. The Bill makes it an offence to offer the service of reprogramming
mobile phones. That gives the police much-needed weaponry to bear down on such
crimes, albeit that the perpetrators will probably find ways around it.
We
have discussed antisocial behaviour caused by alcohol misuse. The Bill will
improve our communities in that respect. Many of the problems in my constituency
are caused not by public houses but by youngsters who have access to alcohol
and hang around on street corners and estates, making people's lives a misery.
I was struck in Committee and today by the difference between the world that
I live in and that of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). Perhaps he still
lives in a quaint age in which people in villages in his constituency think
that people getting drunk at weekends is down to high spirits. I certainly
do not, and neither do many of my constituents.
I
have enjoyed debating the Bill. It will lead to better regulation in our constituencies,
and it will be warmly welcomed in North Durham.
Lynne
Featherstone: I should like to put on record my thanks to the hon.
Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and the right hon. Member for Bromley and
Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) for chairing my first Committee and to the Minister
and all hon. Members for a constructive and instructive debate. Despite the
Minister's comments, I welcome the Government's attempts to deal with a scourge
in all our communities—the twin evils of alcohol and the rise in the
use of weapons.
I
fear that the Bill will have to deal with more disorder than it would otherwise
have done. Although I have much sympathy with the Government's position on
relaxing licensing laws, problems are already arising in that local residents'
and local authorities' decisions are being overturned. That is a great pity.
One of the main ideas was staggering the hours at which people would leave
pubs, yet I understand that, instead of leaving at 11 pm or 12 am, they all
come out at 2.30 am or 3 am. That will create problems for the alcohol disorder
zones and make matters more difficult.
14 Nov 2005 : Column 793
Again,
despite the Minister's comments, I support the idea of alcohol disorder zones.
I am disappointed that she does not wish me to criticise what I find so difficult
about the matter: the lack of regulations or guidance that show what differentials
can be made in the charging regime so that different levels of culpability
can be appropriately charged. However, we are short of time and I do not want
to dwell on that.
I
have learned more about weaponry than I ever wanted to know during our debates.
One outstanding matter, which we had no time to reach, was determining the
lethal Joule energy output. I am not sure that I could make a judgment on that
because I understand that Ireland allows 4 J whereas 1 J is allowed here. I
do not know at what point one dies or what test should determine that. I had
thought about lining people up and ascertaining at what Joule output they keeled
over, but I am not sure that that is the right way to approach the matter.
Stewart
Hosie: It is not very liberal.
Lynne
Featherstone: The hon. Gentleman should ask my children—I am
not very liberal with them, either.
Weapons
are a scourge of our time. In some parts of my constituency, young people aspire
to criminality and owning guns. Guns and knives are what makes you cool—what
makes you the man. However, we need more than legislation to tackle that; we
need more work on the ground to change the prospects, future and mindset of
those who are so lost that they do not even want a way out. The Bill does not
tackle that charter of despair. It deals with some of the important symptoms
of what is going on but we need to do more work.
I
welcome the beginning of parity between knife and gun crime, especially the
moves against imitation firearms, which are a growing evil. I remember visiting
SO19, where one is put in front of a training video with a gun, put in a position
whereby someone runs towards one with a gun, and given a split second to decide
whether to shoot or not. I would undoubtedly have shot, but the person was
running past to save me from something.
We
will have to ascertain whether some of the alcohol disorder zone and drinking
banning order chickens that we have hatched come home to roost. I hope that
the Bill will curb some of the worst excesses associated with guns and alcohol
but we all need to put on our thinking caps and consider how to tackle the
root cause of the twin evils.
Jim
Sheridan: I shall be brief. I am conscious that other hon. Members
have served in Committee and been present all day waiting to be called.
I
should like to concentrate on gun crime and especially knife crime. Knife crime
is a menace in every community that we serve. In my experience in the west
of Scotland, knife crime is reported with alarming regularity in all our newspapers
almost daily. If any independent testimony were needed to verify the frightening
use of knives in our towns and cities, police
14 Nov 2005 : Column 794
and hospital staff could give chapter and verse. Hon. Members would be horrified
at the extent of knife crime in the west of Scotland, not only at weekends
but every day of the week. History and experience of knife crime becomes crucial
evidence for toughening existing laws. That is why I fully support the Bill
and raising the minimum age at which a young person can carry a knife from
16 to 18.
I
should also like to pay tribute to Strathclyde police, who are a force to be
reckoned with. They deal very severely with knife crime. They have seen at
first hand the way in which the gun and knife cultures have grown in the west
of Scotland in the past 20 years, resulting in knives, blades, swords and Stanley
knives becoming the weapons of choice among the gangsters and criminals. Anyone
who has spoken to members of their local hospital staff will understand the
problem that they, too, face in regard to health and safety. The country would
be facing an increase in murders of tidal-wave proportions if it were not for
the tremendous skill and professionalism of our surgeons and nursing staff.
I
want to talk briefly about amnesties. Looking round the Chamber, I imagine
that, with one or two exceptions, I am probably the only one here who will
remember the amnesty in the early '70s led by the late Frankie Vaughan. He
organised a very successful amnesty in the streets and housing estates of Glasgow.
Some of our modern celebrities could go a long way if they were able to do
the same thing.
A
frightening development in gun crime has been the conversion and modification
of imitation guns so that they can fire live ammunition, in which there has
been a 66 per cent. increase in the 12 months up to this year. I have said
that no area is exempt or excluded from the threat of gun crime. However, if
further proof is needed, last week in a neighbouring constituency to mine in
Renfrewshire, the police raided a flat and removed a 12-bore pump-action shotgun,
a bolt-action .22–250 rifle, a 12-bore single-barrelled sawn-off shotgun,
a converted replica pistol, and 98 bulleted cartridges. I hope that this legislation
will enable the police to do even more to get guns and knives off our streets.
Stewart Hosie : There is a great deal in the Bill to be commended,
not least the provisions regarding real firearms and realistic imitation firearms.
As the Minister and other Members who served on the Committee know, however,
our primary concern is airgun crime, although attempts to tackle real gun crime
remain vital, as I said in Committee and I am happy to put on record again.
I
shall explain our concerns about airgun crime. In 2003–04, there were
68 firearms murders, 1,195 attempted murders, and more than 10,000 crimes involving
real firearms in England. In Scotland over the same period, there was one murder,
four attempted murders and fewer than 200 crimes in which the firearm was identified
as a real one. The figures for handguns are even more stark. There were 5,123
crimes, including 35 murders, in England, compared with only 29 handgun crimes
and no murders in Scotland. The Government are absolutely right to tackle this
scourge and to clamp down on it as hard as they possibly can. I do not want
to see the handgun crime that causes so much misery in parts of the south-east
of
14 Nov 2005 : Column 795
England spreading to Scotland and other parts of the UK. In Scotland over that
same period, however, there were 415 airgun crimes, compared with 194 crimes
involving a real firearm—more than 200 per cent. more.
I
welcome the amendments that have been made to the Bill. The Minister knows
that I have concerns about the licensing scheme relating to vendors rather
than purchasers. I am being deliberately brief, but I hope that, if the Minister
looks at the statistics in a year or two and finds that the measure has not
been sufficiently robust, and if airgun crime continues to rise, the Government
will revisit this issue and look more sympathetically at a purchaser licensing
scheme, rather than a vendor licensing scheme.
Hazel
Blears: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I do not think
that I have anything to add except to thank the hon. Members for Woking (Mr.
Malins) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) and all the officials
who have helped us throughout our consideration of the Bill. I commend the
Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time,
and passed.