John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 147, in clause 24, page 26, line 13, after ‘he’, insert ‘intentionally’.

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 185, in clause 24, page 26, line 15, leave out from ‘facilitate’ to ‘the’ in line 16.

No. 148, in clause 24, page 26, line 24, leave out

‘or be likely to involve or to lead to’.

No. 149, in clause 24, page 26, line 25, at end insert

‘or is intended by him to be used in the course of the commission of an offence’.

John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

We come to part 2 of the Bill and the important questions of firearms control and legislation.

I preface my remarks by saying that I abhor gun crime and the misuse of guns. The crime that comes from the misuse of guns in society is an evil that everybody on all sides of the Committee will want to combat. In the past I have supported legislation and I shall continue to support appropriate legislation. I also point out—this is possibly an interest that I am declaring—that I am a shotgun certificate holder and a firearms certificate holder. I have charge of a number of weapons that are used for a variety of legitimate purposes. As a legitimate gun owner, I welcome strong controls because they enable me to operate within the law and in a proper manner.

Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)

I have a straightforward question. Will the hon. Gentleman, as a firearms certificate holder and the owner of a shotgun, tell me how one can unintentionally ask someone to look after one’s weapon?

John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

If I may continue to develop the argument, I intend to come to precisely that point. As a legitimate weapon user, I am concerned that when we come to legislate, we do so effectively and do not put forward legislation that has the unintentional consequence of depriving legitimate users of the ability to use their weapon, while failing to tackle those who would seek to use guns illegally.

We must focus on illegal use. I am sure that there are many Members in the Committee who have been briefed on the availability of illegal weapons. Those weapons are not registered, nor are they part of the legal system, but they can be purchased. I have been briefed on the pistols, machine guns and all sorts of weapons that can be acquired openly in some areas. We must ensure that the legislation we pass achieves what we seek to achieve.

I have just gone through the firearms certificate renewal process. I have had to obtain two referees and, as I am sure most members of the Committee will know, a report from my doctor. That was the difficult bit. I shall be interviewed by firearms officers in Thurso, who will visit the sites at which the weapons   are kept. They will test the security of the sites and ensure—they have asked me to certify this—that there is nobody who has access to those sites who is not also a firearms certificate holder. For example, as my wife has a shotgun certificate but not a firearms certificate, she can access one gun cabinet that holds shotguns, but she cannot access another cabinet that holds certificated firearms—[Interruption.] Mr. Forth will I am sure understand that one must have a duty of security with such things, and that there are thresholds that one must consider.

The important point to which I wish to draw the Committee’s attention is that there is a great deal of legislation. Since I first held a certificate during the late 1960s and early 1970s, there has been a considerable mass of legislation and a lot of control now exists.

Through the amendments, I am seeking to find out the Government’s thinking and work out whether we are overstepping the mark or whether we have got the balance right. Amendment No. 147 would insert the word “intentionally” into subsection (1)(a) so that it would read

“A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a)he intentionally uses another to look after, hide or transport a dangerous weapon”.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green asked me how it can be that one could do this unintentionally. It is actually very easily done, and I was very nearly guilty of it myself. When transporting a shotgun from A to B, a clay pigeon shoot or whatever, by car people are required to keep it in a locked boot—absolutely properly. If a person is travelling with a good friend and perfectly respectable person who does not have a shotgun certificate and at some point asks them to drive the car it may be, as nearly happened to me, that the person forgets that there is a weapon locked in the boot of the car. Under the clause, that person would have committed a crime.

We have to consider what would happen, and we are looking at terms of imprisonment of not less than five years in some cases and not less than three in others. There is a great difference between someone who is actively engaged in criminal activity and almost certainly operating with an illegal weapon, who gets someone else deliberately to transport that weapon to another point so that they can commit a murder, stick-up or whatever, and a circumstance where a legitimate gun owner may find that he or she has broken the law. We have to be careful that we do not create criminals out of people who are striving to stay within the law; we must target the legislation at those who are deliberately flouting it.

Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

It is reassuring to see a blood and guts Liberal rather than the bleeding heart one we heard earlier. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the amendment were accepted, it would leave a loophole that any person engaged in a nefarious activity could use as an excuse?

John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sweet words. I disagree with them, but we shall leave that for another occasion.

I am not a lawyer, but I have spoken to friends with legal experience and there are a number of occasions in law where intention is required and is stated in a Bill. The concept of whether someone has intentionally done something or unintentionally allowed something to happen is accepted legally, so I see no reason why it cannot be accepted in this case. To reassure the hon. Gentleman, I am seeking to find out the Government’s thinking on the matter and if I am reassured by what the Minister says, I may well withdraw the amendment.

Jim Sheridan (Paisley & Renfrewshire North, Labour)

Picking up from what my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the tragic death in Easterhouse in Glasgow of young Andrew Morton. The man who was charged with that murder is now claiming that he did not intend to shoot that child. That could end up being a loophole for him to get off.

John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

We have to make a distinction. I do not believe that he can get off. This point will come up later. If someone recklessly discharges a weapon in the way that he did, at the very least they will be guilty of manslaughter. I hope that, whatever the outcome of our deliberations, that person, who behaved—I hope I am not encroaching on something that is sub judice.

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

Order. Hon. Members must tread carefully and be aware of the sub judice rule. We must not discuss ongoing judicial proceedings. I hope that hon. Members will bear that mind.

John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

If there were a case in which someone had recklessly discharged a weapon and caused a death—such a case is particularly tragic if the death is of a toddler—I hope that the full weight of the law would be brought to bear and that they would receive an appropriate sentence. I do not think that I can go further in making my views plain.

Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 are on the same lines. They would delete the phrase

“or be likely to involve or to lead to”

from clause 24(2)(b) and replace them with the words

“or is intended by him to be used in the course of the commission of an offence”.

It is dangerous for legislators to set out in a Bill provisions relying on what is likely to involve, or lead to, something happening. We are asking for a judgment to be made prior to the commission of a crime. That worries me. The point could be reached when someone could be walking along the street and be arrested, for whatever reason. The policeman could say that he thought they were likely to go shoplifting.

We should not pass legislation that involves making a judgment on the likelihood of someone committing a crime. The amendments focus on that and change the wording to specify that the person concerned intends to use the weapon in the commission of an offence. It might be argued that there is not a huge difference   between the two approaches, and I accept that, but I think the wording in the amendment provides a slightly stronger test.

All the clauses that we are soon to consider deal with matters that are extremely serious, whether replica guns or real guns are concerned. There are some legitimate uses of guns. People have a legitimate right to have collections. I know that the Government recognise that, and I am sure that we shall work together to reach the right balance. Our job now is to get the balance between those individuals who are exercising legitimate rights and those who seek to commit crime using weapons. I want, by means of the amendments, to test the Government’s intentions.

Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)

The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is the nub of the debate. We agree about people engaged in deliberate activities, with illegal guns, but the hon. Gentleman is saying that someone with a firearms certificate or a rightful use for a gun is a responsible person who has passed all the tests, and that there should be a special allowance for such a person when they transgress—an extra test about intention. The reality is that someone who has failed to observe the rules has shown themselves not to be a responsible person holding a firearms certificate. We are entitled to demand a higher test.

John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

I am actually saying that there may be circumstances in which an individual who has gone through all the steps that I described and is a legitimate gun owner may find that they are in transgression of the new law. I do not think that that person would deserve five years in prison. Perhaps their firearms certificate should be removed; other punishments might be appropriate. It might simply be a caution that is required.

There are more deaths in a month in my constituency from dangerous driving than there have been in a decade from gun crime. I happen to live in one of the safest areas of the United Kingdom so far as gun crime is concerned, but the area commander in Rosshire recently told me about the number of deaths caused by the misuse of cars. I do not place a different value on a life that is taken by a gun from one taken by a car; that would be utterly spurious. Anyone who causes a death by whatever means should be dealt with properly under the law. Driving offences, however, have been separated into bigger breaches and minor breaches. We want there to be education as well as enforcement, and we are trying to achieve that in the Road Safety Bill. We give people the right not to acquire statutory penalties, but to go on speeding courses instead. That is the minor end of the spectrum.

The point that I am trying to make is that some gun crime offences might similarly be at the minor end of the spectrum within the total range of laws, and it is not right that we should have sentencing that puts people away for five years for committing such a crime. Yet that is possible. I hope that a judge would use the discretion that is granted, but we all know of cases in which that did not happen.

The debate is important to ensure that we get the balance right between legitimate use and deliberately setting out to commit a crime of murder or aggression.

Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman compares gun crime to dangerous driving in the sense that both can cause loss of life. Does he accept that the problem with gun crime in areas such as the one that I represent is that it entails not only loss of life, but a whole culture and way of life that corrodes the community and the lives of very many people? That is why the Government are introducing this legislation.

John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

I am happy to agree. I know the amount that the hon. Lady has done to combat such crime and I am sure that she would agree that much of the problem is caused not by legitimate owners of weapons or even by weapons that have been stolen from the legitimate gun-owning community, but by gang members with an Uzi or a pistol, which are illegal in this country but are regularly smuggled in. The Bill will not deal with the problem to which she refers, whatever we do, although the clause would catch someone who is already committing the offence of illegally possessing a firearm and getting someone else to transport it for them.

I also agree that a certain culture has sadly developed in our society. There is a long debate, which we will not have today, about where it might have come from and about the influence of the media, film, television, and all sorts of other things. She is absolutely right that that culture is extremely worrying, but it is found among criminal elements, not among the legitimate gun-owning community. That separation can be made.

This is an important debate and I am sure that we shall return to it. I would be grateful if the Minister will respond to our questions so that we can see how the Government are thinking.

Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Solicitor General (Also Assists Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs), (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Huntingdon, Conservative)

I declare my interest as the owner of an air rife and a shotgun licence. I am also a member of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, which has had a lot of input in the Bill.

The amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friends would give us the chance to consider in detail some of the problems with this part of the Bill. I shall show that many of the controls on firearms in the UK are represented by a series of haphazard and disjointed laws that unfortunately create anomaly after anomaly. Part 2 does not sort out those anomalies; instead, it builds on a series of extra burdens and administration problems without offering anything substantive in the fight against violent crime generally or gun crime specifically.

I should like to highlight the inconsistencies and show that, in places, the Government have not only reversed their position but ignored their own advice, not to mention ignoring a large amount of existing legislation. It is impossible to debate new laws controlling weapons without doing so in the context of existing laws. I have counted some 42 offences relating to weapons, and a further 17 relating to passes and   certificates, and compliance with them. We believe that the reduction of violent crime would be better served by enforcing existing legislation than by adding further layers.

In May 2004, the Home Office published “Controls On Firearms—A Consultation Paper”, commissioned by the Government. Astoundingly, the Government have not yet responded to that consultation. They have undertaken a full review, but have not published a response. Are they ignoring the findings of that review? We do not know because they have not said. Surely, any legislation should take into account that review. Changes to firearms and weapons legislation affecting more than 1 million sportsmen and women, plus the owners of up to 7 million air weapons and 30 million imitation weapons, should be soundly based on evidence, not on a perceived need to be seen to be doing something in reaction to a handful of criminal events.

The Home Office’s website states that

“The Home Office published a consultation paper in May 2004 seeking views on whether existing firearms legislation can be improved. The consultation process closed at the end of August and we will now be reflecting on responses before coming forward with proposals for further discussion.”

The Home Office’s regulatory impact assessment on the amendment to firearms legislation specifies that there were some 4,371 responses to that May 2004 consultation. However, the Opposition have so far seen nothing. In fact, I recently submitted a Freedom of Information Act request, which elicited the entirely unsatisfactory response from the Minister that there will be a review by 8 November. By that time this Committee will be long gone. This is too little, too late, and adds further weight to our grave concerns about the basis of this part of the Bill.

Surely the review should come before the new amendment just lobbed in by the Minister without a word of explanation to ban the sale of air weapons except through registered firearms dealers. Doubtless, those 4,371 consultation responses represented many hours spent by sportsmen and collectors contributing to the review, and contained many valid views and concerns. Why have they been ignored and why have we been banned from seeing them?

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to range widely so far, but I am becoming a little concerned that he has not yet got round to addressing the clause or the amendment. At this stage, I would ask him to concentrate his remarks on the group of amendments that we are considering.

Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Solicitor General (Also Assists Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs), (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Huntingdon, Conservative)

Thank you, Mr. Forth. The background information is important because it is relevant to nearly every clause in this part of the Bill. My main point is that if we do not know what people think, how can we proceed today?

I hope that the Committee will allow me briefly to summarise the point that I was making. The Government went to consultation in 2004, then did nothing for a year, then disbanded the firearms consultative committee, then announced a new firearms consultative committee, which has not yet been formed, and finally they introduced this   legislation without evidence or consultation. That is where we are today. What I am about to say has changed since three days ago, because I am pleased to see that the Government have tabled several amendments that will alleviate some of our concerns. I shall come back to the fact that they filed them two days ago and we therefore saw them yesterday.

Clause 24 relates to the new offence of using someone to mind a weapon. The purpose is to make it an offence to use other people to hide or carry dangerous weapons intended for unlawful use. This is a welcome clause, and one with which we are in general agreement, save for the fact that some definitions must be tightened.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) gave an example of how, in practice, mistakes are possible, and the clause is too unbending. I would like to give the Minister another example. There are rules about how long I could store my shotgun in someone else’s gun cabinet before its removal to a new cabinet would require notification to the police and a statement on the shotgun certificate. I appreciate that the clause contains a requirement for there to be an unlawful purpose. However, it is clear that if the unlawful purpose includes non-notification of storing a gun in a cabinet for, say, a day, the mandatory prison term would be totally inappropriate. In effect, the clause raises practical implications that have not been thought through, and I would like the Government’s assurance that they will be considered.

I support the probing amendments. The purpose of amendment No. 147 is to add clarity and certainty to a clause that creates a new criminal offence. The amendment would prevent injustices that may result from the unintended consequences of loosely drafted legislation. Given the mandatory sentences in clause 25 that apply to the offence, the insertion of “intentionally” would reinforce the requirement of criminal intent in the unlikely, but not impossible, event that another person is looking after, hiding or transporting a dangerous weapon unbeknown to the offender.

The purpose of amendments Nos. 148 and 149 is to add clarity by removing the ambiguity involved in the phrase

“or be likely to involve or to lead to”

in line 24 and adding the far more certain words

“or is intended by him to be used in the course of the commission of an offence”.

Those words would tighten the clause and confirm the requirement of criminal intent suggested by the use of “unlawful purpose”. The words

“or be likely to involve or to lead to”

are too broad and woolly, and could cause difficulties in enforcement and interpretation. It is critical to the operation and enforcement of criminal law that there is certainty, and such phrases are best avoided.

Amendment No. 185 is also intended to add clarity. It would remove the words

“or are intended to facilitate”

from line 15. That expression is open to much interpretation and is best left out. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) to this part of the Bill. Clearly, he is an experienced shooter and possesses weapons himself. I acknowledge that I am probably more of an expert on alcohol than on shooting, so I look forward to many interesting discussions with him over the detail of the Bill.

I want to make it clear that we are dealing with the Violent Crime Reduction Bill and addressing our minds to the misuse, not legitimate use, of guns. I entirely accept that we must always be conscious that many people use guns in a perfectly responsible way. We are aiming at the minority of people who use guns in an unlawful or irresponsible way. Their guns can have an absolutely devastating impact on communities, as has been illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in this debate and in many of the campaigns she has undertaken. I have met people who have been the victims of gun crime, and no experience can be more traumatic or devastating.

We are discussing the misuse of guns. As in the previous section when we discussed the misuse of alcohol, we recognise that 95 per cent. of people do things properly. The Bill is aimed at mischiefs, and it is important that we always have that in mind.

Amendment No. 147 would introduce an express requirement for an element of intent in using another person to look after a weapon. Inserting the word “intent” would add nothing to the drafting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green asked, how can one use something without intent? It is tautology to seek to insert the word “intent”, because one cannot use someone inadvertently.

John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

We genuinely want this Bill to reach the statute book, so this is not about opposing the legislation, but about ensuring that it is right. The Minister talks about using a person; will she expand on that point? It may be that someone who uses a person deliberately sets out to do something, but does she contend that the drafting satisfies what I seek, which is a sort of test of intent?

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

If the hon. Gentleman considers the whole of clause 24(1), he will see that the first limb of the offence, in paragraph (a), is that someone uses somebody else to

“look after, hide or transport a dangerous weapon”,

and the second limb, in paragraph (b), is that they do so under arrangements

“that facilitate, or are intended to facilitate, the weapon’s being available to him for an unlawful purpose.”

Both limbs must be fulfilled. If someone uses someone else to hide a weapon, they must intend that that is what they will do. That is the element of intent that I am trying to explain. If one uses someone to carry one’s bag, one must intend that they will carry the bag; if one uses someone to hide one’s gun, one must intend that they will hide it or look after it. We then come to   paragraph (b), which sets out the circumstances in which that becomes an offence. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman that there must be an unlawful purpose.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon made another point about unlawful purpose. One must use another person, and there must be an unlawful purpose. Those two limbs should, we hope, be enough.

John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful and apologise to the Committee for going into this in a little detail, but I think that we can resolve the matter. If I understood the Minister’s point, it was that someone must set out to use someone else, so in the scenario that I brought up, in which someone unintentionally left a weapon in a car, they would not have used anybody, and that satisfies my point. If that is the case, this will be an extremely useful dialogue if there is ever a Pepper v. Hart requirement in relation to the Bill.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

What I have established is that if one inadvertently let someone else drive one’s car with a weapon in it, that would not be for an unlawful purpose, so the test in paragraph (b) would not be fulfilled.

Amendment No. 185 seeks to remove from paragraph (b) the second scenario—that the weapon is intended to be used for an unlawful purpose—which would reduce its effect.

Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 would make it more difficult successfully to prosecute offenders for using other people to mind weapons for them. The clause requires that the minding of the weapon would facilitate the weapon being available for an unlawful purpose. In many cases, the mere possession of the weapon by the offender would be such a purpose, because possession of an illegal weapon is clearly unlawful, so it would not need to be used in a further unlawful act, as its mere possession would be sufficient to complete the offence. If one gives such a weapon to another person to look after for them, an offence is committed in the round.

The introduction of the mandatory five-year sentence for carrying illegal firearms has, in many cases, changed the behaviour of people who habitually carry such firearms. They know that if they are caught with such a weapon in their possession, they will go to prison for five years, so they increasingly use other people to hide and transport them, because they think they will then escape the mandatory sentence.

The huge rise in offences involving imitation weapons also shows that the mandatory sentence has affected people’s behaviour. The use of real weapons is going down. Our latest crime statistics, released today, show that the use of shotguns and handguns has gone down and the use of imitation weapons has risen. People are changing their behaviour as a result of the measures, and it is becoming quite common for people to use others to hide their weapons. Indeed, there is an growing issue with people using children to hide weapons, in the hope that they can evade responsibility for their actions.

If we took out the reference to weapons being

“likely to involve or to lead to ... the commission ... of an offence”,

as the hon. Member for Huntingdon wants, it would be more difficult for prosecutions to succeed, because we would tighten the tests in the Bill and water down the clause’s effectiveness at a time when, as I said, passing weapons has become almost commonplace. We are trying to cover a range of scenarios in our fight against violent crime, because criminals often change their behaviour as a result of the provisions that we introduce. We must therefore have a wide enough definition to deal with the behaviour that our law is aimed at.

I hope that hon. Members feel that we have identified a real mischief here. In many of our communities, people are hiding lethal weapons—often with children—and we seek to ensure that they cannot evade the full force of the law by this subterfuge. The provisions are not aimed at the decent, law-abiding majority who have proper certificates for their firearms and who act responsibly. There is a real mischief here, which needs to be dealt with properly and firmly so that people do not evade the law or their responsibility for actions that can be devastating for many of our communities. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington, Labour)

We heard earlier speakers—experienced hunters and shooters—talk of the importance of seeking a balance between the activities of the law regarding a minority and the criminality that the clause is designed to address. It is right that we seek a balance, but I hope that my comments can pull the balance in a slightly different direction.

The important point to make to Opposition Members is that the type of gun crime that we see in the inner city is qualitatively different from that which we have seen in the British Isles since the second world war. People have always used guns to commit crime in this country, and there have always been professional armed robbers, but the gun crime that has emerged in inner London in the past 10 or 15 years is qualitatively different. It is gun crime as part of a lifestyle; it is about people who do not feel that they are dressed to go out for an evening at a nightclub if they do not have their weapon; it is about people who use guns in a way that professional criminals never did—to settle petty disputes that arise because someone has not let them into a nightclub, has been rude about their girlfriend or has brushed up against their new suit.

Members may think I exaggerate, but if Metropolitan police officers were here, they would describe shooting after shooting that was an example not simply of crime, but of so-called respect crimes, in which people were enforcing their status in their gang or community by using a gun. The tragic fact is that the majority of gun crime in London is not about crime at all, but about respect crimes. The gun culture, which glorifies the gun, is at the heart of such crimes. We are talking about something that is qualitatively different from what Britain has seen before.

When we talk about minding weapons, we are talking in many cases, as the Minister said, about people using children. In recent days, a big cache of   weapons was found in a child’s bedroom in London. When someone uses a child to hide a weapon, it is not simply a question of their trying to conceal their criminal activity. What are they doing to that child? I represent a community in which young men see the man with the man with the gold chain and the gun, or the man with ready money, as far more of a role model than any Member of Parliament or lawyer.

The clause is therefore important, not only because it aims to prevent people from concealing crime, but because it must be wrong that children are drawn into the gun culture at an early age by being used to mind guns so that people evade their sentences. The effect is greater than simply hiding crime: it draws children into a complicity with a culture that glorifies weapons. The amendments—probably tabled in good faith, as hon. Members do not understand my community any more than I understand theirs—would leave a gaping hole in the clause.

When we talk about intentionality, we have to remember that those gunmen, for reasons that I will touch on further as we progress, exercise tremendous fear over their communities. If the gunman says that he left the gun in the child’s bedroom unintentionally and the child says, “He left the gun in my bedroom unintentionally”, as does the mother, how will we prosecute?

Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Solicitor General (Also Assists Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs), (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Huntingdon, Conservative)

I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from. I am certainly not speaking against the clause, and I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross is either. I think that she might like to reconsider her general approach to our comments. Yes, we have been talking about narrowing the clause, but she must appreciate that we are talking about a mandatory five-year sentence. Intention can come into it. Life is not a series of perfect situations.

Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington, Labour)

We are indeed talking about a mandatory sentence. My hon. Friend the Minister explained how mandatory sentencing has had an effect on such crimes. I am afraid that if we bring intention into the clause, the people whom it is meant to target would evade prosecution by being able to frighten people into supporting them in saying, “It was all an accident; it was all a mistake. I did not know that it was in the kid’s bedroom. It was unintentional.”

Sammy Wilson (East Antrim, DUP)

Does the hon. Lady accept that in the scene that she paints—with which I have total sympathy, especially as I have seen exactly the same excuse used in places in Northern Ireland—the gun is probably illegal anyhow and would therefore not be covered by the clause? Indeed, there would be other ways of dealing with that crime, because whether the gun was hidden intentionally or unintentionally, it should not have been in anyone’s possession since there was no firearms certificate for it.

Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington, Labour)

That is perfectly true. However, the fact remains that the clause is designed to address, in my view, the increasing practice in the city of using children and girlfriends to mind guns. The Opposition amendments would leave unacceptable loopholes in the legislation. It is hard enough to bring such people to book, and we do not need legislation with loopholes in it. I oppose the amendments.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I do not think that I have anything to add to what I have said, and I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington made an eloquent case.

The only point that I will make is in reply to the hon. Member for East Antrim. The weapons will be illegal, but the mischief that we want to address is people seeking to evade going to prison for five years for possessing a weapon by saying, “I am not in possession of a weapon, so I cannot be prosecuted and I will not go to jail.” That is exactly what the provisions are designed to act against. From what I have heard, that has broad support across the Committee, and so I ask hon. Members to withdraw the amendment so that we can get prosecutions, so that people cannot wriggle out of their responsibilities and so that we can continue the fight against gun crime, which is proving quite successful.

As I said, the latest crime statistics today show that the shotgun offences are down and the use of handguns is down; the use of imitations is up, but fatalities are also low. That is a matter of great encouragement, but we need to do more to ensure that people are not evading the law by saying that they have put the goods into other peoples’ hands, are not responsible and cannot be sentenced appropriately.

Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Solicitor General (Also Assists Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs), (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Huntingdon, Conservative)

The amendments go some way to showing that more thought is needed. What came to mind when the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington was speaking was what would happen if a child went into a parent’s bedroom and stole the parent’s gun. The parent would have to prove that he or she had not given the gun to the child.

When discussing the five-year mandatory sentence, issues will arise that need full consideration. Although I will withdraw the amendment—

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

Order. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to decide whether to withdraw the amendment. That is a matter for the hon. Member who moved it.

Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Solicitor General (Also Assists Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs), (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Huntingdon, Conservative)

On that basis, Mr. Forth, I have said my piece.

John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

I reiterate what I said reasonably clearly: that the purpose of my amendment is to discover the Government’s intention. I apologise to the Committee for my slightly conversational exchanges with the Minister, but they were extremely useful because what she said in her response goes almost all the way in assuaging my great worry. The definition that she gave certainly sounded extremely useful. I am not a lawyer, I hasten to add, so I will read   her response carefully and take advice on it. However, having listened to it, I am reasonably confident that it addressed my point. I entirely understand and have great respect for her and everything she has done to combat the sort of gun crime that exists in her constituency and other inner cities, which, happily, does not exist in my part of the world.

The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington referred to the culture of glorifying the gun and was absolutely right that people feel that they can go out and get an Uzi or a pistol to use as an Armani fashion accessory. The one point I want to make—I would like to sit down quietly with her one day and talk about it—is that I believe that responsible, legal, law-abiding, gun-owning people do not glorify guns. They use them for specific purposes, whether sporting, pest control, deer culling and so on. I have brought up my children, who are now mostly adults, to shoot. They know that guns are kept in cases, that they are not loaded until a person is in the right position and that they are treated as dangerous weapons only to be used in the circumstance for which they are intended. That goes for the vast majority of the legal, gun-owning community.

I think the hon. Lady and I are on the same side because I want the sort of crime and the attitude to which she referred squashed. I believe in this legislation and think that it will help. However, I want to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. We all know of legislation that has had unintended consequences.

Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman said that the respectable gun-owning community does not glorify guns, and I am sure that that is true in the majority of cases. However, has he ever seen a website known as “Young Shots”, which shows children in possession of guns, encourages parents to induce their children to have guns and details what they can shoot with those guns. In some cases, those children are younger than 12. Does he think that could be described as glorification? What word would he use to describe it?

John Thurso (Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland (And Transport), Scotland; Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross, Liberal Democrat)

I have not seen that website, but I have a suspicion that it is linked to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation or another such organisation. I started shooting with a .410 shotgun when I was nine and introduced my children to shooting at what I thought was the appropriate age, which was when they could sensibly handle a weapon and be instructed—around 11 for both my sons. One can impress on people of that age the need for safety and the requirements of game shooting much more easily than with older people. I have been in the field shooting with people in their 30s, and I would say that they are not as instinctively safe as either of my sons, who started at an earlier age. I do not hold with the argument that because 11-year-olds have a weapon they are glorifying the gun. They are enjoying a legitimate country pursuit and being taught to do it safely and properly; they are not being taught to glorify the gun. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 150, in clause 24, page 26, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).

Eric Forth (Bromley & Chislehurst, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 201, in clause 24, page 26, line 27, after ‘part’, insert ‘(being pressure bearing parts)’.

No. 202, in clause 24, page 26, line 27, after ‘part’, insert ‘of an air weapon’.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

The amendment is short. I am not clear from reading subsection (3)(a)—I am not sure that I understand it—whether an air weapon is a “dangerous weapon”. The subject goes to the heart of our discussions on age and weapons, and it will come up repeatedly, so I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation of whether or not an air weapon is deemed to be dangerous.

Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Solicitor General (Also Assists Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs), (Assist the Home Affairs Team); Huntingdon, Conservative)

As I read it, the amendment would result in the provision covering only blades and knives rather than firearms. I wonder what the Minister has to say about that. If I am right, we will not support it. The clause should apply to firearms.

On amendment No. 201, there is no legal definition of a component part of a firearm. The Home Office consultation paper of May 2004, “Controls on Firearms”, states:

“we consider component parts are those elements necessary to the action of the gun, such as trigger mechanisms, barrels, frames etc. but not screws, springs, nuts, bolts, etc. which may be used for other purposes. We invite views on the value of producing a statutory definition”.

I would be grateful if the Minister would give us her views. After further consultation, it seems to be generally understood in the trade to mean any part that is pressure bearing. It is necessary and desirable to have a clear and unambiguous definition of component part.

Amendment No. 202 deals with another problem. The Bill is ambiguous on whether “component part” in subsection (3)(a) refers to the component part of an air weapon only or to any component part of any firearm. If it is intended to cover the component parts of air weapons only, a workable definition would be preferable. We suggest inserting “of an air weapon” after “component part”.

Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)

I agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon that amendment No. 150 would remove firearms from the definition of dangerous weapons. That would destroy the major focus of an important measure that has been welcomed by members of the community. It closes a gap in legislation that has allowed firearm offenders to go free. I am sure that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, and we oppose the amendment.

Amendments Nos. 201 and 202 deal with the definition of dangerous weapons, particularly with reference to air weapons. To avoid doubt, we are excluding air weapons from the scope of the provisions, and the reference to component parts relates to air weapons only.

We have identified a drafting defect in the Bill and want to make a technical amendment. By inserting the word “of” after the word “parts” in subsection (3)(a), we will make it clear that the measure relates to a component part of an air weapon rather than of any other kind of weapon. I am not sure whether we can have an “of” without tabling a formal amendment. I remember once discussing whether “and” was a conjunctive or a disjunctive word. Perhaps “of” falls into a similar category. With your leave, Mr. Forth, we could have a technical amendment to that effect.

Lynne Featherstone (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Hornsey & Wood Green, Liberal Democrat)

The amendment is not clear—I take the Minister’s view on it—but it resulted from confusion about the drafting. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.