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

I beg to move amendment No. 196, in clause 28, page 29, line 39, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

'(1) For the purposes of this section a primer is a cap type primer, UN numbers 0044, 0377, 0378 for use with metallic small arms ammunition and shall not include any fired or inert primers or any primers manufactured for use in equipment which does not fire a projectile.'.

Clause 28 restricts the sale of primers. Although we do not object to the general thrust of the clause, the devil again lies in the detail. Primers form an essential part of shooting equipment, and many members of the shooting community enjoy loading their own ammunition; it forms part of the overall sport. The Gun Trade Association Ltd. estimates that more than 30 million primers are sold every year in the UK, and sales of primers increase dramatically in the run-up to the shooting season. As it stands, the clause is flawed, so we have tabled various amendments.

After consultation with the many interested parties, technical difficulties became apparent, not least that a restriction on the sale of primers would catch distress flares, shotgun cartridges and even the air bags used by   the motor vehicle industry. I hope that it is not the Government's intention to criminalise everyone who buys or sells modern motor cars.

Primers are used for reloading a wide variety of cartridges, including those used in hunting, target shooting, research into heritage firearms, historical re-enactment and living history. Reloading allows for the production of custom-made ammunition, which enhances accuracy. That is an important animal welfare consideration, as it can increase the likelihood of instantaneous death when an animal is shot. Reloading is often the only way in which people who shoot vintage firearms can produce cartridges, as original ammunition is no longer manufactured. The forensic science service and other forensic examiners confirm that criminals rarely use reloaded ammunition. If anybody still doubts the Government's lack of expert consultation, this clause provides a clear example of the way in which they are whimsically legislating without first seeking proper advice.

It is necessary to define primers in subsection (1). After a certain amount of the sort of consultation that seems not to have been carried out by the Government, we think that the most sensible option is the United Nations definition relating to metallic cap-type primers. The UN numbers for primers for cartridges are 0044, 0377 and 0378. Those numbers are grouped within different hazard classification bands, and it is therefore logical to define primers within this Bill as cap-type primers UN numbers 0044, 0377 and 0378 for use with metallic small-arms ammunition. Such a definition would catch the potentially dangerous primers that are clearly intended to be caught by the Bill, but exempt those used for shotguns, security flares and car airbags. Also excluded in our definition are

''any fired or inert primers, or any primers manufactured for use in equipment which does not fire a projectile.''

That is particularly important for re-enactment societies, theatre companies and film producers, all of which use blank-firing weapons. Many war veterans have spent shells from the second world war and many blank-firing weapons are used in organised heritage fairs. The clause should be drafted so as not to cover such acceptable uses.

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 having raised the matter—it sounds moderately sensible—and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

It is clearly the Government's intention to ensure that persons who are not in any of the categories listed should not be in a position to acquire a primer. Can the Minister clarify whether somebody who is a firearms certificate holder and who reloads ammunition will be able to go on purchasing primers? Further, will those who do not hold firearms certificates, but who have shotgun certificates and load their own ammunition, be able to purchase primers, or does the absence from the list of the shotgun certificate mean that they are excluded?

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

I can tell the hon. Member for Huntingdon that the Government are not   whimsically legislating. The legislation is framed so that it is practical and effective. I have taken the trouble to look at primers and ammunition-loading presses, imitations and deactivated weapons. This is not an area in which I am an expert, but I wanted to make sure before I came to the Committee that I had some understanding—albeit not as deep as that of those who are involved with such matters every day—of what we are trying to do.

Complete rounds of ammunition are subject to certificate control. Components are not—they can be purchased by anybody. The Committee will agree that we should not allow that situation to persist. Some criminal gangs seek to avoid prosecution by keeping ammunition in its component form and putting it together just before they go out to commit criminal acts. I am mindful of the case of David Bieber, who shot and killed P.C. Broadhurst in 2003. He was found in possession of home-made as well as commercial ammunition. We take the issue seriously.

Cartridge cases, lead bullets and smokeless powder are all necessary to make ammunition, but the end product is essentially inert unless it has a primer. It is on that that we want to concentrate our efforts. We recognise that reloading ammunition is an important part of rifle-shooting sports, and that around 20 million primers are sold to law-abiding shooters. We have therefore tried to be proportionate in our efforts to control the situation, and to ensure that only people with a legitimate need for primers should be able to purchase them. Many dealers already ask to see a firearms certificate before they will sell such items, but we want to enshrine that good practice in law by making it a statutory requirement.

We do not want to go wider than we have to, and are mainly concerned about the type of ammunition used in weapons such as handguns and sub-machine guns. I accept that the reloading of shotgun cartridges and the use of primers with muzzle-loading arms is rarely a problem. We do not want to include fired or inert primers, although it is arguable that they are not included because they cannot ignite the powder charge, or primer-actuated devices such as cable-cutters, nail guns, distress flares or air bags in cars. I also accept the validity of the argument that some antique firearms come cased with original primers, although there may not be many around.

As this area is a potential minefield for interpretation—that is not my joke; it is in my brief, so I can blame it on the relevant official—it has been suggested that the clause might be better predicated on seeking to control cap-type primers that are designed for use in metallic ammunition. That term is used in all explosives regulations and accords with UN guidance. The only point on which I take issue with the hon. Member for Huntingdon is his proposal to tie down the measure to specific numbers. I am reluctant to do that, given that they could change.

I am satisfied that if we were to go for a definition on controlling cap-type primers designed for use in   metallic ammunition, that would meet our policy of intention, although it would have drafting implications for the rest of the clause. We will, therefore, introduce an amendment that narrows down the primers to those relevant to that kind of ammunition. That is not defined by UN numbers, because I want there to be flexibility to include other types of ammunition if those numbers change. With that assurance, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

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

I thank the Minister for taking our concerns on board. She has gone a long way toward allaying them, and I am pleased that she is going to consider the matter further.

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

With leave, Mr. Benton, perhaps I could address the questions raised by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. He asked whether someone who held a certificate would be able to obtain primers: the answer is yes. He also asked about someone with a shotgun, to which the answer is also yes.

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 154, in clause 28, page 30, line 1, after 'person', insert 'knowingly'.

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 228, in clause 28, page 30, line 10, leave out 'he produces' and insert

'he shows that he is the holder of'.

No. 229, in clause 28, page 30, line 10, after 'certificate', insert

'on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor'.

No. 220, in clause 28, page 30, line 10, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 230, in clause 28, page 30, line 12, leave out 'he produces' and insert

'he shows that he is the holder of'.

No. 231, in clause 28, page 30, line 12, after 'certificate', insert

'on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor'.

No. 221, in clause 28, page 30, line 13, at end insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 222, in clause 28, page 30, line 16, at end insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 223, in clause 28, page 30, line 19, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 155, in clause 28, page 30, line 21, after 'person' insert 'knowingly'.

No. 232, in clause 28, page 30, line 30, leave out 'he holds' and insert

'he shows that he is the holder of'.

No. 233, in clause 28, page 30, line 30, leave out 'he holds' and insert 'he produces'.

No. 289, in clause 28, page 30, line 30, after 'certificate', insert  

'on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor'.

No. 224, in clause 28, page 30, line 30, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 234, in clause 28, page 30, line 32, leave out 'he holds' and insert

'he shows that he is the holder of'.

No. 235, in clause 28, page 30, line 32, leave out 'he holds' and insert 'he produces'.

No. 236, in clause 28, page 30, line 32, after 'certificate', insert

'on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor'.

No. 225, in clause 28, page 30, line 33, at end insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 226, in clause 28, page 30, line 35, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 227, in clause 28, page 30, line 38, after 'firearm', insert 'or a shotgun'.

No. 237, in clause 28, page 30, line 39, at end insert—

'(5A) On prosecution for an offence under subsection (2), it shall be a defence for a person to show that—

(a) he did not know that what he was selling was an object of a description covered by subsection (2); or

(b) he believed, on reasonable grounds, that the person to whom he sold the object was a person covered by subsection (3).

(5B) On prosecution for an offence under subsection (4), it shall be a defence for a person to show that—

(a) he did not know that what he was buying was an object of a description covered by subsection (2); or

(b) he reasonably believed that he was a person covered by subsection (5).'.

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

I shall speak to the lead amendment and amendment No. 155. We have, to an extent, already debated the issue of whether someone does something knowingly—in this case, the sale or purchase of a primer. I refer to cases for which the law might not be intended, or in which there is an unintended consequence. Would not it be possible for someone to inherit an estate and sell items to an auction house without realising that primers were included? Could not a seller be caught out by the legislation if they believed a buyer to be a legitimate purchaser, having no reason to disbelieve it?

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

There are a huge number of amendments to discuss, but I shall attempt to be brief. We accept what the hon. Lady says about amendments Nos. 154 and 155. We believe that they are prudent and would ensure that those without malice or criminal intent would not be unintentionally caught by the offence.

Amendments Nos. 220 to 227 would serve to clarify the Bill, which, it must be assumed, intends shotgun certificates to be included within the ambit of clause 28 (3) and (5). There seems to be no reason why shotgun certificate holders should not be able to purchase primers and load their own ammunition, which forms a large part of the sport of shooting for many people.

We have also tabled a series of probing amendments based on the alternatives of   amendments Nos. 228 and 229. A requirement simply to present evidence in the form of a firearm or shotgun certificate when purchasing primers would be preferable and proportionate. It should also legislate for current best practice, which would be more commendable than adding further intricate layers to existing firearms legislation. Subsections (3) and (5) in particular need to be amended.

Under the Bill, the requirement to produce a certificate every time is not only an administrative burden, but carries distinct dangers. Primers are bought frequently, especially by experienced shooters, and there will often be many repeat purchases from one vendor. Our initial proposal is that the wording ''he produces'' be removed entirely from subsection (3)(c) and (d) and replaced with the less burdensome requirement of the words,

''he shows that he is the holder of''.

Such an amendment would allow photocopies and faxed copies to be accepted by experienced vendors.

Although it might be sensible to have a requirement to show the original certificate on the initial purchase, it should be possible to show a photocopy or faxed copy for subsequent purchases. That is particularly desirable for mail order. Should it be thought necessary to see an original certificate, we therefore propose, after ''he produces the certificate'', the wording:

''on initial purchase and shows that he is the holder of a certificate on any subsequent purchase from the same vendor''.

That would produce the benefit not only of ensuring that an original certificate was produced, but of reducing the length of time taken and the administrative burden. More importantly, it would reduce the number of original firearms certificates that would be sent back and forth in the post and that could therefore be intercepted by criminals.

Amendment No. 237 is another precautionary amendment that would ensure that potentially innocent people are not unintentionally caught by the clause. It should be a defence for a person to show that he did not know that he was selling a primer within the description of clause 28(2)(a) or (b), or that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the person to whom he sold the object fell within clause 28(3). That would give protection to the innocent salesman or the innocent buyer who might be duped into believing that someone was a registered firearms dealer, held a certificate, or had made an innocent mistake. The amendment would prevent some injustices committed by the strict application of the clause.

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

We are legislating on items that are fairly difficult to define, and we have undertaken to tighten up the wording. Although we accept that we need to do more to tighten up the drafting, we would not go so far as the amendments propose. We would make the prosecution's task difficult, if not impossible, if we introduced an element of knowingly committing the offences in clause 28 or if we provided for a defence of reasonable belief. Many of the existing firearms offences are expressed in absolute terms; I gave examples in our previous debate. Under section 1 of   the Firearms Act 1968, it is an offence for a person to possess, to purchase or to acquire a firearm or ammunition without a firearms certificate. There is strict liability; there is no ''knowingly'' or ''reasonable belief''.

Under section 2 of the 1968 Act, it is an offence for a person to possess, to purchase or to acquire a shotgun without a shotgun certificate. Under section 3 of that Act, it is an offence for a person, by way of trade or business, to manufacture, to sell, to transfer, to repair, to test or to prove any firearm or ammunition without being registered with the police. There are also various other offences.

As I said, we do not want to go as far as the amendments suggest. It would be difficult to have the defences that they suggest in this part of the Bill when many of the other offences carry strict liability. It is right that people buying or selling components of ammunition or loading presses should make absolutely sure that the purchase is lawful. We have the existing offence of selling ammunition, which is based on strict liability, so the defences for selling components would be confusing and contradictory. We would leave the door open to a range of excuses about what people believed or were told and the circumstances in which sales took place. Much of the legislation involves strict liability, and the clause follows that position, so I ask hon. Members not to press those amendments.

The restrictions on the sale and purchase of primers in clause 28 mean that only people who hold a firearms certificate should be allowed to buy them. We are giving legislative force to what is already good practice in many cases. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross asked me about the position with regard to shotguns. By virtue of the definition in section 57 of the Firearms Act 1968, both rifles and shotguns are firearms and fall within the definition of a firearms certificate. They are lethal barrelled weapons of any description from which any shot, bullet or missile can be discharged.

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

The particular point that I was addressing was whether the holder of a shotgun certificate, who is not the holder of a firearms certificate, would be able to purchase primers for the purpose of loading shotgun ammunition.

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

Certainly there is a provision in clause 28(8) that primers and ammunition loading presses will not be sold to people unless they have the necessary authority. They must hold a certificate that authorises them to possess a firearm of the relevant kind. We want to make sure that people can buy only the components that relate to the guns for which they have a certificate. That is a proper safeguard; we do not want people to purchase primers for guns that they do not have lawful authority to possess. That is why the definition is narrow.

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

I am grateful to the Minister. She is doing a splendid job of explaining, but I think that she has just explained that without the words ''or shotgun'' between firearm and certificate, the holder   of a shotgun certificate is excluded. I am sure that that is unintentional, and rather than have a lengthy debate may I ask that she and her officials look at that and find out whether I am wrong.

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

I knew I should not have tempted the hon. Gentleman down that path. I have done my best to explain the position at this stage, and my officials are indicating that they think that our drafting is appropriate. I undertake to examine the matter in even more detail than I have done so far, and to come back to him if necessary.

My final point is about the production of photocopies. The hon. Member for Huntingdon suggested that there should be an initial production and then photocopies could be used—but there is a real danger here. I understand the relationships, and that buyers and sellers may know each other, but if we went into the realms of producing photocopies, that would not only take us outwith the current legislation, which talks about producing originals, but it could provide loopholes for people to falsify facsimile copies. I know that owners do not want their certificates to get dog-eared and damaged by constantly having to produce them, and we could consider the prospect of using new technology. Maybe we could have plastic cards of some kind so that firearms certificates would not, over time, become terribly used and worn. That practice may well develop. For the moment, I want to stick with insisting that people produce the proper firearms certificate. This is serious: guns and ammunition can be dangerous if they are misused.

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

I apologise for intruding on the Minister again, but there is a problem. The law is slightly different on what is required for the production of a firearms certificate and of a shotgun certificate. A firearms certificate, on purchase of firearms, is required on every occasion; a shotgun certificate is not. There is an anomaly.

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

If that is the case, I will certainly look into it. As I have said before, we are trying to direct our efforts towards the mischief that is caused. This is not a piece of general firearms legislation. We have had the review and will be coming forward with proposals for general firearms legislation. The policy intention is to narrow down the category of people who can purchase primers to people who purchase them legitimately, and to ensure that people who want to misuse them cannot obtain them. If that fact has an impact on that policy aim, I shall certainly come back to the hon. Gentleman. However, if it affects firearms legislation more generally, he will have to wait for another opportunity to pursue it.

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

I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I totally support her intention. That view overrides some of my concerns about the fact that the law might unintentionally trap somebody. The matter is complicated, and I shall think further about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in clause 28, page 30, line 13, at end insert—  

'( ) he shows that he is a person in the service of Her Majesty who is entitled under subsection(5A) to acquire a primer to which this section applies;'.

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 89 to 101, 103 and 293.

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

These amendments are technical, and deal with Crown exemption. Only certain parts of the Firearms Act 1968 apply to persons in the service of Her Majesty, including members of the police force, who are exempt so far as possession is concerned but not in relation to the purchase or acquisition of firearms and ammunition. Section 54 slightly modifies the provisions, so that people in the service of Her Majesty can purchase or acquire firearms and ammunition for the public service without having a certificate, provided that they are authorised in writing to do so. Clauses 28 and 29 seek to limit the sale of primers and reloading equipment to certificate holders, and it is right that there should be similar restrictions on Crown servants, and that only those who are authorised should be able to purchase those items. The supplemental provisions of part 2 in clause 36(3)(d) fail to achieve that aim, and these amendments seek to address that failure.

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

We basically support all the amendments. In relation to amendments Nos. 88 to 99, can the Minister advise us how far the category of person in the service of Her Majesty extends? Who will be able to avail themselves of the exemption?

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

We, too, broadly agree with the amendments, which seem very sensible. Can the Minister clarify what is covered by use on duty as opposed to use in any other way?

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

My primary reference was to members of the police service. However, also in the service of Her Majesty are the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. I am not sure whether the definition goes any further. I shall inquire of my officials, and if it goes further than the armed forces and the police, I shall write to hon. Members or refer to the matter at a later sitting of this Committee.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross asked whether such officers were authorised in relation to their duties, and whether that was when they were on or off duty. I cannot answer, but will endeavour to find out in the next hour or so, and clarify the matter later.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 89, in clause 28, page 30, line 15, after 'enactment', insert

'and otherwise than by virtue of being a person in the service of Her Majesty'.

No. 90, in clause 28, page 30, line 16, leave out 'such ammunition' and insert 'ammunition for a firearm'.—[Hazel Blears.]

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

I beg to move amendment No. 217, in clause 28, page 30, line 20, at end insert—

'(g) he proves that he is purchasing the primer for the purpose of theatrical performance, historical re-enactment, museum or educational use, use as a starting gun at a sporting event, use in equipment which does not fire a projectile, or use in a blank firing gun.'.  

Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 219, in clause 28, page 30, line 39, at end insert

'; or

(g) he proves that he is purchasing the primer for the purpose of theatrical performance, historical re-enactment, museum or educational use, use in a starting gun at a sporting event, use in equipment which does not fire a projectile, or use in a blank firing gun.'.

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

The amendment provides for the exemption of those using primers for theatrical, historical, educational, and sporting purposes, and for use with other equipment—the sort of person who might buy a primer to which this section applies. Those exemptions are consistent with the Government's amendments to clause 30. As is evident from the categories that I have listed, those are people who may use primers safely and responsibly as part of their daily business and who should not be caught as an unintended consequence of the Bill. By including blank-firing gun primers the amendment will not only affect actors, museums and sports starters; it will prevent those involved in the training of security dogs from falling within the ambit of the offence.

Without the amendment, people who purchase primers for use in theatre, television and cinema performances, or educational or historical re-enactments will not be able to purchase the tools of their trade. Directors and assistants on war films and series such as ''Black Hawk Down'', ''Saving Private Ryan'' and the British production ''Band of Brothers'' would be committing offences when purchasing the primers that enable realistic films to be made without danger. That is the reason for an exemption for blank-firing guns and guns that do not fire a projectile.

It should not be an offence to sell to people such as actors the tools of their trade. The Government have shown willingness to exempt those categories from the realistic imitation firearms offences under clause 30 and we believe that that attitude should be extended to primers.

Mark Prisk (Whip, Whips; Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

I agree with my hon. Friend's amendment. The film industry is particularly important in this context. ''Band of Brothers'' and similar films were made in Hertfordshire and film-making is a vital element of local employment, as well as an important part of our broader culture. I am sure that it is intended that the Bill should protect rather than restrain our theatre—in the west end of London we have the world's leading theatre—and our movie industry, which is also an important employer and projector of our culture. I hope that the Minister will give the Committee some clarity, and give those industries some certainty, on the matter.

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

We do not want to bear down unduly on legitimate users. Hon. Members will know that we are preparing clarification to the exceptions to clause 30, dealing with imitations, and that that will relate specifically to re-enactments and the television and movie industries. It was always our intention that the Bill would contain such exceptions and we consulted widely during the summer to make them appropriate.  

I understand that many film and theatre armourers already have a certificate that will enable them to purchase primers. Our amendment to limit the definition of the primers that it will not be possible to purchase to those for metallic small arms and ammunition may well help with some categories of people who want to obtain primers. The matter is a complex one and we want to get the provisions right.

A small number of people may, after the tightening of the definition, still have to buy commercially made-up ammunition rather than component parts, but we want to limit that category of people as much as possible and ensure that people will be able to buy primers if they have a legitimate need for them and the proper certificates, and if those primers will not be misused to make ammunition that may be used to injure people.

Mark Prisk (Whip, Whips; Hertford & Stortford, Conservative)

For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister describe the representations that she had from the theatre and the film industry, and what meetings took place, so that we can understand what she believes their view to be on the matter?

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

I personally have not met such representatives, but several meetings took place with officials over the summer to discuss those issues. On 15 September a wide-ranging meeting with stakeholders was held. I have met representatives of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and other parties, but I have not had the opportunity personally to discuss the issue that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. However, my officials have had extensive discussions with representatives of the industry.

I shall consider the issues raised today and try to ensure that people in certain circumstances are not disadvantaged—I think particularly of those in the TV, film and theatre industries. I can bring something back on Report if it is necessary to do so. However, I am informed that many theatre and film armourers have certificates that enable them to purchase primers, so they will not be disadvantaged when carrying out their regular duties. If they could be, I undertake to consider the matter further.

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

We are pleased to hear that the Minister will continue to consider the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 91, in clause 28, page 30, line 33, at end insert—

'( ) he is a person in the service of Her Majesty who is entitled under subsection (5A) to acquire a primer to which this section applies;'.

No. 92, in clause 28, page 30, line 35, after 'enactment', insert

'and otherwise than by virtue of being a person in the service of Her Majesty'.

No. 93, in clause 28, page 30, line 36, leave out 'such ammunition' and insert 'ammunition for a firearm'.

No. 94, in clause 28, page 30, line 39, at end insert—  

'(5A) A person who is in the service of Her Majesty is entitled to acquire a primer to which this section applies if—

(a) he is duly authorised in writing to acquire firearms and ammunition for the public service; or

(b) he is a person who is authorised to purchase a firearm or ammunition by virtue of a certificate issued in accordance with section 54(2)(b) of the 1968 Act (certificates for persons in naval, military or air service of Her Majesty).'.—[Hazel Blears.]

Clause 28, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.