Clause 30 - Manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms
Violent Crime Reduction Bill
4:00 pm
Hazel Blears (Minister of State (Policing, Security and Community Safety), Home Office; Salford, Labour)
Clause 30 seeks to impose a ban on the manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms. We have already discussed the fact that misuse of realistic imitation weapons has increased to an unacceptable level.
Amendment No. 259 seeks to restrict clause 30 to sales in Great Britain, but that precise effect is already achieved by clause 45(5), which covers territorial extent, so the amendment is redundant. The Bill already allows sales abroad, and those sales could include a transaction between a seller in Great Britain and a buyer abroad if it were arranged in such a way that the sale took place outside Great Britain—for example, by exporting the imitation firearm before the contract is concluded. I am sure that provision can be made so that the title and the goods do not actually pass until the sale is concluded outside Great Britain.
I suspect that the amendment has been prompted by concern that some owners of imitation weapons will suffer a loss in the value of those weapons when there ceases to be a market in this country, but I can provide reassurance in several respects. We will allow a suitable period before the legislation comes into force to allow people to dispose of any current stock, and we propose in later amendments that deactivated firearms are not covered by the new offence, partly in recognition of their value and historical importance. As I said, given that some existing owners, particularly collectors, might want to dispose of their guns in due course, we think it reasonable that they should be allowed to sell them abroad.
I have already explained that the principal reason for clause 30 is to cap off the future supply of realistic imitation firearms, which are all too often used to scare and threaten people and to help to commit serious crimes. We want to stop people selling them, except for certain limited purposes, and to stop people importing them.
We would leave the door wide open to anyone who wanted to import these guns for personal and sometimes criminal use if we accepted amendment No. 260, which would limit import restrictions to apply only to persons bringing in, or causing to be brought in, realistic imitations only for sale or distribution. Although we would reject that amendment, we would not oppose an amendment that exempted theatrical performances, museums and re-enactment groups from the provisions in clause 30. If necessary, we can also provide for further exemptions through the regulation-making power in subsection (2).
When we advanced our proposals for banning realistic imitation firearms, we readily acknowledged that there would need to be a range of exemptions and exceptions, for which we have provided. We have tabled amendments that make specific provisions to deal with some of the complex issues, but it is important to keep the regulation-making power because we might need flexibility in future if other issues are brought to our attention. The usual fear is that the Government will overuse such a power, so it is ironic that amendment No. 55 seeks to make its use compulsory rather than discretionary. I appreciate that the amendment was probably tabled to ensure that re-enactment societies and others were recognised, but I hope that hon. Members are reassured by the Government amendments. We should not insist on regulations regardless of whether they are needed, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment. I ask Opposition Members not to press amendment No. 262 either, not because we are reluctant to consult but because it would be generally unhelpful and inflexible to include it in regulations.
The membership and terms of reference of the firearms consultative committee were raised. Amendment No. 262 talks of a wide range of “expert practitioners”. It is difficult to say how wide a range and what fields of expertise would be involved. The Home Office already has dialogue with the main shooting organisations, the police and other interest groups when particular issues arise. We are reconsidering whether a two-tier firearms advisory committee could be constituted once we have determined how to deal with the review of firearms controls.
I assure the Committee that I have listened closely to representations in favour of making regulations under clause 30(2). I remind the Committee that such regulations would be subject to annulment by either House should Members be unhappy with our proposals.
We have no wish to cast the ban on realistic imitation firearms so wide that it bears down disproportionately on legitimate users. There is a balance to be struck.
Amendment No. 263 would require the prosecution to prove that a person charged with an offence did not fall within one of the exemptions. I hope to assure hon. Members that the general criminal law has sufficient provisions to protect people in such circumstances without the need for the amendment.
In bringing criminal prosecutions, the prosecution clearly bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt all the elements in an offence necessary to establish guilt. If a defendant invokes a defence or seeks to rely on an exception, he will, depending on the legislation, bear either an evidential burden or a legal burden. The evidential burden is the lighter, as the defendant merely has to raise sufficient evidence to make a prima facie case for his defence. The legal burdens mean that he has to prove, on a balance of probabilities, one of the facts that goes to make up the defence. If a legal burden is imposed, it has to be reasonable, or it will contravene the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.
That trot through the criminal law shows that defendants already have ample protection; they can never be unreasonably put to proof of a defence or an exemption, so I see no need for amendment No. 263. The normal criminal law ensures that not too heavy a burden will be placed on defendants when they seek to take advantage of one of the exceptions. The amendment would go even further, requiring the prosecution positively to prove that none of the exemptions applied, even if none could have applied in the first place. That would be far too onerous a burden on the prosecution, and it would be outwith normal practice in the criminal law. If we open the door too wide, we will totally negate the principal purpose of the Bill, and requiring the prosecution to do that would make it much more difficult to police the legislation.
As for compensation, it is the duty of any Government to take action to preserve public safety when a problem arises. That is why we are trying to bear down on the misuse of imitation firearms. Our proposals for banning the future manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms are tough; we want to cut the problem at source. It is a legitimate objective. I believe that it can be justified if a fair balance can be struck between the interests of owners and the wider public interest. The Bill will achieve the right balance.
Concerns have been expressed about the value of rare deactivated firearms; we are exempting them under clause 31. We are also meeting concerns about antique loading presses and antique realistic imitation firearms. Existing owners will be able to retain their property; there is no question of their being deprived of it by the state. Those dealers who currently trade in realistic imitations will be able to sell their stocks abroad before the ban is implemented. However, there is no question of compensation for loss of business or of good will; that was clearly established at the time of the handgun ban in 1997. We are looking at control of use rather than deprivation of property. I therefore invite hon. Members not to press their amendments.