§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
12.37 am§ Mr. Jim Callaghan (Heywood and Middleton)In recent years senior police officers in the Rochdale metropolitan borough, which includes my constituency, have expressed their concern to me about the sharp increase in the number of young men who are stopped late at night and found to be carrying replica guns. When challenged, they say that they are only toys. That causes the police great worry because the police who stop them are unarmed.
The deep concern of police officers is well justified and is echoed by many other police forces throughout the United Kingdom. Reacting to the concern of the local constabulary, last year I wrote to the Home Secretary about their concern and received a reply in early August from the Home Office which I believe was totally unsatisfactory. It suggested to me that the Home Office did not believe that the sale, possession and use of realistic imitation guns was a serious problem and that it was not therefore prepared to initiate any legislation relating to realistic replica guns. I was disturbed by the reply, as I am sure many police officers were; those in my constituency certainly were.
The concern of the police in my constituency is understandable, as two very brave members of their ranks were recently shot by a criminal at the Birch service station on the M62. One officer, Inspector Codling, was shot dead and the other brave officer was seriously wounded. Sergeant James Bowden was indeed very fortunate to escape with his life. I am delighted to say that he has been able to resume his duties and I was very happy to meet him last weekend at a function at St Joseph's Roman Catholic school in my constituency. He told me what happened that night and I can assure the House that it was quite horrific.
Many of my constituents and I find it amazing that neither of those unarmed and brave officers was awarded a medal for their brave attempts to arrest an armed and dangerous criminal. I ask the Minister, quite bluntly and directly, why not? Will that anomaly be rectified in the near future?
By an amazing coincidence, local police officers were called to the Birch motorway services on the M62 in June 1991, acting on an anonymous phone call from a member of the public who told them that two young men at the station were armed. Police surrounded the station and Members can imagine their fears, knowing what had happened on the previous occasion when two officers were shot. They arrested two men in possession of a firearm. On their arrest, one of the men was found to be in possession. I am glad to say, of an imitation revolver. Given the circumstances, both men were detained on suspicion of conspiracy to rob.
As one would expect, both denied that they had the replica gun for criminal purposes. They would say that, wouldn't they? One claimed that he was carrying the gun to protect himself from the irate father of his ex-girlfriend. As a result of extensive police inquiries, no criminal offences were disclosed and the two men were bailed. But the circumstances surrounding the incident did not justify the time and resources expended by the police and the legal profession for such a result.
156 The local police had to deal with two other more serious cases. In the first, a man bought an imitation gun at a local shop in the town and, a short time later, used that realistic replica to commit a robbery at a local bank. With the aid of the realistic weapon, he was able to steal £5,000, but while making his escape he was seen by an unarmed police officer who very bravely gave chase and caught and arrested the man without knowing whether the gun was real or a replica. That man is now serving a period of imprisonment. I am glad to say that that brave unarmed officer was commended for his efforts by the chief constable.
The other serious incident in my area also involved a young man who had bought an imitation gun in the town and used it to rob a bank of £3,000. The same man made a second attempt to rob a post office using the imitation gun but was unsuccessful. Through extensive police inquiries, he was identified and arrested, ultimately convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
To show that such incidents occur elsewhere and not only in my constituency, I shall give examples of cases in the south. In Dorset last July, a young couple alerted the police after seeing a young man loading a pistol in a Bournemouth launderette. During the following operation, the man was tackled by police officers and brought to the ground while an armed response vehicle stood by. The gun recovered was found to be a realistic Browning replica, loaded with blank ammunition. Following that arrest, another man was arrested with an identical replica which also had a considerable amount of blank ammunition. Both guns had been bought in London the previous day.
The intended use of the guns—criminal or otherwise —could not be established by the police, as often happens in cases involving replica guns. If the officers had not surprised the men or if one or both had pointed the guns in a threatening manner, the results could have been tragic.
In another case, a gang of four armed robbers netted £22,000 over 15 months in the home counties by using a starting pistol and firing blank ammunition. When caught, one robber was gaoled for 14 years.
Such incidents are part of a growing catalogue of cases involving realistic replica guns. I am sure that all chief constables could add to the list. Unfortunately, such cases can and do end in tragedy for police officers and for individuals possessing realistic replica guns.
Only this weekend, an inquest was held in Bradford —not far from my area—at which the jury returned a verdict on the death of a young man who was shot by the police while brandishing a replica rifle. Another man found carrying an unloaded air pistol near Wellington railway station in Shropshire was shot and killed by West Mercia police officers.
I have no wish to comment on such tragedies because I do not have detailed information at my disposal, but I offer my sympathies to the relatives of the deceased and to the police officers involved. Officers have a very difficult decision to make and very often have only split seconds in which to make it.
People possessing replica firearms could be playing with fire. While replica firearms are often regarded as toys, their use could have, and often does have, fatal consequences as the type of incident that I have just described grows in number. As a consequence, I call for restrictions on the sale and possession of such guns.
157 Replica guns first appeared in Britain about 30 years ago. They came from Japan, but today they come from Spain and the far east. The market for such guns is substantial and very profitable. Realistic replicas of Kalashnikov and M16 rifles sell for about £260 each, Berettas for £100, cowboy-style guns for about £45, and the Smith and Wesson 9mm is worth about £25. While no one wishes to deny or deprive a child of his toy, the list of guns that I have just given are not toys for children. Some are most sophisticated and dangerous, and the blank-firing gun, which is totally indistinguishable from the real thing, presents the greatest threat and menace to the public and the police alike.
The consequences of possessing such realistic replicas can be lethal, yet there are at present no laws controlling their sale, provided that they cannot be converted or adapted to fire live rounds of ammunition. In my opinion, the present situation is quite ludicrous. Even those who are prohibited, by virtue of a conviction, from possessing even an air gun can purchase replica guns. It is incomprehensible that people, regardless of age or criminal history, are free to carry imitation guns in public places. It is astonishing too that on 3 June—just over a month ago —a Minister could state that he had been advised by the firearms consultative committee that neither a ban nor licensing controls on realistic replica guns would be feasible or effective. Why not? Just where do the members of that committee live? It seems to me that they do not live on this planet. I wonder what decision they would make if they were suddenly faced with a man threatening them with a gun, real or imitation—they would not know which. That is the situation in which many unarmed police officers find themselves.
The sooner action is taken by the Home Office to control the menace of replica guns, the better. The Home Office must be prepared to do something about the increasing number of incidents in which would-be gunmen brandishing replica guns are shot and injured or killed. Police firearms officers are more mobile than ever before and are therefore more likely to attend even more incidents involving arms. For the sake of saving lives I call for a total ban on the sale or possession of imitation weapons. The Government must legislate now to control the menace of imitation guns. Such imitations are banned from aircraft. Why? We all know why. If they are banned from aircraft they should be banned elsewhere.
In the meantime, the range of offences set down in the firearms legislation, which relate to the misuse of firearms, should be extended to cover imitation weapons. If an adult has an imitation gun without an adequate or reasonable excuse, in circumstances in which, if it were a real gun, an offence would be committed, he should be guilty of an offence. And the courts must be given more power to punish offenders. These changes must be brought about as quickly as possible. In the interests of the safety of the public and the police, I call on the Government to ban these weapons now and to extend the penalties to those carrying them.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle)I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate. His views on the problems of imitation firearms are 158 carefully heeded and widely respected, and the House will have heard his remarks about the bravery of two police officers. I am sure that he would be well advised to make a recommendation for bravery recognition—first, to the chief constable.
The Government are well aware that the police and the public are, quite understandably, deeply anxious about the criminal use of imitation firearms. To a person who has suffered the traumatic experience of an armed attack it does not matter whether the firearm was real or not; the shock and distress which it creates are the same. And a policeman faced with someone brandishing what looks like a genuine firearm must, in the interests of protecting innocent people, assume that that firearm is real and act accordingly. The protection of the public requires no less.
These are unpleasant facts and the Government are determined to do what they can to eliminate the problem. But fear of crime is itself a social evil and we must make sure that fears are not fed by misconceptions. So let me put the problem into perspective.
Armed crime remains rare in this country. It may not always seem that it is because, when it occurs, it invariably attracts media attention. But it is important to remember that in 1990, only 0.2 per cent. of all reported offences in England and Wales involved the use of a firearm. Of those incidents, 420 are known to have involved an imitation firearm. The Government recognise that those figures are unacceptable, but the problem is still on a much smaller scale than many people may have imagined. The Government are determined to take whatever steps they can to reduce and eliminate the criminal use of imitation firearms, but we want to be sure that our actions are likely to prove effective.
Under the Firearms Act 1968 the use of any imitation firearm, whether it can be converted to fire or not, in furtherance of crime, or to resist arrest, carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is precisely the same as if a real firearm had been used. Under the 1968 Act an imitation firearm is defined as anything which has the appearence of being a firearm, whether or not it can fire any shot, bullet, or other missile. This definition encompasses the whole range of imitations from the simplest toy gun to faithful replicas of real firearms —the hon. Gentleman mentioned some —accurate down to the last fine detail. There are therefore many millions of items in private hands which fall within the description of an imitation firearm.
There is a special concern about the sort of imitation firearm which can be converted to fire live ammunition. Under the Firearms Act 1982 these firearms are subject to the same strict licensing controls as real firearms.
Other types of imitation firearm may in themselves he completely harmless either because they cannot fire at all or because they fire blanks which give the impression of a shot being fired without actually firing any Missile. But it is not the imitation firearms themselves that are harmful —it is the purpose to which they may be put.
The Government have, in the past, looked very carefully at measures which might be taken to reduce the criminal use of imitation firearms. We are frequently told that they should be banned completely or, at the very least, controlled by licence. But workable solutions are rarely so simple.
There are many legitimate reasons for having an imitation firearm. Those which fire blanks are widely used by historical re-enactment groups or for theatre and 159 television productions. Starting pistols are used to start events at school sports days and athletics meetings up and down the country. Many people who are interested in the historical or technical aspects of firearms take pleasure in collecting replicas rather than the genuine article, which reduces the number of real firearms in private hands. So adults, as well as children, get real benefit from owning and studying imitation firearms.
A complete ban on all imitation firearms would prevent all these harmless activities. That would be unfortunate and doubtless unpopular but not necessarily a conclusive argument against banning immitations. The greatest argument against introducing a ban is that it simply would not work.
For one reason, it would be impossible to recover the many millions of imitations already in circulation. So a ban would not prevent criminals from getting hold of them. More importantly, a realistic imitation can easily be made from basic materials. Under conditions of human stress, the poorest imitation can look like the genuine article. There are even documented cases of bread rolls and cucumbers being mistaken for firearms. So a ban would.do nothing to prevent criminals from making their own imitations.
It could be argued that a ban might even increase the risk of violent crime. An imitation firearm, however frightening, cannot kill or maim; but criminals denied access to imitations may well turn either to the real thing or to other dangerous weapons such as knives.
Similar difficulties would arise if we tried to make imitation firearms subject to some sort of licensing control, and that would carry the additional problem of creating a huge administrative burden for the authorities.
It has been suggested that only certain types of imitation firearms need be made subject to control—for example, those which fire blanks and which therefore give the sound and impression of a real shot being fired.
The House will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) sought to introduce a Bill in the last Session along those very lines. The Bill aimed to make blank firing replica firearms subject to licensing by the police. I can understand why my hon. Friend thought that an attractive and straightforward measure. I, and I am sure the rest of the House, can appreciate his aims, but the difficulty is that even a child's toy cap gun is, in effect, a blank firing imitation firearm and would have needed a licence under my hon. Friend's proposal. In any case, what would his proposal achieve? It would make life inconvenient for many law-abiding citizens and yet have no impact whatsoever on criminals, who would simply choose a different type of imitation firearm. Regrettably, the solutions are not that straightforward.
Late last year we asked the firearms consultative committee to review existing controls. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the committee was established in 1989 under section 22 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. The main functions of the committee, which is chaired by Lord Kimball, are to review the Firearms Acts and make recommendations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for improving them and to advise him on other related matters. The committee looked specifically at the possibility of controlling just blank firing imitations, but advised that any attempt to 160 draw a distinction between blank firing weapons and those which cannot fire at all would be fraught with difficulty. It concluded that it would be well nigh impossible to make workable distinctions between exact replicas, close imitations, de-activated firearms and toys.
The committee concluded that controlling imitation firearms by a ban or by some form of licensing system would be neither feasible nor effective. However, the committee did offer two suggestions for possible action. First, it recommended that the range of offences which apply to the criminal use of real firearms should be extended to cover imitation firearms where that is not already the case.
In broad terms, the committee suggested that where an adult has an imitation firearm with him, without reasonable excuse, in circumstances where, if it had been a real firearm an offence would have been committed, then it should also be an offence to have an imitation firearm in those circumstances and the burden of proof should be placed squarely on the person involved to show that his possession of the imitation firearm was innocent. We have looked carefully at that recommendation. We think that the sort of offences suggested by the committee would usefully strengthen the law in this area.
Both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown prosecution service, whom we have consulted, agree that new offences of this sort would provide a valuable addition to existing controls. We believe that they would increase the deterrent to those thinking about using an imitation to commit a crime and they would also give the courts more powers to punish offenders.
Precise details of the offences have yet to be worked out. We do not, for example, want to make criminals of parents who happen to be walking home from a toy shop with a new toy gun for their child tucked under one arm, but we think that the proposal has considerable merit. I am glad to be able to take this opportunity to tell the House that the Government have accepted the recommendation in principle and will introduce legislation to create additional offences when a suitable opportunity arises.
The committee's second recommendation was that the public should be made more aware of the dangers of misusing imitation firearms. It suggested that that could be achieved by placing warnings on the packaging of imitation firearms about the very heavy penalties which apply to such misuse. I can certainly understand why the committee felt that such a measure was worthy of consideration. We have examined the proposal in detail. Consultations have been held with the Department of Trade and Industry, the trading standards authorities, and with representatives of the gun and toy trades.
In the light of those discussions, I have to say that we are sceptical about the value of warning labels. It seems to us that a criminal hardened enough to buy an imitation firearm for criminal use is hardly going to mend his ways because of a warning on the packet; and even that thought supposes that he would actually read the warning—or that he would obtain the firearm in its wrapping in the first place. Understandable concern was expressed by the toy trade that such warnings could detract from the impact of important information about toy safety, and safety information is, of course, of much more immediate relevance to the principal purchasers of toy guns, that is to 161 say, parents and children. We have given the recommendation considerable thought. but we are not persuaded that such measures would effectively deter criminal misuse and we are not inclined to pursue that idea.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity to applaud the responsible approach that was taken to the sale of imitation firearms by many in the gun and toy trade. A little while ago, the British Toy and Hobby Manufacturers Association voluntarily introduced a code of practice requiring all toy guns manufactured or sold by its members to be marked, for example, by a bright orange plug, making them more readily identifiable as fakes. Adherence to the code is mandatory for all members of the association, and that will be a useful step forward.
162 It also became clear to us during consultations that gun trade associations take an equally responsible view to the marketing of replica firearms; many firms voluntarily refuse to sell their products to people under the age of 18 and already include warnings about misuse in the packaging material.
I hope that I have managed to respond to most of the points raised in the course of the debate. I have noted the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. I hope that I have also made clear that the Government are far from complacent about the issue and will act, where they can sensibly do so, in a practical fashion to reduce the chances of imitation and replica firearms being misused.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past One o'clock.