Offensive Weapons Bill

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am delighted to speak in this debate, and, like a number of people, I have had the honour and privilege to sit through the vast proportion of it. The debate has been well conducted, with a lot of speeches touching on a number of important issues.

The issue of knife crime and murder in our capital city of London is highly relevant to the Bill. Let no one pretend that what is happening in London has not directly influenced the Government in their desire to see some form of legislation on this particular issue. The situation in the capital is, frankly, scandalous.

When my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) was Deputy Mayor in charge of policing, the crime rates were significantly lower than they are today. That was because of policy and political leadership. It is entirely legitimate to suggest that the kind of leadership that London had at that time no longer exists. It would be invidious, I fully agree, to blame the current Mayor of London entirely for the situation in the capital. I am not saying that it is all his fault, but he does bear some responsibility for it.

It is no accident that, given the increase in knife crime and the increase in fatalities here in London—in our capital—the Government have introduced the Bill. Those two events, I would suggest, are related. It is therefore entirely appropriate for Members who represent London seats—my seat is just outside London, but many of the issues in London pertain to the bit of Surrey that I represent—to address and focus their remarks on the situation here in London.

The Bill has many excellent provisions. Surely the laws against selling dangerous acid to youngsters—to children, in many instances—are well overdue and will be well received across the House. There are issues relating to knives. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) said that he thought it extraordinary that so-called zombie knives had not been banned a long time ago. He was quite right to suggest that the manufacturers of these knives—and their designers, if one can call them that—clearly fully expected that the knives would be used not only to commit grievous, violent crimes, but to threaten and intimidate. There seems to be no other reason that such knives should have been manufactured. Not even for ornamental reasons would the case be a strong one.

Some provisions in the Bill have rightly caused a measure of concern among Conservative Members. The proposed ban on .5 calibre guns seems a little excessive because, as many Members have pointed out, these guns have never been used, as far as we know, in the commission of violent crimes. Banning them therefore seems wholly disproportionate to the threat that they actually pose to members of the public. As has been observed many times in this debate, people who possess these weapons are vetted. They have gone through a measure of screening. They are people who are law-abiding. They pursue their interest in arms in clubs. They practise their activities in highly regulated and very safe conditions.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. As he knows, the Bill has been drafted in such a way as to refer not to .5 calibre rounds, but to 13,600 joules of energy. The reason for doing that is to include other weapons, including .357 Lapua Magnum rifles, but that cannot account for the people who use home loads and lower the velocity of the round. The Bill is about whether the rifle is capable of firing it. People do use home loads, and they lower the capacity, the velocity and energy. The Bill does not account for that at all.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As I suggested, there is a social context that gave birth to the Bill—a huge increase in violent crime and fatalities in London. The two things, as I said, are related. If the Government are trying to address the issue of knife crime and fatalities in our capital, it is beyond my imagination to understand why .5 calibre guns should be banned as proposed in the Bill.

I am delighted that the Secretary of State has openly and generously offered to meet MPs and other people for a wider consultation on the details in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford).

I have had the opportunity to listen to the majority of contributions to the debate, but I would like to start my contribution by paying tribute to the Minister. She has gone out of her way—I have heard other Members refer to this as well—to go through the content of the Bill in detail, and to listen thoughtfully, productively and passionately to the arguments put forward. She knows that most of our arguments with the Bill focus on the firearms aspects, but I shall speak about the whole Bill in its current form.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) made a comment about not understanding why anyone would need to buy acid if they were not a scientist. I can only assume that he can afford a very good cleaner who has to procure and use such acids in his own home. There are many legitimate reasons why individuals might wish to buy acid—I am delighted for him that he does not have to go through the trials and tribulations of normal life like the rest of us—whether in a domestic setting, or for agricultural use. In industry, hydrochloride is regularly used for cleaning.

There are legitimate reasons for buying acid, but there have been incredibly harmful and distressing illegitimate uses of acid for personal attacks, and some for personal defence. They horrify us. We have seen the news stories and the ramifications. We have seen the efforts of countless passers-by and members of society who come along with bottles of water to try to clear acid from a victim’s eyes and skin. It is obnoxious that anyone would seek to use domestic acids for such a cruel purpose.

It is right that we as a Parliament decide that enough is enough and take steps to frustrate the purchase and illegal use of acid. This does not mean that acid will not be available if somebody really wants to get their hands on it, but the Bill will empower the police, giving them the powers to stop people having it who should not have it in a public place. That is the right step to take.

The Minister also knows that we raised some practical points relating to proposals on postage and delivery for the online purchase of blades. This issue is important, because if we look at Parliament’s consideration of online sales and its scrutiny through Select Committees of how online sellers and marketplaces describe themselves, we see that they have thoughtfully avoided much of the legislative restriction that we have sought to place on them, because they say that they only facilitate sales and that the contract is with the individual seller, not the marketplace. Whether it is Amazon or eBay, they have all argued, “Yes, you can have whatever legislative provision you want, but it does not attach to us—it attaches to the person who uses us as a forum to sell.”

Whether we do this with online delivery charges and considerations around the unfairness of differences in postal charges, it will be important, for the provision on the delivery of knives in particular, that we have complete buy-in and sign-up from the marketplaces, rather than just the sellers. It is important to make sure that we know who is buying the blade and that they are able to buy it—that they are of a legal age and we know their identity—and we need to make sure that all who are involved in the process adhere to the Bill. I hope that the Minister has thought about that, engaged with the online sellers and taken the opportunity to tell them that they also have a duty in this process.

I was flicking through my phone 20 minutes ago—I will not say who was speaking at the time, but it was no reflection on their contribution—but zombie knives and combat knives are available for purchase. People can go on websites that say, “Here are UK legal blades. Here are blades that fold, that are less than three inches, that are suitable penknives for sporting purposes, and so on,” but many other sites will callously sell something that is designed to hurt, injure or kill. Having seen and heard the outrageous and horrendous stories in our broadsheets, on our television screens, in our communities and from our constituents, it is important that we take steps—I am not saying that this is entirely the right way to frame the legislation—to provide protection in our community. Having never had the privilege of serving on a Bill Committee and being very unlikely to have the privilege of doing so, I hope that members of this Bill’s Committee will take the opportunity to thoughtfully consider the provisions and augment them in a way that will ensure that the Bill will do what the Minister hopes.

Let me turn, in particular, to the firearms provisions. I made an intervention that touched on energy and velocity, and I think there are fundamental issues, which I raised with the Minister. The first is about safety. When we consider safety, why is something above 13,600 joules unsafe but something under that is not? Why does this Parliament need to interject ourselves in this discussion? Are we saying that 13,599 joules is okay? Is it any less lethal? No, it is not.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In this Bill, the Government are considering removing .50 calibre rifles of a certain velocity. If someone shortens the barrel or reduces the load, however, they can reduce the impact of a .50 calibre rifle or anything else of that size. There are other ways to do this so that law-abiding people can obtain these guns.

[Gavin Robinson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but this is about the purpose of the Bill. What are we trying to achieve? Is it to make the public safer? The arbitrary figure of 13,600 joules cannot make the public safer. We are talking about law-abiding sport enthusiasts who have been through all the processes, as has been discussed this afternoon. Are we saying that 13,599 joules is okay, but 13,601 joules is not? It makes no sense. It is not just .50 calibre rifles either; it is exactly the same for .357 Lapua Magnum rifles. It does not matter if someone home loads, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, and lowers the velocity of the round, because the Bill is framed so that what matters is not what they put through a firearm but what the firearm is capable of delivering.

I am afraid that the public safety test in the Bill does not cut it. A .22 rifle can remove life and has a much lower velocity. Families often introduce their young ones to the sport of firearms shooting—target shooting, plinking around the farm—with .22 rifles or air rifles, but a person can still lose their life from a .22. What, then, are we trying to achieve? What arguments and evidence base has the Home Office used to advance these provisions? I do not think they have any, and neither do sporting enthusiasts throughout the country. There has never been any discernible or detected use of rifles of this calibre, legally held, in the commission of a crime.

Some mention was made of the Northern Ireland provisions that allow us to access handguns and other firearms that people cannot access in the rest of the UK. That is true. Several Members of this House are in that position. Every time a person purchases a firearm of that capacity—handgun size, whether a 9 mm, a .40 calibre, a .45 ACP, or whatever—they must first apply for permission and show justifiable grounds for having one and then, shortly after purchasing it, hand it in to the police. They then take it away and put it through forensics and ballistics testing so that if that legally held and approved firearm were ever used and in the commissioning of, or during, a crime and the case left where it was used, the ballistics report would tell the police that it was that person’s firearm.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman was about to say that it is also subject to a ministerial decision about who should be allowed to carry a personal protection weapon in Northern Ireland. Is this not a very regulated market?

[Gavin Robinson]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but it is subject to a ministerial decision only if the person fails to satisfy the conditions earlier in the process. The right hon. Gentleman served as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and has regularly and routinely seen the constraints and strictures, and how strenuous is the process to ensure that only appropriately approved people have access to firearms and in an appropriate way. The Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 and the guidance from the NIO outline the conditions under which a person can make an application.

The important point, however, is that the ballistics and forensics evidence is there for those firearms. The same process could be applied to these circumstances. The approach in the Bill is to constrain access to 13,600 joules of energy—to use the term in the Bill—coming from a firearm. A similar forensics report could be made of that firearm and held by the state so that should that legally held firearm ever be used in the commissioning of crime, which has never happened before, the state would know whose weapon it was. It would be very simple, and I suggest that it should be considered in Committee as a further step to strengthen the existing provisions.

Let me make another point, on which I know I will have no support from Conservative Members. In Northern Ireland, no one can have an air rifle unless it is registered on a firearms certificate. An air rifle can be a deadly weapon. It may be a .177, it may take a small slug, it may operate through the force of air rather than black powder, but it can still be a lethal weapon. Air rifles are not even registered on firearms certificates in England. However, we are imposing serious restrictions on sporting pursuits which I think are unnecessary.

I have canvassed the Minister on the bump stock proposal, and I accept the argument that has been advanced. I think it absolutely right that bump stocks cannot be used in this country, and that the Bill allows the police to seize them. That is a fair argument, and one that we support. As the Minister will know, it has been argued that MARS rifles are useful to disabled shooters, giving access to the sport to those who have trouble handling bolts. I accept that, so far, none of the Paralympic shooting organisations—or, indeed, any of the national shooting organisations—have produced any evidence to substantiate that argument, but I trust that it will be considered later in the Bill’s passage.

We need to engage in very productive consideration. What are the reasons, what are the root causes, and how do we address the fears that are associated with some of these items? I have talked about the money that has just been invested in the .50 calibre range at Silverstone, which was specifically designed to be a safe environment for the use of such rifles, but they will certainly not be used regularly in gangland crimes. We are talking about a rifle weighing 30 lb, which will cost £3,000 or £4,000. The Minister is well aware of some of the historic issues that have arisen in Northern Ireland when paramilitaries have had access to such weapons, but they were never legally held, they were never on a firearms certificate, and they are not what we should be considering today. We are talking about the lawful pursuit of interest in a sport. That is something that we should support, something that forms part of our Olympics set-up, and something that we, as a country, fund participants to engage in, be involved in, and represent our country in. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows David Calvert very well. Calvert is a Commonwealth Games and Olympics shooter and gold medallist from Northern Ireland, who excels in the sport.

As a Parliament, we want our society to be safe. As a Parliament, we recognise that regulation is necessary. As a Parliament, we recognise that we should take steps to ensure that anyone who has access to something that is potentially lethal is controlled and monitored, and that there are systems in place to ensure that it is as safe as it can possibly be. However, in the absence of any rationale or evidence to justify this change, I think that it is a step too far.

I welcome the Minister’s willingness to engage with the issue, and I welcomed the Secretary of State’s indication at the start of the debate that he would engage in thoughtful consideration in the weeks ahead. I look forward to playing whatever part I can on the periphery of the Committee to help to improve the Bill.