Violent Crime Reduction Bill

My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury made some very valuable points in moving the amendment. It is important to examine these matters in detail. Clauses 26 and 27 were introduced in Committee in another place. The Minister there undertook to provide information on how the licensing regime would work. I am grateful to the Home Office for providing me with a copy of the letter sent to my honourable friends on 10 November last year. Unfortunately, it does little to illuminate the registration process that the Government have in mind and does much to show why it will have its limitations. I understand that the main requirement of the Government’s process will be to make retailers accountable to the police, but my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury’s amendment also has that objective. In particular, I understand that the police will be able to withdraw registration where a retailer becomes a danger to public safety. The obvious example given is where a retailer sells to somebody underage, but my noble friend is determined to prevent underage sales as well, so he has the same objective. The then Minister, Hazel Blears, goes on to say in the letter that retailers will be required to keep records of transactions, removing the anonymity of purchasers and deterring casual and irresponsible sales. But my noble friend is also determined to ensure that there are no casual and irresponsible sales. Indeed, the whole thrust of his argument is to ensure that sales remain responsible. Will the Minister explain precisely how the Government expect the new registration system to operate in a way that is superior to my noble friend’s proposal, why their method should be essential and why their version should be preferred? Subsection (2) of the Government’s proposal amends Section 40(2) of the 1968 Act by requiring that dealers keep a register of transactions involving air weapons. Presumably we end up with a partial registration of air weapon ownership, with new ones registered but existing ones not. As my noble friend Lord Marlesford has already said, we are faced here with increasing regulation, which we need to be persuaded is necessary. The particulars to be entered in the register by a firearms dealer are set out in the schedule to the Firearms Act 1968. The Secretary of State can make rules to vary or add to them. In her letter, Hazel Blears stated that the Government would discuss with the trade and police what changes might be appropriate in that case. That letter was sent on 10 November 2005. What discussions with the trade have been held over the past six months? What proposals do the Government intend to bring forward as a result? How soon after commencement of this Bill will registered dealers be required to establish and keep such a register? Will this registration system interact with the national firearms licensing management system? If so, how will it do so? If not, why not, and how will it work? How will the registration system cope with the fact that many air weapons do not have a unique serial number? On another matter of detail, my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury said he would be quite happy to ensure that car boot sales were properly covered, pointing out that only those who sell air weapons by way of trade or business will be banned from such sales. One might say that any Tom, Dick or Harriet who turns up and enjoys their time at car boot sales will be able to go ahead and sell air weapons at those venues, whereas responsible firearms dealers will not. I find that rather odd. Is there any specific legal reason why the Government felt that people who sell air weapons only from time to time—and may not have such a responsible and strict way of governing to whom they sell—could not be covered by this Bill? It is possible that such people, because they are selling on an ad hoc basis, may have unsafe weapons, whereas firearms dealers would surely not be selling unsafe weapons. On a wider point, could the Minister also address the fact that the joint effect of Clauses 26 and 27 would be to hit those in rural areas particularly hard? Many will be deterred from acquiring air weapons they require for a legitimate purpose. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury has made a valiant attempt to achieve the Government’s objective, without the disadvantages of the Government’s clause as drafted. That is, it avoids a negative impact on the business of retailing air weapons when carried out in a legitimate and proper manner. Did the Government consider the more proportionate system put forward by my noble friend before they launched their own proposals? If so, why did they reject it? If not, would they consider it now?