BRIEFING PAPER Number 08349, 25 March 2019

The Offensive Weapons By Sally Lipscombe Jennifer Brown Bill 2017-19 Grahame Allen

Contents: 1. Background 2. The Home Office consultation 3. The Bill as introduced to the House of Commons 4. Progress through parliament

www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | [email protected] | @commonslibrary 2 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

Contents

Summary 3 1. Background 5 1.1 Violent crime and Government policy 5 1.2 Offensive weapon offences statistics 6 1.3 Acid attacks 9 Existing controls on sale 9 Acid attacks: criminal offences 10 Calls for change 12 1.4 Knives 13 Government strategy 13 Existing criminal offences 14 1.5 Firearms 15 The Firearms Act 1968 16 2. The Home Office consultation 18 2.1 Acid 19 The consultation proposals 19 Reaction to the proposals 20 2.2 Knives and offensive weapons 21 The consultation proposals 21 Reaction to the proposals 23 2.3 Firearms 25 The consultation proposals 25 Consultation responses 26 Reactions from interest groups 28 3. The Bill as introduced to the House of Commons 29 3.1 Clause by clause analysis 29 Acid 29 Knives and offensive weapons 32 Firearms 36 4. Progress through parliament 38 4.1 Second reading 38 4.2 Committee stage 38 Acid 39 Knives and offensive weapons 46 Firearms 52 4.3 Report Stage and Third Reading 55 Acid 55 Knifes and offensive weapons 55 Firearms 56 4.4 Lords amendments 57 Acid 57 Knives and offensive weapons 58 Firearms 64

Cover page image copyright: Bin the blade results by Greater Manchester Police. Permission to use image granted by Greater Manchester Police by email 29 January 2016.

3 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

Summary

The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19 was introduced on 20 June 2018. Accompanying Explanatory Notes and an Impact Assessment have also been published. The Bill’s territorial extent is complex, as the Bill covers a mixture of reserved and devolved policy matters. Annex A to the Explanatory Notes provides a useful clause-by-clause analysis of the Bill’s territorial extent, and whether a legislative consent motion will be required. The Bill covers three types of weapon – acid, knives and offensive weapons, and firearms – and is the Government’s legislative response to a Home Office consultation that ran between October and December 2017. The key changes that the Bill (as introduced) would make are as follows: • a new offence of possessing a corrosive substance in a public place; • a new offence of selling certain harmful corrosive products to under18s; • new restrictions on online sales of bladed articles and corrosive products, including restrictions on deliveries to residential premises; • a new offence of possessing certain offensive weapons in private (the weapons concerned are already subject to restrictions on their sale, manufacture and importation); and • reclassifying certain firearms as “prohibited weapons” under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. Lords amendments The Commons is due to consider Lords amendments on 26 March 2019. The Bill was subject to a number of amendments in the Lords, including one Government defeat. The most significant areas of change include: • amendments successfully moved by Lord Kennedy of Southwark (resisted by the Government but approved on division by 234 votes to 213) to introduce a “trusted courier” exemption for the delivery of knives to residential addresses; • Government amendments to add new “knife crime prevention orders” to the Bill; and • amendments moved by Earl Attlee, with Government and Opposition support, requiring the Secretary of State to consult on and bring forward regulations to specify the safety conditions under which owners of certain high-powered rifles must keep their weapons. 4 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

A summary of the main Lords amendments is set out in section 4.4 of this Briefing Paper. Minor and consequential amendments have not been covered. Explanatory Notes are available. Progress of the Bill through Parliament The Bill received its Commons Second Reading on 27 June 2018. Its Commons Committee Stage was completed in ten sittings between July and September 2018. No significant changes were made to the Bill during its Committee stage. Commons Report and Third Reading took place on 28 November 2018 (having been postponed twice). The most significant development at Report Stage, following concerns raised by a number of backbenchers, was Government amendments to remove the Bill’s provisions that would have prohibited certain high-powered rifles. The Government also committed to consult on “firearm safety”. The Government said that this consultation would look again at the issue of prohibiting high- powered rifles as well as the other concerns relating to firearms raised during the passage of the Bill. The Bill passed through the House of Lords between 29 November and 19 March 2019. Substantial changes were made to many aspects of the Bill. There was one Government defeat, involving amendments moved by Lord Kennedy of Southwark (resisted by the Government but approved on division by 234 votes to 213) to introduce a “trusted courier” exemption for the delivery of knives to residential addresses. There was also significant debate on new Government amendments, which were agreed, that added new “knife crime prevention orders” to the Bill. The issue of prohibiting high-powered rifles was returned to during the Lords stages. Amendments moved by Earl Attlee, supported by the Government, have added a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult on and bring forward secondary legislation to specify how licence holders of high-powered rifles must safely store their weapons. The Government spokesman Earl Howe indicated that the consultation previously committed to on ‘firearms safety’ would now also consider the secondary legislation that would be required under the Bill.

5 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

1. Background 1.1 Violent crime and Government policy There has been an increasing focus on the prevalence of violent crime – particularly acid attacks and knife crime – in the context of increases in police recorded crime. The number of violence against the person offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in 2017 was 21% higher than the number recorded in 2016. However, the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) suggests that the percentage of adults that have been the victim of violence once or more (prevalence) has remained relatively stable since 2013/14 at around 1.8% and is below the peak of 4.8% observed in 1995.1 The Government has published several strategies aimed at addressing the issue, including: • Ending Gang Violence and Exploitation (January 2016), which set out six priorities for a cross-government approach to ending gang violence and exploitation; and • the Modern Crime Prevention Strategy (March 2016), which set out evidence on six key “drivers of crime” – opportunity, character, the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice System, profit, drugs and alcohol – and proposals under each driver that were intended to make crime harder to commit and less attractive to criminals. The most recent strategy was the Serious Violence Strategy, which was published in April 2018.2 The Strategy focused on four key strands: • tackling county lines and misuse of drugs; • early intervention and prevention; • supporting communities and local partnerships; and • law enforcement and the criminal justice response. In relation to the last of these strands, the Strategy commented that: …a multiple strand approach is essential to tackling and reducing serious violence, but a robust response from law enforcement remains an absolutely critical strand within this approach.3 The actions set out in this strand included taking action against social media encouraging serious violence, co-ordinated police action against knife crime, increased involvement for Trading Standards in tackling underage sales of knives, and reducing serious violence in prisons.

1 ONS, The nature of violent crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2017: Appendix Tables 3 and 4, year ending March 2017, 8 February 2018 2 See Commons Library Debate Pack 2018-0124 Serious Violence Strategy, 21 May 2018 for full background 3 Home Office, Serious Violence Strategy, April 2018, p79

6 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

The Government also set out its commitment to legislate on offensive and dangerous weapons, following a Home Office consultation that had run from October to December 2017. It indicated that these proposals were “based on operational concerns about strengthening the current legal framework”.4 The Bill is the result of that commitment. Details of current law and policy on the three types of weapon covered – acid, knives and firearms – are set out in the remainder of this section.

1.2 Offensive weapon offences statistics Acid attacks The Home Office does not currently collect statistics on acid attacks: Acid and other corrosive attacks resulting in injury are included in Office for National Statistics published statistics within assault with injury offences and assault with intent to cause serious harm offences, but cannot be disaggregated. The National Police Chiefs’ Council undertook a voluntary data collection from police forces between November 2016 and April 2017 and 39 forces provided returns. This found that there had been 408 cases of attacks in the six month period. These figures must be treated with caution, as they are not official statistics and have not been subject to the usual assurance processes.5 The Home Office has asked the National Police Chiefs’ Council to undertake a further data collection exercise with police forces to provide the Government with updated figures on the level of corrosive substance attacks.6 However, statistics released by the Metropolitan Police Service in response to Freedom of Information request suggest that the number of acid attacks in London has risen sharply in recent years. The statistics indicate that the number of Corrosive Fluid Attack Offences – including but not limited to acid – recorded by the MPS has risen from 255 offences in 2015 to 395 in 2016 and 465 in 2017.7 Knife and firearm offences Figures for offences involving weapons can be found in the ONS publication: Crime in England and Wales: year ending December 2017 (published 26 April 2018) which suggests that in the year to December 2017 (Chapter 7): • Offences involving weapons recorded by the police continue to rise • Highest number of offences involving knives or sharp instruments since 2011 • Offences involving firearms have increased following long- term declines

4 Ibid, p82 5 PQ 109629 [on Crimes of Violence: Acids], 30 October 2017 6 PQ 138417 [on Crimes of Violence: Acids], 30 April 2018 7 MPS, FoI Request Reference No: 2018010000724, 20 January 2018 7 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

Possession of offensive weapons offences For the year ending 30th December 2017 there were 36,666 Possession of offensive weapons offences recorded in England and Wales – a rate of 62.8 per 100,000 of population. Excluding the City of London, Essex has the highest recorded Possession of offensive weapons offences rate at 101.1 per 100,000 of population. The Police Force with the lowest recorded possession of offensive weapons offences rate is North Yorkshire which has 28.5 recorded per 100,000 of population. The table below shows the number of possession of weapons offences recorded in each Police Force in England and Wales since 2013:

POLICE RECORDED POSSESSION OF WEAPONS OFFENCES BY POLICE FORCE AREA 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Avon and Somerset 528 379 445 557 667 Bedfordshire 238 271 321 272 379 British Transport Po 368 369 381 371 510 Cambridgeshire 205 236 294 389 486 Cheshire 257 284 301 336 412 City of London 24 24 31 42 49 Cleveland 246 236 271 275 315 Cumbria 156 154 170 145 197 Derbyshire 282 339 428 445 430 Devon and Cornwal 485 475 530 599 807 Dorset 153 166 222 282 274 Durham 239 232 216 183 246 Dyfed-Powys 150 130 126 162 149 Essex 894 883 935 1,217 1,826 Gloucestershire 138 124 154 151 223 Greater Manchester 1,080 1,236 1,461 1,605 2,585 Gwent 169 155 148 166 190 Hampshire 524 641 856 1,089 1,384 Hertfordshire 271 313 348 497 585 Humberside 325 318 347 364 445 Kent 455 479 478 623 917 Lancashire 516 447 421 361 507 Leicestershire 324 343 365 477 684 Lincolnshire 235 274 301 342 380 Merseyside 678 694 694 675 824 Metropolitan Police 3,953 4,215 4,579 5,715 7,240 Norfolk 218 255 270 347 389 North Wales 151 213 220 228 225 North Yorkshire 171 229 178 206 233 Northamptonshire 239 306 330 458 494 Northumbria 667 655 698 928 1,018 Nottinghamshire 561 559 725 739 889 South Wales 423 398 441 459 578 South Yorkshire 570 657 663 970 1,224 Staffordshire 357 402 529 525 609 Suffolk 264 248 290 317 378 Surrey 257 272 301 370 516 Sussex 533 639 808 1,162 1,338 Thames Valley 736 713 954 1,043 1,233 Warwickshire 141 129 179 286 348 West Mercia 299 345 473 633 684 West Midlands 1,235 1,123 1,337 1,571 1,779 West Yorkshire 675 697 1,007 1,412 1,747 Wiltshire 129 132 236 291 273

Total 20,519 21,389 24,462 29,285 36,666

Source: Home Office, Crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2017: Recorded Crime Data at Police Force Area Level (including pivot table) , accessed 18 May 2018

8 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

The map below shows the number of recorded possession of weapons offences (per 100,000 head of population) by Police Force Area in 2017:

Knife Crime Wider statistics on ‘knife crime’ in England and Wales, which include offences other than possession where a blade or sharp instrument was involved, can be found in the Library Briefing Paper: Knife Crime in England and Wales. 9 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

Scotland Statistics on ‘knife crime’ are not reported for Scotland in the same way as for England and Wales and are not strictly comparable as the number of knives or offensive weapons used to commit other crimes (other than handling offences) are not currently recorded. The published statistics for handling offensive weapons also include firearms etc. and are available from 2007/08 in Table A4 of the Scottish Government publication: Recorded Crime in Scotland, 2016-17 Gun crime Background statistics on offences involving weapons for Scotland can be found in the Library Briefing Paper: Firearm Crime Statistics: Scotland And for England and Wales: Firearm Crime Statistics: England & Wales The latest figures on offences involving firearms in England and Wales can be found in the ONS publication: Crime in England and Wales: year ending December 2017 (published 26 April 2018).

1.3 Acid attacks There is increasing concern about the use of acid as a weapon. Full details of existing legislation and policy is set out in Library Briefing Paper 8041 Acid attacks. Existing controls on sale The sale of certain types of acid (and other dangerous chemicals) is governed by the Poisons Act 1972, as amended by the Deregulation Act 2015,8 and the Control of Poisons and Explosive Precursors Regulations 2015, SI 2015/966. The stated aim of this legislation is to strengthen the control of chemicals that can be used to cause harm while still allowing those with a legitimate need for the chemicals to continue their activities.9 The 1972 Act draws a distinction between “regulated” substances and “reportable substances”: • Regulated substances – which contain high concentrations of certain chemicals – are restricted from sale to the general public. If a member of the general public wants to acquire, possess or use any of the regulated substances, they need to apply to the Home Office for a licence to do so. Further details on the licensing process are set out on the Gov.uk website: see Licensing for home users of poisons and explosive precursors, updated 3 April 2018. • Reportable substances can be bought without a licence, but retailers are required to report suspicious transactions and significant losses and thefts. Home Office guidance for retailers includes advice on spotting suspicious transactions:

8 See s90 and Schedule 21 of the 2015 Act 9 Explanatory Memorandum to the Control of Poisons and Explosive Precursors Regulations, 2015, para 7.1 10 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

see Guidance for Pharmacies selling non-medicinal poisons to the general public, May 2015. A full list of regulated and reportable substances is set out on the Gov.uk website: see section 1 of Guidance: Supplying explosives precursors and poisons, updated 4 April 2018. The Government recently legislated to reclassify sulphuric acid (where it The Government is concentrated above 15% weight in weight) as a regulated substance, has recently 10 rather than a reportable one. This change took effect on 1 May 2018. classified sulphuric In January 2018, the Government also introduced a voluntary code of acid as a “regulated practice under which participating retailers agree not to sell certain substance”. corrosive substances to under 18s: see Gov.uk, Responsible sales of acid and corrosive substances: voluntary commitments, last updated March 2018. According to the Home Office, major retailers who have signed up to the code so far include Wickes, B&Q, Screwfix, Wilko, The Co-op, Morrisons, Waitrose, Tesco, John Lewis, Homebase, Lakeland and Aldi.11 Acid attacks: criminal offences There is no one specific offence of possessing acid in public or carrying out an acid attack. People who use acid to attack another, or who carry acid in public, would instead be liable for a more general criminal offence. Offences against the person The Offences against the Person Act 1861 sets out the most relevant offences if acid is used in an attack: • Section 18 - Wounding/causing grievous bodily harm with intent (maximum sentence: life imprisonment) • Section 20 – Unlawful wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm (maximum sentence: five years) • Section 29 - Sending, throwing or using explosive or corrosive substance or noxious thing with intent to do grievous bodily harm (maximum sentence: life imprisonment) Details of these offences can be found in the Crown Prosecution Service legal guidance: see Offences against the Person, incorporating the Charging Standard. The Sentencing Council Assault Definitive Guideline specifically lists the use of acid as an aggravating factor (indicating higher culpability) when sentencing for a section 18 or 20 offence. Offensive weapons offences Carrying acid in a public place with intent to use it in an attack could also potentially be prosecuted under offensive weapons legislation. Under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 it is an offence for a person to have an “offensive weapon” with him in any public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. A similar offence exists

10 The Poisons Act 1972 (Explosives Precursors) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, SI 2018/451 11 Gov.uk, Sales of acid: voluntary commitments for retailers, 8 March 2018 11 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

in Scotland under section 47 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. Section 1A of the 1953 Act and section 139AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 set out aggravated possession offences, which involve having an offensive weapon in a public place or on school premises and using it to unlawfully and intentionally threaten another person in such a way that there is an immediate risk of serious physical harm.12 These offences only apply in England and Wales. “Offensive weapon” for the purpose of these offences is defined as Acid can be classed any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the as an “offensive person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use weapon” under by him or by some other person. existing legislation: This definition captures three categories of article: but the prosecution must be able to • Articles made for causing injury to the person show that the defendant intended • Articles adapted for use for causing injury to the person to use it for the • Articles that are not specifically made or adapted for the purpose of causing purpose of causing injury, but which may be considered injury to the person. offensive if a court or jury decides that the defendant intended them to be used for the purpose of causing injury to the person. Acid would fall within the last of these categories, as it is not in itself an article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person. A successful prosecution would therefore involve proving that the defendant intended to use the acid for the purpose of causing injury to the person. Crown Prosecution Service guidance states: Prosecutors should note that the carrying of acid or other corrosive substance is likely to fall into the final category of weapon [referred to above], where it can be proved that it is intended to cause injury. Intent to cause injury can be inferred from the context of the surrounding circumstances, and in particular prosecutors should consider: • whether the acid has been transferred into a container that it is easier to carry and / or easier to use as a weapon – for instance is it now easier to squirt or throw; • if the acid is still in its original container, regard should be paid to the circumstances in which it is carried – for instance is it with other household shopping, or in a bag with a balaclava late at night. Any background information that the police can obtain may also be valuable in this regard, for instance any relevant texts or social media evidence relating to threats of the carrying of acid. Any explanation provided by the suspect as to intent of lawful authority / reasonable excuse should be carefully scrutinised. It may also be worth considering what led the police to find the acid

12 For these purposes physical harm is considered “serious” if it amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. “Grievous bodily harm” in turn equates to “really serious harm”: see the CPS website, Offences against the Person, incorporating the Charging Standard for further details.

12 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

on the suspect, and whether there may be other witnesses who saw or heard anything that from which intent to cause injury could be inferred.13 Sentencing guidelines on the possession and aggravated possession of offensive weapons state that an offender will be considered more culpable if the offence involved a “highly dangerous weapon”. The guidelines go on: … an offensive weapon is defined in legislation as ‘any article made or adapted for use for causing injury, or is intended by the person having it with him for such use’. A highly dangerous weapon is, therefore, a weapon, including a corrosive substance (such as acid), whose dangerous nature must be substantially above and beyond this. The court must determine whether the weapon is highly dangerous on the facts and circumstances of the case.14 Crown Prosecution Service guidance was updated in January 2018 to cover the use of acid as a weapon: see Legal guidance: Offensive Weapons, Knives, Bladed and Pointed Articles. Calls for change In July 2017 Stephen Timms, whose East Ham constituency has seen a number of acid attacks, led an adjournment debate on the issue.15 He called on the Government to: 1. Reclassify sulphuric acid – which is commonly used as a drain cleaner – as a ‘regulated substance’ and require a licence for purchase, as proposed by the British Retail Consortium; 2. Bring the possession of acid – which is not currently a criminal offence –into line with the law on possession of knives; 3. Introduce tougher and more consistent sentences for those found guilty of carrying out acid attacks.16 On 16 July 2017, the day before the adjournment debate, the Home Office announced a new action plan “aimed at reducing the number and impact of acid attacks”.17 The plan was based on “four key strands”: ensuring effective support for victims and survivors; effective policing; ensuring that relevant legislation is understood and consistently applied, and restricting access to acids and other harmful products.18 Speaking during the adjournment debate, Sarah Newton (then a Home Office minister) indicated that certain elements of the plan might

13 Crown Prosecution Service, Offensive Weapons, Knives, Bladed and Pointed Articles, January 2018 14 Sentencing Council, Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons Definitive Guideline, effective from 1 June 2018, pp 4, 10 and 16 15 HC Deb 17 July 2017 c682 16 Stephen Timms website, Stephen Timms calls for government action on acid attacks, 13 July 2017 17 Home Office press release, Home Secretary announces action plan to tackle acid attacks, 16 July 2017 18 PQ 109629 [on Crimes of Violence: Acids], 30 October 2017

13 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

require changes in legislation, in which case the Home Office would seek “the earliest possible legislative opportunity”.19 The Serious Violence Strategy set out a number of actions relating to acids, including working with retailers on the sale of acid, reclassifying sulphuric acid as a “regulated” substance under the Poisons Act 1972, and working with health and criminal justice agencies to ensure that appropriate support (from the initial medical response onwards) is available to victims. The Strategy also referred to the Government’s plans to legislate to make it an offence to possess a corrosive substance in a public place without good reason, and to make it an offence to sell products containing the most harmful corrosive substances to under-18s.

1.4 Knives Government strategy The Government has described its policy on knife crime as centred on the following “four key strands”: working with the police on operations and enforcement, work on legislative framework, work with retailers on responsible sales, and early intervention and prevention.20 The Serious Violence Strategy set out further details of specific Government activity in this area, including the following: • A new #knifefree media campaign raising awareness about the risks of carrying knives. • The Anti-knife crime Community Fund, funded by the Home Office, which provides financial support for local initiatives to tackle knife crime in England and Wales. • Prevention and early intervention activity, often led by the voluntary sector, to stop people from getting involved in and committing serious violent offences. For example, the Home Office has provided financial support to Redthread, a charity that provides youth workers in hospital emergency departments. The intention is to intervene at the “teachable moment” with young people and young adults who arrive with injuries caused by violence. • Working with retailers to encourage the responsible sale of knives (particularly online), including the introduction of a voluntary code of practice with major retailers to prevent the underage sale of knives in their stores and through their websites. • Tackling knife crime through co-ordinated policing action, particularly through national “weeks of action” against knife crime by police forces under the banner of Operation Sceptre. For statistics on knife crime, please see Library Briefing Paper: Knife Crime in England and Wales

19 HC Deb 17 July 2017 cc687-8 20 PQ 1282 [on knives: crime], 5 July 2017 14 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

Existing criminal offences The criminal law has two main categories of offence relating to knives and offensive weapons: offences relating to possession and offences relating to sale and supply. Full details in relation to England and Wales are set out in section 1 of Library Briefing Paper 330 Knives and offensive weapons. A basic overview is available on the Gov.uk website: see Selling, buying and carrying knives. Full details are set out in section 1 of Library Briefing Paper 330 Knives and offensive weapons. For the purposes of the Bill, the most relevant existing offences on knives and offensive weapons are those covering sales to under 18s, restrictions on certain types of weapon, possession on school premises, and using a weapon to make threats. Details of relevant offences in Scotland and Northern Ireland have also been included. Sales to under 18s Section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it an offence for a person to sell any of the following items to a person aged under 18: • a knife, knife blade or razor blade; • an axe; • any other article with a blade or sharp point made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person.21 It is a defence for the accused to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence. Similar provision is made for Northern Ireland in Article 54 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Section 141A(1) of the 1988 Act also applies in Scotland, although in this case it is an offence to sell knives or certain articles with a blade or point to persons under the “relevant age”. The relevant age is 16 for a knife or knife blade designed for domestic use, and 18 in any other case. Restrictions on certain types of weapon It is an offence to sell, manufacture or import certain types of offensive weapon. Under section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 it is an offence to manufacture, sell or hire (or offer for sale or hire), expose or possess for the purpose of sale or hire, lend, give or import “flick knives” and “gravity knives” (as defined in section 1). This applies to England and Wales, and Scotland. Equivalent provision for Northern Ireland is set out in Article 53 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.

21 Under s141A(3) there are certain exemptions to this, including small folding pocket knives and certain razor blades permanently enclosed in a cartridge or housing (in each case as defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Exemption) Order 1996, SI 1996/3064) 15 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 imposes similar restrictions on the offensive weapons listed in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988, SI 1988/2019 (as amended). The weapons currently listed in the 1988 Order include knuckledusters, death stars and so-called “zombie” knives.22 This legislation applies across the UK. Possession on school premises Under section 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 it is an offence for a person to have with him on school premises: • an article to which section 139 of the 1988 Act applies (i.e. an article with a blade or sharp point other than a small folding pocketknife); or • an offensive weapon within the meaning of section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. It is a defence for a person to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article or weapon with him in a public place, or that he had the article or weapon with him for use at work, for religious reasons, or as part of a national costume. The section 139A offence applies to England and Wales, and to Northern Ireland. Aggravated possession: using a weapon to make threats There are two aggravated possession offences, which involve possessing a bladed article or offensive weapon in public or on school premises and using that item to unlawfully and intentionally threaten another.23 Both offences require the threats to be made in such a way that there is “an immediate risk of serious physical harm” to the victim. The legislation provides that “physical harm is serious if it amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861”. “Grievous bodily harm” under the 1861 Act equates to “really serious harm”, and is a matter for the jury to assess by applying contemporary social standards: see the CPS website, Offences against the Person, incorporating the Charging Standard for further details. The existing offences cover England and Wales.

1.5 Firearms In the UK gun ownership is a privilege not a right. Firearms are heavily regulated. Not all guns can be licensed. Individuals seeking to own guns that can be licenced are vetted and approved by the police.

22 See pages 9-10 of Library Briefing Paper 330 Knives and offensive weapons for the full list 23 Section 1A of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 (which covers offensive weapons in public) and section 139AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (which covers offensive weapons on school premises, and bladed/pointed articles both in public and on school premises). “Offensive weapon” and “public place” have the same meaning as in section 1 of the 1953 Act.

16 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

The Library’s briefing paper Firearms provides a general overview of firearms licensing legislation in the UK. Firearms offences in the UK are rare accounting for less than 0.2% of all recorded crime (excluding fraud) and 0.8% of violence against the person offences in 2016/1724. Though firearms offences are rare the Government have noted there has been a recent increase.25 Amending firearms regulation has therefore become part of the Government’s strategy to combat serious violence.26 The Firearms Act 1968 is the principal legislation that regulates the sale and possession of firearms in England, Wales and Scotland. The Bill (as introduced to the House of Lords) seeks to amend this Act to prohibit certain types of rapid firing rifles and ‘bump stocks’ (devices which can be attached to a firearm to increase its rate of fire). Lords amendments (if accepted) It would also require the Secretary of State to bring forward secondary legislation to specify how licence holders of certain high-powered rifles should safely store their weapons.27 The Firearms Act 1968 Sections 1 and 2 of the Firearms Act 1968 prohibit the possession of a firearm or shotgun without an appropriate certificate issued by the police. When considering whether to issue a certificate, the police consider whether an applicant poses a threat to public safety and whether they have a good reason to own a firearm. As of March 2017 (latest available data) there were 580,658 people who held a certificate to possess either a firearm, shotgun, or both in England and Wales. There were 559,302 firearms covered by 154,958 firearm certificates and 1,349,099 shotguns covered by 561,413 shotgun certificates.28 In Scotland there were 68, 607 people holding a to possess a firearm, shotgun or air weapons – there were 55,999 firearms and 108,495 shotguns held.29 Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 prohibits the possession of certain types of firearms (including their component parts and ammunition) without the authority of the Secretary of State. These firearms are considered particularly dangerous. A full list of the firearms currently prohibited under section 5 can be found in section three of the Home Office’s Guide on Firearms Licensing Law

24 ONS, The nature of violent crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2017: Appendix Tables 4, year ending March 2017, and Offences involving the use of weapons: data tables, Table 2, 8 February 2018 25 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons, October 2017, p9 26 Home Office, Serious Violence Strategy, 9 April 2018 27 Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19, Bill 232 2017-19 (as introduced), Clause 28(3) 28 Home Office, Firearm and shotgun certificates in England and Wales: financial year ending March 2017, July 2017 29 Police Scotland, Management Information: Firearm Certificates Report: Quarter 1 2017/18, August 2017

17 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

It is an offence to possess, purchase, acquire, manufacture, sell or transfer a weapon under section 5 without the authority of the Secretary of State. The maximum sentence for possession, purchase or acquisition is ten years imprisonment. The maximum sentence for the manufacture sale of transfer is life imprisonment.30 Recent policy developments in Firearms regulation In 2015 the Law Commission (the independent body which reviews legislation in England and Wales) published a wide-ranging review of Firearms legislation: Firearms Law – Reforms to Address Pressing Problems. The Law Commission identified several loopholes and made a number of specific recommendations to tighten the law. Earlier in 2015 the Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC now called HMICFRS) published a critical inspection of the firearms licensing functions in police forces: Targeting the risk: An inspection of the efficiency and effectiveness of firearms licensing in police forces in England and Wales. The inspectorate recommended that the Government review the status of guidance to police forces on their duties in relation to firearms. Part six of the Police and Crime Act 2017 addressed most of the Law Commission’s recommendations and HMIC’s key concerns. However, some of its provisions require secondary legislation or statutory guidance which the Government has yet to introduce. The Library’s briefing paper Firearms provides more detailed analysis of these issues.

30 CPS, Firearms [last accessed 21/06/18] 18 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

2. The Home Office consultation

In July 2017, the then Home Secretary Amber Rudd announced plans to consult on new restrictions on the online sale of knives and the possession of dangerous or offensive weapons on private property.31 In October 2017, during her speech at the Conservative Party Conference, she announced that the Government also intended to consult on legislation on the sale and possession of acid.32 A Home Office press release explained that views on the proposed measures would be sought as part of a more wide-ranging consultation on offensive weapons, which would also cover knives and firearms.33 The consultation itself was published on 14 October 2017.34 Setting A Home Office out the background to the consultation, the Government said it had consultation sought “identified the need for new primary legislation to respond to public views on proposals concerns and provide the police with the powers they need”, in the for new restrictions context of increases in police recorded violent crime.35 The key on knives, acids and proposals were as follows: firearms. • new offences to prevent knives sold online being delivered to a private residential address, and to ensure the age and identity of the purchaser are checked; • new offences of possessing certain offensive weapons in private; • a new offence of having an article with a blade or point, or an offensive weapon, in education institutions other than schools; • amending the existing offences of threatening with an article with blade or point or offensive weapon; • updating the definition of a flick knife; • a new offence of carrying a corrosive substance in a public place; • new restrictions on the sale of corrosive substances to under 18s; and • reclassifying two types of firearm (large calibre (0.50) rifles and rapid firing rifles) as “prohibited weapons” under the Firearms Act 1968.

31 Home Office, Home Secretary takes further action to tackle knife crime, 18 July 2017 32 Home Secretary’s speech at the Conservative Party Conference, 3 October 2017, as reported in (for example) “Sale of acids to under-18s to be banned, Amber Rudd says”, BBC News, 3 October 2017 33 Home Office, Home Office to consult on measures to clamp down on the use of offensive and dangerous weapons, 3 October 2017 34 Home Office/Gov.uk, Offensive and dangerous weapons: new legislation [accessed 22 June 2018] 35 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons: Government consultation, October 2017, p3

19 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

The consultation closed on 9 December 2017, and a summary of responses was published in June 2018.36 The Government said that the consultation had received 10,712 responses, of which 9,482 were received online. Of the responses received, 60 percent related to the firearms proposals and 30 percent to the online knife sales proposal.37

2.1 Acid The consultation proposals The consultation sought views on two proposed legislative changes, one on possession and one on sales, which the Government considered necessary to support the acid attacks action plan. The first proposal was to create a new offence of possessing a corrosive substance in a public place, modelled on the existing offence in section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 of possessing a bladed article in a public place. The consultation said that the Government envisaged that similar defences to the knife possession offence would also apply to the proposed corrosive substance possession offence, such as, if the person could prove they had a good reason or lawful authority for having it in a public place.38 The consultation acknowledged that possession of acid in a public place can currently be prosecuted under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which covers possession of an offensive weapon in a public place. However, it highlighted the fact that a successful prosecution for this offence involves proving “that the person in possession of the substance intended to cause injury”. Taking the same approach as section 139 would instead put the onus on the defendant to show that they had a good reason for being in possession of the substance in a public place. The consultation indicated that the Government did not intend to define “corrosive substance” in legislation, so as to make the new offence flexible enough to cover a variety of situations. The second proposal was for a new offence to prevent the sale of the most harmful corrosive substances to under 18s. Again, this would be modelled on existing knife legislation. The Government said that this proposal was “in response to the significant proportion of known offenders who are under 18”.39 The new offence would only cover “the most harmful” corrosive substances, and the Government was therefore considering whether to list these in statutory guidance or possibly secondary legislation:

36 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons: Summary of Consultation Responses, 20 June 2018 37 Home Office/Gov.uk, Offensive and dangerous weapons: new legislation [accessed 22 June 2018] 38 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons: Government consultation, October 2017, p8 39 Ibid, p14

20 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

Such a list is likely to be necessary because the proposed new offence preventing sales to under 18s is aimed at the most harmful corrosive substances that leave life-changing injuries rather than all products that contain a corrosive substance.40 This list could then be amended without requiring primary legislation. The consultation paper indicated that the Government had had “a very positive response” from retailers to its plans for a voluntary age restriction scheme. However, the Government considered that having primary legislation to support this would be “important to its longer term effectiveness”.41 Reaction to the proposals The summary of responses indicated that the proposed age restriction for the sale of certain corrosive substances had received “very strong support”.42 There was support for adopting the same approach taken by existing legislation on the sale of knives to under 18s, which includes defences for retailers in respect of taking reasonable precautions and exercising due diligence. Respondents also emphasised the need for “clear clarification on the definitions and clear guidance for retailers of age specification and the products that would be within scope”.43 For example, in its response to the consultation the Association of Convenience Stores said that it would welcome guidance from both manufacturers and trading standards regarding products caught by the new age restriction.44 Some respondents also commented that tackling acid attacks was “not just reliant on introducing stronger legislative measures”, but also required improvements to the education and awareness around corrosives.45 During a December 2017 Westminster Hall debate on corrosive substance attacks, Lyn Brown – whose West Ham constituency has seen a high proportion of acid attacks – said that bringing the law around the possession and use of corrosive substances into line with the law of knives was “exactly the right principle”.46 On the proposals for new age restrictions, she said that decisions about which substances would be covered needed to be made “clearly, transparently and in a way that allows for parliamentary scrutiny”.47 She highlighted the system currently in place for classifying illegal drugs as a potential model to adopt, given that it “allows for scrutiny on the basis of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs’ expert advice”.

40 Ibid, p9 41 Ibid, p9 42 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons: Summary of Consultation Responses, 20 June 2018, para 33 43 Ibid, para 35 44 Association of Convenience Stores, ACS Submission: Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons, November 2017 45 Ibid, para 38 46 HC Deb 20 December 2017 c401WH 47 Ibid, cc403-4WH 21 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

Stephen Timms, whose neighbouring East Ham constituency has also seen a high proportion of acid attacks, asked whether the Home Office had considered extending the age restriction to those aged under 21. Shadow policing minister Louise Haigh described the Government’s proposal to restrict the sale of acid to over-18s as welcome but “nowhere near enough”: First, the data return from 39 forces showed that only one in five offences was committed by someone under 18. How many of those people bought the substances for themselves is up for debate. That is a critical point, because until now the Government’s response on the restriction of sale has, I regret to say, been weak. We need a comprehensive approach to restrictions on sale, and a focus on under-18s entirely ignores the evidence and fails to consider the issue in the round.48 Home Office minister Victoria Atkins said that she would discuss this with her officials.49

2.2 Knives and offensive weapons The consultation proposals The consultation sought views on several proposals. The first proposal was for new restrictions on the delivery of knives and weapons sold online: We propose that where a knife is sold online, it is an offence to deliver the knife to a private residential address. Knives sold online must only be delivered to and collected - by the person who made the purchase - at a place where the age of the purchaser can be checked. This new offence will provide additional safeguards to the current legislation which already makes it a criminal offence to sell knives to a person under 18. (…) we are concerned that too many online sales break the law that knives must not be sold to under 18s.50 It would be for retailers to decide where purchasers could collect the knives bought online and have their age checked. For example, online retailers with a physical store presence could require customers to collect online purchases in-store. Online-only retailers could enter into a third party agreement (e.g. with another retailer, collection service or post office) for items to be collected at a place where age and identity could be verified in person. The consultation paper said that although it is already an offence to sell knives (in person or remotely) to under 18s, too many retailers were struggling to implement this age restriction for online sales. It commented that evidence from online test purchase operations conducted by Trading Standards showed that “the majority of online retailers sampled failed to have effective age verification procedures”,

48 Ibid, cc414-415WH 49 Ibid, cc417-418WH 50 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons: Government consultation, October 2017, p11

22 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

and that there had been little improvement in the failure rate for test online purchases over the last decade.51 The consultation paper also highlighted the murder of Scottish teenager Bailey Gwynne, who was killed by a 16-year-old who had reportedly purchased a knife online without age checks.52 The next proposal was to make it an offence to possess the following types of knife and offensive weapon in private: • flick knives and gravity knives as defined by section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959; and • the offensive weapons (including knuckledusters, death stars and so-called “zombie” knives) listed in paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988.53 It is already an offence to sell, manufacture, hire, loan, donate or import these weapons, and to possess them in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The proposed new offence would extend this to cover possession in private places: This will ensure where the police find a zombie knife, for example, in someone’s home in future they can arrest and charge the owner with this proposed offence and remove the offensive weapon from the owner.54 The next proposal was to extend the existing offence of having a knife or offensive weapon on school premises55 to cover other types of education institution, for example sixth form colleges and universities. The next proposal was to amend the existing “aggravated possession” offences of threating someone with an offensive weapon or a bladed or pointed article.56 The existing offences currently require proof that the defendant threatened the other person “in such a way that there is an immediate risk of serious physical harm to that other person”. The consultation paper said that this was a “high barrier to prosecution”, and instead proposed changing the test to cover threats “when the victim reasonably fears they would be likely to suffer serious physical harm”: This test will be based on how a reasonable person would respond to such a threat, and not whether the victim was objectively at risk of immediate serious physical harm.57

51 Ibid, p5 52 See for example “Bailey Gwynne murder accused bought knife on Amazon”, Guardian, 3 March 2016 53 See pages 9-10 of Library Briefing Paper 330 Knives and offensive weapons for the full list 54 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons: Government consultation, October 2017, p12 55 section 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 56 Section 1A of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and section 139AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 respectively 57 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons: Government consultation, October 2017, p13

23 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

The final proposal was to amend the current definition of “flick knives” in section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. The consultation paper commented that the current definition was “outdated” as it refers to the mechanism that activates the blade being in the handle, whereas manufacturers now place the mechanism “in a part of the knife that can be argued is part of the blade”.58 Reaction to the proposals Online knife sales The proposals relating to online knife sales attracted most comment from consultation respondents. The summary of consultation responses indicated that of those who responded online, 60% disagreed with the proposal to prohibit the delivery of knives bought online to a residential address. Concerns focused on the potential impact on smaller businesses, particularly online-only retailers and manufacturers of specialist knives.59 The summary did, however, indicate that “a number” of the written responses received, including from the charity and legal sector, supported the proposal and agreed that further action was needed.60 This should go “hand-in hand with strengthening the educational awareness amongst young people and the harm knives cause”.61 Some respondents also raised concerns about the impact on the disabled and those who live in isolated areas, as travelling to a collection point might be difficult.62 Others queried the effectiveness of the proposed restrictions, given the ready availability of knives. For example, the Centre for Social Justice commented: … those intent on obtaining and carrying a knife can readily do so whether by accessing their own kitchen drawer or by simply shoplifting a knife from a store. We therefore believe that while further action to tackle the supply of knives is to be welcomed, it is likely to yield increasingly marginal returns with respect to a reduction in crime.63 The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) made a similar observation, commenting that in its experience “the most likely supply of knives to young people is the kitchen drawer or knife block”.64

58 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons: Government consultation, October 2017, p13 59 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons: Summary of Consultation Responses, 20 June 2018, paras 8-9 60 See for example the Law Society, Home Office consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons: Law Society response, December 2017 61 Ibid, para 10 62 See for example the Countryside Alliance, Countryside Alliance Responds to Offensive Weapons Bill Announcement, 9 April 2018 63 Centre for Social Justice, Acid attacks and offensive weapons: Home Office consultation response, December 2017, p2 64 BASC, Home Office consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons: a response by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), December 2017, para 4.3

24 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

Possession of offensive weapons in private The proposal to prohibit the possession of certain knives and offensive weapons in private also attracted opposition, with 87% of online responses opposing it.65 The summary of consultation responses indicated that the main concerns focused on those who hold such weapons in private for historical or antique reasons: for example, martial arts organisations, re- enactment groups, collectors, and those involved in television and film production. Similar concerns were raised by those who use knives and weapons while engaging in bush craft or country pursuits. Respondents emphasised the need for an adequate defence covering weapons of antique and historical value, and for the current defence of “reasonable excuse” to apply to private possession. The summary also said that the proposal was “supported by many who expressed views that those items, such as zombie knives, should be captured in a new offence”, and that this “would provide the additional message that these weapons are not accepted”.66 Weapons on school premises On the proposals to extend the existing offence of having a knife or offensive weapon on school premises to cover other types of education institution, the summary of responses indicated that respondents were “generally in favour”. However, some respondents were concerned about the impact on those with a legitimate purpose for having such items: in particular, students attending courses such as catering, carpentry and agriculture, and those engaging in sport, martial arts and historical activities.67 Threatening with a weapon The summary indicated that respondents were “generally in favour” of the proposal to amend the existing offence of threatening an individual with an offensive weapon or a bladed or pointed article. 53% of online respondents supported the proposal. The summary reported that the Crown Prosecution Service supported the proposal, although the Bar Council and Criminal Bar Association both questioned the need for the amendment.68 The summary also reported differing responses from the charitable sector. Some argued that “it shouldn’t have to be for the victim to prove how fearful they were”, while another respondent from the sector said that victims “often express their frustrations and feeling of powerlessness when cases are presented to courts and there is no acknowledgement of the impact they have felt”.69

65 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons: Summary of Consultation Responses, 20 June 2018, para 15 66 Ibid, para 18 67 Ibid, paras 20 to 24 68 Ibid, paras 25 to 26 69 Ibid, para 28 25 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

The Standing Committee for Youth Justice, an alliance of over 30 organisations working in the field of youth justice, expressed some concern about the use of a subjective test in offences involving children and young people: “Reasonable fear” is a problematic test to apply, particularly with regards to children. Children find it more difficult than adults to gauge the consequences of their actions and may find it more difficult to judge the intentions of others. The system may be ripe for abuse by members of rival gangs or others wanting revenge.70 It went on: Given the negative effects of imprisonment, SCYJ believes custodial sentences should be used as a last resort and only where it is required for public protection. This will not be the case where children are imprisoned for behaviour that did not objectively put anyone at the risk of harm, which will be the effect of the proposed changes. Children may find it more difficult that adults to anticipate or appreciate the effect of their actions on others. The proposed new test will therefore disadvantage children more than adults, and means children may be convicted and sentenced to custody without having foreseen the effect of their actions, or put anyone at risk of harm. The definition of “flick knife” Of the online responses received, 57% were against the proposal to amend the current definition of a flick knife. However, a “large majority” of the written responses received – including organisations from the charity, legal and criminal justice sector – agreed with the proposals.71 The main objection was that the proposed new definition “could capture knives that could be opened with one hand that were used in everyday life by those pursuing a hobby”, such as rock climbers, or by those who used such knives in their work. Respondents who supported the proposal considered that an updated definition would make it hard for those manufacturing and importing flick knives “to circumvent the law through the changes in their design”.72

2.3 Firearms The consultation proposals The consultation proposed the prohibition of large calibre (0.50) ‘materiel destruction’ rifles and rapid firing rifles under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. These two types of firearms can currently be held on a standard firearms certificate issued under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. If they are reclassified as prohibited weapons under section 5, it

70 Standing Committee for Youth Justice, Standing Committee for Youth Justice response: Home Office consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons, December 2017, p3 71 Ibid, para 29 72 Ibid, para 32 26 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

would be illegal for a person to possess such firearms without the authorisation of the Home Secretary.73 A .50 calibre ‘materiel destruction’ rifle can shoot over a very long The consultation range. It was developed for use by the military and is designed to proposed 74 damage equipment such as vehicles. prohibiting .50 As the name suggests, rapid-fire rifles have a very fast rate of fire. calibre ‘materiel Similar ‘self-loading’ rifles are already prohibited under section 5. Whilst destruction’ rifles and rapid-fire rifles. rapid fire rifles have slower rate of fire than a ‘self-loading’ weapons, These firearms can the rate of fire is greater than a conventional bolt-action rifle. An currently be held on example of a rapid-fire rifle is a VZ 58 Manually Actuated Release a standard firearms 75 System (MARS) rifle. certificate. The Government estimates that there are one hundred and thirty-two .50 calibre rifles and seven hundred rapid-fire rifles76 currently held by registered individuals or dealers.77 The Government argues that there is a risk of these firearms “falling into the wrong hands” if they are available for civilian use.78 The Government is therefore proposing to prohibit these weapons in order to minimise the likelihood that these weapons could be obtained by terrorists or criminals in future. They have cited the Las Vegas shooting in October 2017 as an example of the type of incident they are hoping to prevent.79 Consultation responses The Government’s summary of the consultation responses highlighted that: There were some respondents though that commented that the risk to public safety from these weapons was high, and that the police have no suitable body armour to protect themselves against such high-powered rifles, should they fall into criminal or terrorist hands. It was felt that prohibiting these weapons needed serious consideration.80 However, it also noted that many of the consultation responses were critical of the government’s proposals, particularly the proposal to prohibit the .50 calibre rifle. The arguments against the proposals were:81

73 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons: Government consultation, p17 74 Ibid; ‘Materiel’ is a military term which refers to military equipment. 75 Ibid 76 This figure refers to VZ 58 Manually Actuated Release System (MARS) rifles. 77 Home Office, Impact Assessment Offensive Weapons Bill: IA No: HO0313, 22 May 2018, p10. 78 Ibid, see also Parliamentary Question 107492 (Firearms: Crime), 17 October 2017 79 Home Office, Impact Assessment Offensive Weapons Bill: IA No: HO0313, 22 May 2018, p1 (note that rapid-fire rifles are specifically Manually Actuated Release System [MARS] rifles). 80 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons Summary of Consultation Responses, June 2018, paragraph 45 81 Ibid, page 15-16

27 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

• The firearms included in the proposal have rarely been used for crime. • The proposals disproportionately affect recreational shooters who are already subject to rigorous regulation. The proposals could disproportionately affect disabled shooters as certain types of rapid-fire rifles which are particularly suited to them. • The cost of compensating the current owners of these weapons would be high. Evidence of use in criminal activity In answer to a parliamentary question on the 12th October 2017 the Government stated that they know of one incident in which a .50 calibre rifle was stolen and subsequently recovered.82 The Government have argued that rather than reducing the number of current incidents, the proposals are designed to prevent future incidents. Disabled shooters Some consultation responses highlighted that ‘Manually Actuated Release System’ rifles (a type of rapid-fire rifle) are used by disabled shooters and therefore their prohibition would particularly affect them. The Government’s policy equality statement on the Bill said: …no evidence was produced on how or why they would adversely affect disabled shooters, for example, that these are the only types of weapons they can use, nor what forms of disability would rely on this weapon. Therefore, we do not anticipate any differential impact from this proposal.83 Compensation In the original Impact Assessment, published alongside the consultation document, the Government estimated the total cost of compensation for the owners of the firearms to be “between £1.0 million and £1.1 million in the first year of the policy”.84 Responses to the consultation suggested that this was an underestimate.85 In the latest Impact Assessment for the Bill the Government estimates that central government will incur costs of £6 million compensating those who will have to surrender their firearms and through loss of government revenue at Ministry of Defence rifle ranges.86 This suggests that the Government’s estimate of the cost of compensating firearms owners has increased.

82 PQ 107492 (Firearms: Crime), 17 October 2017 83 Home Office, Policy equality statement: Offensive Weapons Bill 2018, p5 84 Home Office, Prohibit the purchase, ownership or possession of .50 calibre ‘materiel destruction’ rifles and Manually Actuated Release Systems rapid fire rifles, under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. IA No: HO0298, 14 October 2017 85 Home Office, Consultation on new legislation on offensive and dangerous weapons Summary of Consultation Responses, June 2018, paragraph 50 86 Home Office, Impact Assessment Offensive Weapons Bill: IA No: HO0313, 22 May 2018, p1 (note that rapid-fire rifles are specifically Manually Actuated Release System [MARS] rifles).

28 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

Reactions from interest groups Interest groups have reacted cautiously to the proposals to prohibit these weapons. The British Association for Shooting & Conservation (BASC) has argued that .50 calibre rifles and Manually Actuated Release System rifles should not be reclassified as prohibited firearms.87 They have said the Bill will need “close scrutiny”.88 The Countryside Alliance opposes some of the measures: The Alliance is fully behind proportionate measures that can have a genuine impact on violent crime, but we are opposed to restrictions that disadvantage law-abiding shooters without improving public safety. We have yet to be shown evidence of a public-safety benefit to the new firearm restrictions the Home Office intends to bring forward, and we have serious concerns that poorly worded legislation will have ramifications for the legal shooting community. 89 Both the BASC and the Countryside Alliance have said that they have met with ministers in the Home Office to discuss their concerns.90 The National Rifle Association of the UK have been particularly critical. They argued that the proposals: …have been poorly presented, are not evidence based and, if left unchallenged, will leave a dangerous legacy for the shooting community.91

87 BASC, BASC submits response to “offensive weapons” consultation, 11 December 2017 88 BASC, BASC says Offensive Weapons Bill will need close scrutiny, 9 April 2018 89 Countryside Alliance, Firearms legislation: The good, the bad and the ugly, 18 April 2018 90 See BASC, BASC meets minister for talks on Offensive Weapons Bill, 6 June 2018 and Countryside Alliance, Firearms legislation: The good, the bad and the ugly, April 2018 91 National Rifle Association, Update – Home Office Consultation – “Offensive Weapons”, 22 November 2017 29 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

3. The Bill as introduced to the House of Commons

The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19 was introduced on 20 June 2018. Accompanying Explanatory Notes and an Impact Assessment have also been published. The Gov.uk website includes links to a number of other overarching policy documents relating to the Bill. The Bill covers three policy areas – acid, knives and offensive weapons, and firearms – and is the Government’s legislative response to the Home Office consultation. The Bill’s territorial extent is complex, as the Bill covers a mixture of reserved and devolved policy matters. Annex A to the Explanatory Notes provides a useful clause-by-clause analysis of the Bill’s territorial extent, and whether a legislative consent motion will be required. Second reading took place on 27 June 2018. The Bill completed its Committee stage between July and September 2018. There were ten sittings. The Committee agreed a number of Government amendments. Most of these were minor or technical, although the amendments also introduced new defences for galleries or museums in relation to the proposed new offence of possessing flick knives or gravity knives. Report stage and third reading are due to take place on 15 October 2018.

3.1 Clause by clause analysis Clause numbers in this section are taken from the Bill as introduced. This section was last updated on 25 June 2018, and was written to inform the second reading debate. Acid Sale and delivery of corrosive products Clauses 1 to 4 of the Bill set out new restrictions on the sale and delivery of corrosive products, and would apply across the UK. Clause 1 of the Bill would make it an offence for a person to sell a corrosive product to a person who is under the age of 18. Retailers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would have a defence if they could show that they “took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence”. Retailers in Scotland would have a defence if they could show that: • they believed the purchaser to be aged 18 or over; and • either they had taken reasonable steps to establish the purchaser’s age (by asking for a prescribed form of identification) or no reasonable person could have suspected from the purchaser’s appearance that the purchaser was under the age of 18. 30 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

The offence would be summary only and the maximum penalty would be: • imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, and/or a fine (on summary conviction in England and Wales);92 • imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, and/or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland). The list of corrosive products covered by the offence is set out in the Bill itself: see clause 1(9) and Schedule 1. The “appropriate national authority” would have the power to amend Schedule 1 by regulations.93 Clause 2 of the Bill clarifies how the “reasonable precautions and due diligence” defence would operate in the context of remote sales: for example sales made online or by telephone. Clause 2 provides that if a seller can show that they complied with four specified conditions in respect of a remote sale, then this will amount to a defence to a clause 1 offence. The conditions are as follows: • Condition A is that the seller operated a system for checking that remote purchasers were not under 18, and that that system was likely to prevent under 18s from buying corrosive products remotely. • Condition B is that the package dispatched by the seller was clearly marked to indicate that it contained a corrosive product and that, when finally delivered, it should only be delivered into the hands of a person aged 18 or over. • Condition C is that the seller took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to ensure that, when finally delivered, the package would be delivered into the hands of a person aged 18 or over. • Condition D is that the seller did not deliver the package, or arrange for its delivery, to a locker. Clause 3 would make it an offence for a seller to deliver, or to arrange for the delivery of, a corrosive product to residential premises or to a locker, where that sale has been made remotely.94 The seller would have a defence if they could show that they took “all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence”. The offence would be subject to the same maximum sentence as a clause 1 offence.

92 Clause 1(7) provides for a maximum 51 week prison sentence in the magistrates’ court; however, under clause 1(8) this is to be read as six months until such time as section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (which deals with increased sentencing powers for magistrates) is brought into force. 93 The appropriate national authority is the Secretary of State in relation to England, Wales and Scotland, and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland in relation to Northern Ireland. 94 For these purposes “residential premises” is defined as “premises used solely for residential purposes”, and in particular does not include premises where a person carries on a business. 31 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

Clause 4 would make it an offence – in certain circumstances – for a delivery company to deliver a corrosive product to a person aged under 18. The offence would only apply if: • the seller of the corrosive product is based outside the UK, and has sold a corrosive product to the buyer by way of a remote sale; • the seller and the delivery company have entered into an arrangement whereby the delivery company delivers corrosive products for the seller; • the delivery company was aware when it entered into the arrangement that it covered the delivery of corrosive products; and • the delivery company delivers the corrosive product pursuant to that arrangement. The delivery company would have a defence if it could show that: • it had taken “all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence” (if in England, Wales or Northern Ireland); or • it believed the recipient to be aged 18 or over, and had either taken reasonable steps to establish the recipient’s age (by asking for a prescribed form of identification) or no reasonable person could have suspected from the recipient’s appearance that the recipient was under the age of 18. The offence would be summary only and would be punishable with a fine. Possession of corrosive substances Clauses 5 to 11 of the Bill relate to a new offence of possessing corrosive substances in public. Clause 5 would introduce a new offence of having a corrosive substance in a public place, which would apply across the UK. The person charged would have a defence if they could show that they had good reason or lawful authority for having the corrosive substance with them in a public place, including (but not limited to) showing that they had the substance with them for use at work. “Corrosive substance” is defined as “a substance which is capable of burning human skin by corrosion”. In relation to England and Wales or Northern Ireland, “public place” includes “any place to which, at the time in question, the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise”. In relation to Scotland, “public place” means “any place other than premises occupied as a private dwelling (including any stair, passage, garden, yard, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises which is not used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling)”. 32 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

The offence would be triable either way. On summary conviction, the maximum sentence would be: • 12 months and/or a fine, in England and Wales;95 • 12 months and/or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, in Scotland; or • 6 months and/or a fine, in Northern Ireland. On conviction on indictment, the maximum sentence (in all jurisdictions) would be four years imprisonment and/or a fine. Clauses 6 and 7, which only extend to England and Wales, provide for a mandatory minimum sentence to apply to repeat offenders convicted of the new clause 5 offence. This replicates existing mandatory minimum sentencing provisions under the current law on the possession of knives and offensive weapons.96 In brief, if a person aged 16 or older is convicted of the clause 5 offence and already has at least one “relevant conviction”, then the court must impose an “appropriate custodial sentence” unless it decides that there are particular circumstances relating to the offence, the previous offence or the offender which would make it unjust to impose such a sentence. An “appropriate custodial sentence” is defined as: • a custodial sentence of at least 6 months imprisonment for an offender aged 18 years of age or older; or • a detention and training order of at least 4 months duration, for an offender aged 16 or 17. The list of “relevant convictions” is set out in clause 7 and includes convictions for offences under clause 5 and for the existing possession offences relating to knives and offensive weapons. Clauses 8 to 10 provide the police with stop and search powers relating to corrosive substances. Clause 11 provides that a conviction for the clause 5 offence will count as a “relevant conviction” for the existing mandatory minimum sentences (in England and Wales) that apply to the possession of knives and offensive weapons. Knives and offensive weapons Clauses 12 to 27 of the Bill deal with knives and offensive weapons. The clauses would implement the proposals set out in the Home Office consultation, although the proposed restriction on delivery to residential premises has been refined to include exemptions for certain types of bladed product.

95 Clause 5(8) provides that the reference to 12 months is to be read as six months until such time as section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (which deals with increased sentencing powers for magistrates) is brought into force. 96 See pages 6 to 7 of Library Briefing Paper 330 Knives and offensive weapons for full details 33 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

Sale and delivery It is currently an offence across the UK to sell knives and certain bladed or pointed articles to under 18s (or, in Scotland only, under 16s for knives or blades designed for domestic use). There is a defence where the person charged can prove that they took “all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence” to avoid committing the offence.97 Clauses 12 to 14 of the Bill would clarify the operation of this defence in the context of remote sales, in the same way as clause 2 of the Bill would do for remote sales of corrosive substances. Retailers would be able to satisfy the defence so long as they could show they had complied with the same four conditions as described for clause 2 above (on age verification, package labelling and delivery). Clause 15 of the Bill would make it an offence for a seller to deliver, or to arrange for the delivery of, a “bladed product” to residential premises or to a locker, where that sale has been made remotely.98 The seller would have a defence if they could show that they took “all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence”. The offence would apply across the UK. It would be summary only and the maximum penalty would be: • imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, and/or a fine (on summary conviction in England and Wales);99 • imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, and/or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland). Clause 16 of the Bill sets out a number of defences to the clause 15 offence. The seller will have a defence if they can show any of the following: • that they took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence; • that the bladed product was “designed or manufactured for the buyer in accordance with specifications provided by the buyer”; • that the bladed product was adapted for the buyer before its delivery in accordance with specifications provided by the buyer, and these adaptations were made to enable or facilitate the use of the product by the buyer or its use for a particular purpose; or

97 Section 141A(1) and 141A(4) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 98 For these purposes “residential premises” is defined as “premises used solely for residential purposes”, and in particular does not include premises where a person carries on a business. 99 Clause 15(8) provides for a maximum 51 week prison sentence in the magistrates’ court; however, under clause 15(9) this is to be read as six months until such time as section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (which deals with increased sentencing powers for magistrates) is brought into force. 34 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

• that they reasonably believed that the buyer bought the bladed product for use for relevant sporting purposes or for the purposes of historical re-enactment. For the last of these defences, “relevant sporting purposes” only covers bladed products used by a person to participate in a competitive combat sport between individuals, where use of the product is “an integral part of that sport”. The “appropriate national authority” would have the power to provide for other defences to clause 15 by regulations.100 These defences have been welcomed by groups who had been concerned about the impact of the proposals on manufacturers of specialist knives. For example, the Countryside Alliance has commented the Bill’s approach as “a sensible way forward”, which “recognises that those who require knives for legitimate rural practices will still be able to purchase knives online”.101 Clause 17 defines “bladed product” as an article which is or has a blade, and which is capable of causing serious injury to a person which involves cutting that person’s skin. Prohibited offensive weapons and bladed articles are specifically excluded from the definition. Clause 18 would make it an offence – in certain circumstances – for a delivery company to deliver a bladed article102 to a person aged under 18 on behalf of a seller based outside of the UK. Clause 18 replicates the approach described for clause 4 above in respect of corrosive products. The clause 18 offence would apply across the UK. Flick knives Clause 19 would amend the current legal definition of flick knife to read as follows: any knife which has a blade which opens automatically— (i) from the closed position to the fully opened position, or (ii) from a partially opened position to the fully opened position, by manual pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the knife, and which is sometimes known as a “flick knife” or “flick gun” This new definition would apply across the UK. Prohibition on possession in private Clause 20 would make it an offence to possess a knife of any kind described in section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (flick knives and gravity knives).

100 The appropriate national authority is the Secretary of State in relation to England, Wales and Scotland, and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland in relation to Northern Ireland. 101 Countryside Alliance, Countryside Alliance ensures the sales of knives online for legitimate rural practices, 22 June 2018 102 As defined in clause 18(11)

35 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

Clause 22 would make it an offence to possess any of the offensive weapons to which section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 applies.103 Clause 22 would introduce a number of defences to the new possession offence, including: • that the weapon in question is one of historical importance; • that the defendant possessed the weapon in question only in their capacity as the operator of, or as a person acting on behalf of, a museum or gallery; and • that the defendant possessed the weapon in question for educational purposes only. Existing defences set out in section 141 of the 1988 Act and (by virtue of clause 23) the Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 (SI 1988/2019) would also apply to the new possession offence in clause 22. These existing defences relate to matters such as antique weapons, historical re-enactments and sporting activities, theatrical performances and the production of films and television programmes, and religious ceremonies. Both the clause 20 and clause 22 offences would apply across the UK, and would carry the following maximum sentences: • on summary conviction in England and Wales, 51 weeks imprisonment and/or a fine;104 • on summary conviction in Scotland, 6 months imprisonment and/or a fine; and • on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, 12 months imprisonment and/or a fine, or, on conviction on indictment in Northern Ireland, four years imprisonment and/or a fine. Clause 24 provides the arrangements for the surrender of weapons affected by clauses 20 or 22. Clause 25 requires the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to pay compensation those who are required to surrender their weapons as a result of clauses 20 or 22. Education premises Clause 21 would extend the existing offence of a bladed or pointed article or an offensive weapon on school premises. The existing offence, set out in section 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, extends to England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. Clause 21 would extend this offence to cover “further education premises” as well as schools, which would be defined as:

103 See pages 9-10 of Library Briefing Paper 330 Knives and offensive weapons for the full list 104 Clauses 20(2) and 22(2) provide for a maximum 51 week prison sentence in the magistrates’ court; however, under this is to be read as six months until such time as section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (which deals with increased sentencing powers for magistrates) is brought into force. 36 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

(a) in relation to England and Wales, land used solely for the purposes of— (i) an institution within the further education sector (within the meaning of section 91 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992), or (ii) a 16 to 19 Academy (within the meaning of section 1B of the Academies Act 2010), excluding any land occupied solely as a dwelling by a person employed at the institution or the 16 to 19 Academy; (b) in relation to Northern Ireland, land used solely for the purposes of an institution of further education within the meaning of Article 2 of the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (SI 1997/1772 (NI 15)) excluding any land occupied solely as a dwelling by a person employed at the institution.” Threatening with a weapon Clause 26 would amend the existing offence of threatening with an offensive weapon in public, as set out in section 1A(1) of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. The current offence is committed where a person has an offensive weapon in a public place, and unlawfully and intentionally threatens another person with it “in such a way that there is an immediate risk of serious physical harm to that other person”. The amended offence would be committed where the threats were made “in such a way that a reasonable person (“B”) who was exposed to the same threat as A [the victim] would think that there was an immediate risk of physical harm to B”. Clause 27 would make a similar amendment to the existing offence of threatening with a bladed or pointed article (in public or on school premises), or with an offensive weapon (on school premises), as set out in section 139AA of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Clause 27 would also extend the school premises offences in section 139AA to cover further educational premises as well. These provisions only extend to England and Wales. Firearms Clauses 28 to 35 pertain to firearms. Clause 28 amends the list of prohibited weapons in section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to include: • rifles that can discharge a shot bullet or other missile with kinetic energy of more than 13,600 joules at the muzzle of the weapon; • chambered weapons (other than rifles chambered for 0.22 rim-fire cartridges) from which cartridge cases are extracted using energy from propellant gas or from energy imparted to an energy storage device by propellant gas; and bump stocks.105

105 Offensive Weapons Bill Explanatory Notes, Bill 232- EN 37 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

This legislates for the government’s consultation proposal to prohibit .50 calibre and rapid-fire rifles. Bump stocks were not part of the consultation but are included in this clause. Clause 29 amends the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (SI 702/2004 (NI 3)) to make the equivalent provision in Northern Ireland. Clause 31 provides the arrangements for the surrender of firearms defined in clause 28. Clauses 32 to 34 require the Secretary of State to pay compensation to those who are required to surrender their weapons. 38 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

4. Progress through parliament 4.1 Second reading The Bill received its second reading on 27 June 2018: see HC Deb 27 June 2018 c916. The Home Secretary described the Bill as “part of a much larger sweep of action the Government are taking”, alongside other measures in the Serious Violence Strategy. Shadow policing and crime minister Louise Haigh said that the Opposition would support the “limited but necessary measures” in the Bill, and would take a “constructive approach” to strengthening it during Committee. Several Members raised concerns about the proposals to prohibit the delivery of knives bought online to residential premises, and asked what other options the Government had considered. For example, Paul Blomfield asked whether the Government would look at a mandatory online knife dealers’ scheme, as local knife manufacturers were concerned about the “unintended consequences” of the proposed delivery restrictions.106 Sajid Javid said that the proposed delivery restrictions would not apply to businesses operating from residences, and that there were a number of other defences (for example relating to hand-made knives or knives to be used for sporting purposes) that he thought would help address concerns. Many Members raised concerns that the firearms provisions in the Bill would be detrimental to sport shooters. Members were concerned that the Government had not provided enough evidence that the weapons affected by the Bill have been used for crime, or that they are at risk of being obtained by criminals. Sajid Javid committed to ‘listen’ to Members from both sides as the Bill progressed through the House: While preparing the Bill, we have listened to evidence from security, police and other experts, but I am more than happy to listen to hon. Members from both sides, to take their views into account and to work with them to ensure that we do much more to bring about increased public safety.107

4.2 Committee stage There were ten Public Bill Committee sittings between July and September 2018. No significant changes were made to the Bill. The only substantive amendments agreed were a group of Government amendments to clause 20,108 which would make it an offence to possess a knife of any kind described in section 1 of the Restriction of

106 HC Deb 27 June 2018 c920 107 HC Deb 27 June 2018 c926 108 Now clause 22 39 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (flick knives and gravity knives). The Government amendments set out a specific defence for museums and galleries, so that they can continue to hold and display such objects. A number of minor and technical Government amendments were also agree, relating to matters of Scottish criminal procedure and drafting consistency. The analysis that follows uses the clause numbers of the Bill as introduced. Acid The only amendments made to the acid provisions during Committee stage were minor and technical Government amendments. Key areas of debate included the supply of corrosive products without payment, age limits, the definitions of “corrosive product” and “corrosive substance”, and the definition of “public place”. Supply of corrosive products Stuart McDonald moved a probing amendment aimed at exploring whether Clause 1, which would restrict the sale of corrosive products to under 18s, should also extend to supply without payment.109 He said his concern related to the situation “where person A, aged 20, gets together with person B, aged 16, in their house, B says he is going to attack person C, and person A then supplies him with a corrosive substance”.110 He queried whether A’s actions in that scenario would be covered by the criminal law. Home Office minister Victoria Atkins said that an adult who supplied a child with a corrosive product with the specific intention that it be used in an attack “could be prosecuted for aiding and abetting a criminal offence” under the existing law.111 She said that the main difficulty with extending clause 1 to include supply was that “corrosive products are used in a range of legitimate activities that people under the age of 18 might be engaged in”, including hobbies, jobs, DIY and cleaning. Enabling these legitimate activities to continue despite a supply offence would require “so many exemptions and defences that it would become unworkable”.112 Mr McDonald said that he would withdraw the amendment and reflect further on the issue. Age limits The Committee considered a group of amendments to clauses 1, 2 and 4 that would have increased the proposed age restriction for the sale and delivery of corrosive products from 18 to 21. Speaking to the lead amendment, Stephen Timms said that there was not “a great deal of evidence on the ages of acid attackers”. The one piece of evidence he had found was in a freedom of information

109 PBC Deb 4 September 2018 c114 110 Ibid, c115 111 Ibid, c118 112 Ibid, c119 40 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

request submitted to the Metropolitan Police by a member of his local authority. The response included details of the average age of perpetrators of acid attacks: 22.8 in 2012; 24.7 in 2013; 21.1 in 2014; 22.9 in 2015; 21.5 in 2016; and 20.8 for the first nine months of 2017.113 He said that while banning sales to under-18s could potentially help, the evidence from the Metropolitan Police highlighted the need to go further. An age limit of up to 21, or possibly even higher, should therefore be considered. In response, the minister said that it was important to find “an age limit at which we can prevent sales that meets the need to protect the public” without affecting “vast swathes of the population who may be buying these substances for completely legitimate and lawful reasons”.114 She commented that corrosive products are not, in themselves, weapons, and that the Government’s view was that there was insufficient evidence to justify “excluding adults from being able to buy such products for legitimate purposes”.115 Stephen Timms pressed the lead amendment to a division but it was defeated by ten votes to seven.116 Definition of “corrosive product” and “corrosive substance” The Committee considered several amendments relating to the definition of “corrosive product” – the phrase used in the sale and delivery offences in clauses 1 to 4 – and “corrosive substance” – the phrase used in the possession offence in clause 5.117 Stephen Timms spoke to a group of probing amendments aimed at clarifying why the Bill used two different definitions: Clauses 1 to 4 deal with the sale and delivery of corrosive products and cover the age limit that we have debated already this afternoon. For this part of the Bill, corrosive products are defined in clause 1(9) in reference to the list in schedule 1. (…) Clause 5 and the following clauses deal with the possession of a corrosive substance. For that part of the Bill, a corrosive substance is defined in a completely different way. It is defined as “a substance which is capable of burning human skin by corrosion”.118 He said he could not see any good reason why the products covered by clauses 1 to 4 were defined so differently to the substances covered by clause 5. In response, Victoria Atkins said that clauses 1 to 4 sought to deal with “the most harmful corrosive products”. It was important for

113 Ibid, c122. The underlying freedom of information request can be accessed via the What Do They Know website: see The number of recorded acid attacks and profile of perpetrators in the London Borough of Newham, submitted 31 July 2017 114 Ibid, c127 115 Ibid, c128 116 Ibid, c130 117 Now clause 6 118 Ibid, c133

41 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

manufacturers and retailers to have “clarity on which products they can and cannot sell to under-18s if they are to avoid committing a criminal offence”, which was why these products had been listed in a schedule.119 A different approach had been taken to the definition in clause 5 “to reflect the operational realities of police officers on the ground”. The minister said that a definition based on the effect that the substance could have “could be used widely as part of operational policing”, without police officers having to worry about the specific chemical make-up of the substances involved.120 Stephen Timms queried how police officers would be able to assess whether a substance meets the definition of “corrosive substance” in clause 5. In response, Victoria Atkins said that the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory was developing test kits for officers to use “on the ground”.121 The lead amendment was withdrawn. The Committee also considered an Opposition amendment that would have added “all substances listed under Schedule 1A of the Poisons Act 1972” to the definition of “corrosive products”.122 Speaking to the amendment, Louise Haigh said the Opposition believed the definition of “corrosive products” was too narrowly drawn, as it only lists nine substances that would be prohibited for sale to a child. She said that children would still be able to buy “certain poisons that are harmful to health”, including a number of substances listed in Schedule 1A to the 1972 Act. She called on the Government to have “a much broader rethink” of the general regime for regulating the sale of poisons and corrosive substances, and argued that the Bill’s focus on under-18s failed to consider the issue “in the round”.123 In response, Victoria Atkins said that the list in Schedule 1 to the Bill was based on scientific advice from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory.124 The reason it differed to the list in Schedule 1A to the 1972 Act was that the Bill and the 1972 Act had very different policy aims: We are of the view that it would not be right to combine the two [schedules] given the very distinct policy aims of each piece of legislation. The Poisons Act is primarily aimed at controlling substances that could be used in the illicit manufacture of explosives or are poisons, which is dealt with through a cohesive licensing and reporting regime, whereas the prohibitions in this Bill are aimed primarily at preventing the retail sale or delivery of products that we know have been used in attacks.125

119 Ibid, c134 120 Ibid, c135 121 Ibid, c136 122 Schedule 1A lists those substances that are subject to regulations on their sale under the 1972 Act: see section 1.3 of this paper for further details. 123 Ibid, cc137-8 124 See DEP2018-0883 for the full text of the advice 125 PBC Deb 4 September 2018 cc139-140

42 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

She also highlighted the order-making power (in clause 1(10)) that would enable the Secretary of State to amend Schedule 1 to the Bill if substances need to added, removed or changed. The amendment was withdrawn. Definition of “public place” Louise Haigh moved an Opposition amendment that sought to extend the definition of “public place” for the purposes of the clause 5126 offence of possessing a corrosive substance in a public place (insofar as it relates to England and Wales, and Northern Ireland).127 The current definition is: “public place” includes any place to which, at the time in question, the public have or are permitted access, whether on payment or otherwise. The amendment would have extended the definition by incorporating the wider wording used in clause 5 for the definition of “public place” in relation to Scotland, which is as follows: … any place other than premises occupied as a private dwelling (including any stair, passage, garden, yard, garage, outhouse or other appurtenance of such premises which is not used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling). Speaking to the amendment, Ms Haigh said that the expanded definition had been “specifically requested by serving police officers”. The aim of the amendment was to make it clear that “public place” covered all areas to which the public has access but which is not within a premise occupied as a private dwelling. She explained that the different definitions of “public place” in the Bill replicated existing differences in the legislation on possessing offensive weapons or bladed articles in a public place: The existing definition of “public place” in section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 [possessing an offensive weapon in a public place] is “any highway and any other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise”. In Scotland, in this Bill and other legislation, it is “any place other than premises occupied as a private dwelling”, such as a garden, yard or outhouse. That reflects the existing definition of “public place” in Scottish legislation. The offence of having an offensive weapon, or a bladed or pointed article, in a public place is set out in sections 47 and 49 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995.128 Ms Haigh referred to a 2011 report by the Scottish Government, which explained that the statutory definition of “public place” was changed in

126 Now clause 6 127 PBC Deb 4 September 2018 c156 128 Ibid, c157

43 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

Scotland specifically to capture locations such as stairwells.129 She said that there was no reason why England and Wales and Northern Ireland should not align themselves with the measures in Scotland. In response, Victoria Atkins said that she understood why the police and others were seeking to close what they perceived to be a gap in the law. However, she said that it was also important not to criminalise “members of the public who are going about their daily lives or enjoying a hobby outside their home”.130 The minister said that she could see some potential benefit in expanding the definition to cover all places that are not dwellings, but asked for time to consider the matter further with her officials. On that basis the amendment was withdrawn. Annual report on corrosive substance attacks Stephen Timms moved new clause 1, which would have required the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the data available on the number of corrosive substance attacks in the UK in each of the last five years.131 Mr Timms described new clause 1 as a “straightforward proposition” to enable the systematic collection and publication of data on corrosive substances attacks. He said that this would enable Parliament to develop “properly considered, evidence-based policy” and to track the impact of the changes introduced by the Bill. Louise Haigh commented that without such data it would be difficult to prioritise the deployment of corrosive substance testing kits for police officers, or to understand how many might need to be available.132 In response, Victoria Atkins said that the Home Office and police are already working on improved data collection: A bid for a new collection on corrosive attacks has been submitted as part of the annual data requirement return to the Home Office. That bid is currently being considered by a group of Home Office and policing experts. If successful, it will require all 43 police forces across England and Wales to report instances of attacks involving corrosives to the Home Office on an annual basis. The intention is for the data collection to be routinely published.133 New clause 1 was withdrawn. Threatening with a non-corrosive substance Stephen Timms moved new clause 2, which would have made it an offence for a person to threaten another person with a substance they claim or imply is corrosive.134

129 Ibid, c157. See Scottish Government, Thematic Report on Knife Crime, 2011, pp22- 23, paras 118 and 122 for further background 130 Ibid, c157 131 PBC Deb 11 September 2018 c237 132 Ibid, cc243-4 133 Ibid, c249 134 Ibid, c257

44 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

He said that there was “a problem with people pretending to have acid when they just have water or something innocuous, and using that pretence to threaten and frighten people”.135 He said that section 16A of the Firearms Act 1968 was a precedent for a measure along these lines, as this makes it an offence for a person to possess an imitation firearm with the intent to cause another to believe that unlawful violence will be used against them. In response, Victoria Atkins said that cases where a person threatens another with what purports to be a weapon are already criminal offences: for example, common assault, and the offences involving the use of threatening or abusive words or behaviour under the Public Order Act 1986. She therefore invited Mr Timms to withdraw the proposed new clause. Mr Timms pressed the new clause to a division; however, it was defeated by nine votes to seven. Corrosive substances and educational premises Stephen Timms moved new clause 3, which would have introduced an offence of possessing a corrosive substance on school premises or further education premises. The Committee also considered new clause 4, which would have introduced an offence of threatening a person with a corrosive substance on school premises or further education premises.136 Mr Timms said that the new clauses were designed to align the new offences on corrosive substances with the law on knives. Clause 3 was designed to replicate section 139A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and clause 4 was designed to replicate section 139AA of the 1988 Act (in each case as amended by the Bill). In response, Victoria Atkins said that the intention behind the amendments seemed reasonable, but that there were several reasons why the Government did not consider it necessary to extend the corrosive substance provisions in this way. The first reason she gave was that “the scale of knife crime is significantly higher than that involving a corrosive substance”. The second reason was that “existing offences … can already be used in relation to possession of corrosives on school premises, and in future on further education premises”,137 particularly where there was evidence of intent to cause injury. She considered that the only scenario that might not be covered by an existing offence “is where a student has a corrosive substance on school or further education premises in its original container and there is no evidence that they intend to use the substance to cause injury”.138 The minister said that she would continue to consider new clause 3, and Mr Timms withdrew it on this basis.

135 Ibid, c258 136 PBC Deb 11 September 2018 cc263-4 137 Ibid, c266 138 Ibid 45 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

Payment for corrosive substances Stephen Timms moved new clause 10, which would have made it an offence for a seller to receive payment for a corrosive substance except by cheque or by an electronic transfer of funds (whether authorised by credit or debit card or otherwise).139 He said that the wording of new clause 10 was taken from section 12 of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, which had prohibited cash payments for scrap metal in an attempt to remove a “significant driver” of metal theft. He argued that a similar requirement for corrosive substances would help to tackle “spur of the moment” purchases and would also make purchasers traceable. Tulip Siddiq agreed that preventing cash sales of corrosive substances might make it harder for young people to purchase such products. However, she added that it would also be worth preventing contactless card payments for such transactions. The minister said that Government understood the intention of the clause, but had concluded that it fell “a little too heavily on businesses without necessarily having the positive impact” intended.140 Mr Timms pressed the new clause to a division but it was defeated by nine votes to seven. Unmarked containers Stephen Timms moved new clause 11, which would have made it an offence to carry a corrosive substance in a container in a public place unless that container is clearly marked or labelled as containing a corrosive substance.141 Mr Timms said that if a person is lawfully carrying a corrosive substance in public – for example for work purposes – then it should be their responsibility to ensure that it is in a clearly marked receptacle. It would then be clear what the substance was if it fell into the wrong hands. In response, Victoria Atkins said that in such a scenario, the moment the substance falls into other hands, then if that other person did not have good reason or lawful authority for having the substance then they would fall foul of the new clause 5 offence. Mr Timms pressed the new clause to a division but it was defeated by nine votes to seven. Mopeds Tulip Siddiq moved new clause 30, which would have required the courts to treat the use of a moped to commit a clause 5142 offence (possession of a corrosive substance in a public place) as an aggravating factor when sentencing.

139 Ibid, c271 140 Ibid, c273 141 Ibid, c274 142 Now clause 6 46 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

Speaking to the new clause, she said that she had four reasons for wanting to see use of a moped dealt with more seriously: one, an individual who carries a corrosive substance on a moped poses an additional risk to the public; two, corrosive substance attacks committed from a moped uniquely heighten the physical and psychological effect on the victim; three, mopeds are deliberately chosen by offenders to escape detection and conviction; and, four, conviction rates for moped-related crimes are especially low, and explicitly listing moped as an aggravating factor will serve as a future deterrent.143 In response, Victoria Atkins said that the Government had been working closely with the police, industry, and representatives from the motorcycle-riding community to develop an action plan on the issue of moped-enabled crime. She said that the plan covered issues such as understanding offender motivations, as well as practical solutions such as more securing parking facilities and improving moped security. She added that the police had also developed an effective operational and tactical response. All of this had contributed towards a recent reduction in the level of motorcycle-enabled crime. The minister said that against the background of this work, she was cautious about introducing a new statutory aggravating factor: particularly as such factors “are a rare exception to the general principle that it is for judges to determine the appropriate penalty on the individual facts of a case”.144 She could not, therefore, support the clause. Tulip Siddiq pressed the new clause to a division but it was defeated by nine votes to seven. Knives and offensive weapons The clauses on knives and offensive weapons were subject to some minor drafting amendments, and also to a group of Government amendments relating to defences for museums and galleries. Key areas of debate included the delivery of knives to residential premises, the liability of online platforms for hosting adverts for offensive weapons, the role of online “drill music” videos, enforcement by trading standards officers, and knife displays in shops. Delivery of bladed products to residential premises There was lengthy debate on clause 15,145 which would prohibit the delivery of bladed products to residential promises. Stephen Timms spoke to a group of amendments that sought to further refine the definition of “residential premises” in clause 15. He said that the existing definition – which restricts “residential premises” to premises used solely for residential purposes – gave rise to what he described as “a fairly obvious loophole”:

143 PBC Deb 11 September 2018, c314 144 Ibid, c317 145 Now clause 17

47 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

For example, if somebody lived in a flat above a shop and had the same address as the shop, I think that as the clause stands there would be no bar to their having a knife delivered to their home. Surely what we ought to be doing is stopping the delivery of weapons to places where people live.146 Mr Timms set out two suggested approaches to amending clause 15 to prohibit any deliveries to residential premises. The first approach would be to provide that bladed products could only be delivered to a registered business address. The second approach would be to remove the word “solely” from the proposed definition of residential premises, so that premises used for both work and residential purposes would be covered by the prohibition. In response, Victoria Atkins said that the registered business address proposal would potentially prevent deliveries to places such as schools, hospitals, farms, or people who work from home on a part-time or irregular basis. Such places might not have registered their premises as a business address. The Government was trying to limit the impact on legitimate trade “by allowing deliveries to businesses to continue”. She explained that the Government had considered using a registered business address as the basis for the clause 15 offence, but had “decided against that because there is no simple way for sellers to ascertain whether a premise is a registered business address”.147 Louise Haigh queried how sellers were expected to check whether or not an address is residential under the existing clause 15 wording. The minister said: There are a range of ways in which the seller may satisfy themselves of that purpose. They could ask the buyer to produce evidence that the address to which they are delivering is a business. It might take the form of a document confirming that it is a registered business address. It might be that the buyer supplies business papers showing the address, a document setting out that the property is subject to business rates or a simple confirmation email from the buyer to confirm that they work from that address.148 The lead amendment was withdrawn. During the clause stand part debate, Louise Haigh said it was her understanding that the sole purpose of clause 15 was to ensure that the existing restrictions on selling knives to under-18s were “absolutely safeguarded”. However, she argued that there were alternative ways of achieving this objective, and queried why these had not been considered as part of the Bill. Her suggestions were: • A requirement for delivery companies for all UK sellers to require age verification from the recipient when delivering bladed products (similar to the provisions of clause 18149 in relation to overseas sellers).

146 PBC Deb 6 September 2018 c180 147 Ibid, c181 148 Ibid, c182 149 Now clause 20 48 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

• A similar provision to section 151 of the Licensing Act 2003, which covers the delivery of alcohol to children. • Prescriptive age verification standards for online sales, set out in legislation (as is required, for example, of online gambling sites). • A mandatory online knife dealers’ licensing scheme, which would rely on a defined age verification standard. Ms Haigh argued that clause 15 as drafted would not have much impact on the issue of underage access to knives, and that the Government should instead focus on requiring online retailers to adhere to a higher standard of age verification. She said that if the Government did not wish to take up these alternatives, then it would be necessary “to extend the defences and carve-outs to amend the definition of products in order to define them more tightly”.150 In response to the suggestion of a mandatory online knife dealers’ licensing scheme, Victoria Atkins said the Government had not considered this as an option as it felt the clause 15 approach was “preferable to trying to construct a whole new system is preferable to trying to construct a whole new system that would place a burden on the woodcutter in Hampstead or the occasional crafter in rural areas”.151 The minister stressed that the Government was not saying that bladed products could not be sold online: We are simply saying they have to meet the conditions [on age verification] and that, when it comes to delivery, the product should be delivered to the local post office, delivery depot or village shop that acts as the delivery depot for a company.152 She said that the definition of “bladed products” excluded folding knives with a blade of less than three inches, and that such objects would not be covered by clause 15. Sellers would need to look at products on a case by case basis to determine if they were covered: It is for those affected by the definition to ensure that they meet the standards expected by law, which are already in existence; the concept of not being able to sell knives to under-18s has been in existence now for nearly 30 years.153 During a later sitting, the minister gave some examples of items that might be covered: …the definition of a bladed product is in the Bill and does not include table knives, disposable plastic knives, screwdrivers or things like them, encased razor blades, a folding pocket knife with a cutting edge of less than 3 inches or flick knives, gravity knives or any other weapons prohibited under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. A bladed product might include bread

150 Ibid, c184 151 Ibid, c192 152 Ibid, c188 153 Ibid, cc191-192

49 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

knives, steak knives, cut-throat razors and lots of other items, such as axes and swords, that I should hope people would already think capable of causing serious injury.154 The clause was ordered to stand part without amendment. Possession of certain dangerous knives The Committee agreed a number of Government amendments to clause 20,155 which would make it an offence to possess a knife of any kind described in section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (flick knives and gravity knives). The Government amendments set out a specific defence for museums and galleries, as the minister explained: The amendments in this group provide a defence for museums and galleries, should they ever be prosecuted for the offence of possessing a flick knife or gravity knife. The provisions enable them to hold and display historical examples of such weapons, to acquire new items, and to lend or hire such items to other institutions for cultural, artistic or educational purposes. They are similar to provisions already provided for museums and galleries for weapons covered by section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. We have agreed with the devolved Administrations that the defence will apply to museums across the United Kingdom.156 Advertising disguised offensive weapons The Committee considered two new clauses aimed at preventing online marketplaces from hosting listings or advertisements for certain types of offensive weapon.157 New clause 12 would have made it an offence for a person to allow a website registered in their name to be used to advertise, list or otherwise facilitate the sale of a disguised offensive weapon (e.g. knives disguised as pens or credit cards). New clause 31 would have made it an offence for the owner of a platform, third-party reseller or online marketplace to host a seller involved in the sale or offensive weapons or corrosive products to under 18s. Stephen Timms moved new clause 12. He said that although the sale and import of disguised knives was illegal under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, these weapons were freely available on eBay and other platforms. He highlighted various examples available from sellers based in China, but had also found an example of gravity knives that were apparently available from a UK firm. He said: It has been widely accepted that it is illegal to purchase these things in the UK and nobody has seriously argued that it should be lawful to purchase them, so surely it cannot be disputed that it

154 PBC Deb 6 September 2018 c199 155 Now clause 22 156 Ibid, c211 157 PBC Deb 11 September 2018 c277

50 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

ought to be illegal to advertise, list or otherwise facilitate their sale in the UK.158 Louise Haigh made similar comments in relation to new clause 31. She said that it and new clause 12 went to the “heart of the debate” on overseas sellers and platform liability.159 She said that the other measures in the Bill would be “next to useless” if under-18s were still able to access offensive weapons from online platforms. However, she acknowledged that there was an “understandable difficulty in labelling a platform as liable in law”, as it did not own the content in question. She said that new clause 31 was asking the platforms to take “a relatively straightforward measure: to develop algorithms that restrict to over-18s the viewing of all adverts, whether on eBay, Amazon or Facebook, that contain these offensive weapons or articles”.160 Victoria Atkins said that the new clauses related to the extremely difficult issue of how to police the internet, and how to ensure that those who profit from it conduct their business in a socially responsible way. She said that the Home Office was working jointly with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on a forthcoming White Paper on online harms. This would include looking at serious violence, including the depiction of weapons, and at what can be done to ensure that people and companies act responsibly and do not facilitate the sale of unlawful weapons. She said that it was her understanding that platforms could potentially be committing offences under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (selling or offering for sale certain offensive weapons) or sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (encouraging or assisting an offence). She commented: It is possible that a website that facilitates sales, either by selling directly or through a marketplace model, could be prosecuted for allowing an advertisement to sell a prohibited weapon on the website, even if the site is not the seller.161 However, when pressed on this point by Mr Timms and Ms Haigh she said that she would need to seek clarification on the legal advice, as it seemed to have “many manifestations”.162 Mr Timms withdrew new clause 12 and said he would await a considered view from the minister before returning to the issue on Report.

158 Ibid, c279 159 The Committee had previously debated the issue of jurisdiction over international sellers when considering clause 4 of the Bill: see PBC Deb 4 September 2018 cc149- 156 160 Ibid, c280 161 Ibid, c281 162 Ibid, c283

51 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

Offensive weapons and online videos Stephen Timms moved new clause 13, which would have made it an offence for a website to host or distribute a video in which a person displays an offensive weapon in a threatening manner.163 He said that new clause 13 was aimed at drill music videos, which he described as “a factor” in youth knife crime. He said that he had spoken to YouTube about the issue, and that it had a policy of not permitting videos showing weapons being used to intimidate. However, he described the enforcement of this policy as “rather patchy”. Sarah Jones echoed these remarks, saying that “many websites already ban this type of content and the clause would simply ensure they apply their own rules properly”.164 In response, Victoria Atkins said that the Home Office had launched a new fund “to support national police capability to tackle gang-related activity on social media”.165 This would involve a team of approximately 20 police officers and staff taking action against online material and making referrals to social media companies. She also said that it was already an offence to incite, assist or encourage criminal offences, and so “any video that incites violence … is committing an offence”.166 She also reiterated that cross-governmental work was underway on the online harms White Paper. She therefore asked Mr Timms to withdraw the new clause. Mr Timms recognised the complexity of the issue and agreed to withdraw the new clause. However, he said that he did so in the hope that something else would come forward on Report to enable some progress to be made. Enforcement Stephen Timms moved new clause 14, which would have given trading standards officers explicit statutory authority to enforce the provisions of the Bill relating to the sale and delivery of corrosive and bladed products.167 He expressed surprise that the Bill did not already include such authority, as it was his understanding that trading standards officers required specific statutory powers for each piece of legislation they are asked to enforce. In response, Victoria Atkins said that the existing age restrictions on knife sales were already enforced by trading standards officers using the general powers in section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972. This provides that local authorities in England or Wales have the power to prosecute or defend legal proceedings where it is “expedient for the

163 Ibid, c283 164 Ibid, c287 165 Ibid, c289. See also Home Office press release, Social media hub announced to tackle gang-related online content, 17 June 2018 166 Ibid, c290 167 Ibid, c291 52 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

promotion or protection of the interests of the inhabitants of their area”. The minister said that there was “no reason” why trading standards could not use the general section 222 powers to enforce the Bill’s provisions relating to the sale of knives and corrosives. Mr Timms said that he had tabled the new clause as the Chartered Trading Standards Institute felt that it should be in the Bill. He therefore pressed it to a division, but it was defeated by nine votes to seven. Bladed product displays Louise Haigh moved new clause 17, which would have prohibited bladed product displays in the course of a business.168 She said that the new clause set out “the simple requirement of prohibiting the display of bladed products in shops”. She noted that some work had already been done in this area by retailers participating in the voluntary agreement on the sale of knives, which requires knives to be “displayed and packaged securely as appropriate to minimise risk”. She said that the Opposition would like to see those measures go further and to limit the open sale of knives altogether: Ultimately, there is little point in having the provisions in this Bill, and putting all these restrictions and burdens on online retailers, if we are not asking face-to-face retailers or platforms to abide by the same regulations as well.169 In response, Victoria Atkins said that the new clause raised important points, but that there were potential cost implications for small retailers. She said her understanding was that such a measure would require a full public consultation, but that she would consider the matter further to see what could be achieved. Ms Haigh withdrew the new clause on that basis, and said that she would return to it on Report. Firearms The Committee made no changes to the firearms the Bill. The Opposition bought forward a number of new clauses relating to firearms regulations, none of which passed. Prohibition of certain firearms The Opposition supported the provisions in the Bill which would reclassify certain weapons under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. Louise Haigh (Shadow Minister for Policing) said: There is undoubtedly an urgent need to tackle violent crime and mitigate the threat of powerful firearms getting into the hands of organised criminals and terrorists. We therefore wholeheartedly reaffirm the Opposition’s support for these proposals.170 However, Victoria Atkins (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability) indicated that the Government

168 Ibid, c297 169 Ibid, c298 170 PBC Deb 11 September 2018 c229 53 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

was still open to changing its position on the issue of reclassifying these guns under section 5: …the proposals were based on concerns about the potential for serious misuse of these weapons if they were to fall into the hands of criminals or terrorists. That is not to say that there is an imminent threat that they are about to be used by them, but in view of the threat assessment received, the Government have a clear duty to consider the need for these particular types of firearms to be more strictly controlled. However, the Government also recognise that the vast majority of people in lawful possession of firearms use them responsibly and that any controls need to be proportionate. In line with the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we should continue to listen and consider further whether there are other effective alternatives to banning high-powered rifles, such as requiring enhanced security for their storage and use.171 Louise Haigh raised concerns that semi-automatic .22 calibre rifles were not included in the proposals.172 Victoria Atkins said that the government did not intend to include .22 calibre rifles in the provision, citing that they were less powerful and used widely for pest control.173 Compensation scheme Victoria Atkins gave some further details about how the compensation scheme for owners of the firearms covered by the Bill would work: Clause 31174 makes provision for those who currently hold firearms that will become prohibited to hand in those weapons and ancillary equipment to designated police stations. Detailed guidance on how owners surrender firearms and equipment will be published alongside compensation regulations, which will be laid following Royal Assent. We are working at the moment on the premise of a three-month period in which to hand in weapons.175 Air weapons Karin Smyth MP moved two new clauses relating to air weapons. These amendments were designed to probe the government on the progress of an ongoing review of air weapons regulation.176 ‘New clause 8’ would have required the Secretary of State to report on the safe use of air weapons following the Act receiving Royal Assent. The amendment specified (amongst other things) that the report should consider the current age restrictions on the use of air weapons. 177 ‘New clause 7’ would have restricted under-18s from having an air weapon on private land other than as part of a sporting club.178

171 PBC Deb 11 September 2018 c230 172 Ibid, c229 173 Ibid, c231 174 Now clause 33 175 Ibid, c232 176 See: Home Office, Home Office to review air weapons regulation in England and Wales, October 2017 177 Offensive Weapons Bill, Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 28 November 2018 178 HC PBC, Offensive Weapons Bill (Tenth sitting), 11 September 2018, c268

54 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

Neither of these proposed clauses were pushed to a vote. 179 Antique weapons The Opposition tabled two new clauses relating to antique firearms. Antique firearms are exempt from most firearms regulations so long as Section Three of the they are held as a curiosity or ornament.180 This means that most Library briefing individuals can purchase and possess an antique firearm without the 181 Firearms discusses need for a license issued by the police. There has been concern about the issue of antique the illegal use of antique weapons. Law enforcement professionals have firearms in more noted ammunition to fit certain antique weapons is readily available.182 detail. New Clauses 26 and 27 would have: • required those buying antique firearms to pay with a cheque or electronic transfer and; • established compulsory register of transactions in antique firearms. The Government opposed both new clause 26 and 27. They argued that the provisions in the Police and Crime Act 2017 to strengthen the definition of antique firearms, and their pledge to keep the definition under review, was a proportionate response to criminal use of antique firearms.183 Controls on ammunition The Opposition tabled New Clause 22 which sought to make it an offence to possess the component parts ammunition without a firearm certificate.184 This was to address concerns that ammunition for antique weapons could be easily manufactured. The Government argued that the clause was poorly drafted and therefore could not be included in the Bill. They also pointed to several existing regulations that provide controls on the competent parts of ammunition.185 Louise Haigh (Shadow Minister for Policing) withdrew the amendment but indicated that the Opposition may return to the issue at Report Stage.186 Miniature galleries New Clause 19, proposed by Louise Haigh, would have removed section 11(4) from the Firearms Act 1968. Section 11(4) exempts those running shooting galleries where only miniature rifles and low powered air weapons are used from the requirement to obtain a firearms licence from the police. The Opposition were concerned that this exemption

179 HC Deb, Offensive Weapons Bill: Report Stage, 28 November 2018, c301; House of Commons, Public Bill Committee Proceedings, 11 September 2018, p18-19. 180 section 58(2) of the Firearms Act 1968 181 NB: People who have been sentenced to prison for three years or more are prohibited from possessing an antique firearm. See: Home Office, Antique Firearms: 182 NABIS, Obsolete Calibre (Antique) Firearms Threat Briefing, August 2018 183 PBC (Bill 232) 2017-2019, c310-31 184 PBC (Bill 232) 2017 – 2019, c305 185 PBC (Bill 232) 2017 – 2019, c306 186 Ibid

55 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

provided a loophole whereby those who had been refused a licence could obtain a firearm.187 A similar concern regarding section11(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 was made by the Home Affairs Select Committee in their 2010 report on Firearms Controls. The committee concluded that the issue warranted further investigation but did not make a formal recommendation to the Government.188 Victoria Atkins said that the exemption in section 11(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 is “used extensively by small-bore rifle clubs, and by some schools and colleges”, that the issue had not been raised by the Law Commission in their recent review of firearms legislation and that the Government priority was to “address the areas that present the most risk to public safety.”189 The Public Bill Committee voted on the amendment, but it was rejected by 9 votes to 7.190

4.3 Report Stage and Third Reading The remaining Commons stages for the Bill were originally scheduled for the 15th October, but were rescheduled twice, before taking place on the 28th November 2018. Brief details of the debate at Report Stage are set out below. See also section 5 of the Lords Library Briefing on the Bill. The most significant development was a Government amendment to the firearms provisions to remove the proposed prohibition on certain high-powered rifles. The Bill was given a Third Reading without division.191 Acid Tulip Siddiq returned to the issue moped-enabled crime, and moved a new clause to create an aggravated form of acid and knife possession where a moped is involved. The new clause was negatived on divison by 300 votes to 235.192 Knifes and offensive weapons At Report the Commons agreed a number of uncontroversial Government amendments relating to knives and offensive weapons.193 These included: • a Government new clause to create a new offence of threatening with an offensive weapon in a private place, and

187 PBC (Bill 232) 2017 – 2019, cc299 188 Home Affairs Committee, Firearms Control, Third Report of Session 2010-11, paragraphs 102- 104 189 PBC (Bill 232) 2017 – 2019, cc300 190 PBC (Bill 232) 2017 – 2019, cc301 191 HCDeb, Offensive Weapons Bill, 28 November 2018 192 HC Deb 28 November 2018 c360 193 HC Deb 28 November 2018 c316 onwards

56 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

• refining the wording of the proposed offence of possessing an offensive weapon in a private place to ensure that legitimate possession of Sikh Kirpans would not be affected. At Report the Commons also considered an Opposition new clause that would have required the Government to lay a report before Parliament on the causes behind youth violence with offensive weapons. The new clause was negatived on division by 303 votes to 272.194 Firearms High-powered rifles Ahead of Report and Third Reading Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (a Conservative backbencher and Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Shooting and Conversation) tabled amendments to the Bill which sought to reconcile the concerns of law enforcement professionals had about the high-powered rifles with the interests of the shooting community. The amendments would have removed the provisions to prohibit high powered rifles and added new provisions requiring those seeking a licence for these weapons to install higher security measures before they could be issued a firearms certificate.195 The amendments were supported by a number of backbench Members, mainly from the Conservative Party and the Democratic Unionist Party.196 Sir Geoffrey’s amendments were superseded when the Government tabled its own amendments to remove the provisions relating to high- powered rifles from the Bill, and therefore maintain the status quo with regards to their regulation.197 Sir Geoffrey withdrew his amendments. At Report Stage Victoria Atkins spoke to the Government amendments on the same issue: …it is now the Home Secretary’s view that we should give further detailed consideration to this and other issues relating to firearms that have arisen during the course of the Bill. It is therefore our intention to launch a full public consultation on a range of issues on firearms safety that have arisen over the past few months during the passage of the Bill. Accordingly, we have decided to remove those clauses at this stage. I emphasise that the current licensing arrangements remain in place. 198 The Government’s amendments were opposed by Labour but were agreed to by 309 votes to 274.199 The provisions prohibiting certain rapid firing rifles and bump stocks remains in the Bill. Other firearms issues The issues of ammunition production and miniature galleries were returned to a Report Stage. Victoria Atkins indicated, as shown in the

194 HC Deb 28 November 2018 c355 195 NC8 and NC9, Notices of Amendments given up to and including Wednesday 24 October 2018, revised on 24 October 2018 196 Ibid 197 NC26 to 55, Consideration of Bill (Report Stage), revised 27 November 2018 198 HCDeb, Offensive Weapons Bill, 28 November, c301 199 Division 269, Offensive Weapons Bill, 28 November 2018

57 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

quote above, that these issues would be considered in a public consultation to be launched after Royal Assent of the Bill. This issue of air weapons was also returned to at Report Stage. Victoria Atkins indicated that the issues raised by Karin Smyth, including that of age restrictions (which had formerly not been under consideration), would be considered as part of the ongoing review on air weapons regulation.200

4.4 Lords amendments The Bill was subject to a number of amendments in the Lords, including one Government defeat relating to “trusted couriers”. The most significant areas of change include: • amendments successfully moved by Lord Kennedy of Southwark (resisted by the Government but approved on division by 234 votes to 213) to introduce a “trusted courier” exemption for the delivery of knives to residential addresses; • Government amendments to add new “knife crime prevention orders” to the Bill; and • amendments moved by Earl Attlee, with Government and Opposition support, requiring the Secretary of State to consult on and bring forward regulations to specify the safety conditions under which owners of certain high-powered rifles must keep their weapons. A summary of the main Lords amendments is set out below. Minor and consequential amendments have not been covered. Explanatory Notes are available. Acid Batteries During the first Grand Committee sitting, Viscount Craigavon spoke to a group of amendments that would have excluded objects such as motorcycle and car batteries from the definition of “corrosive product”. He said that the current drafting of this term would prevent the residential delivery of such products, as they contain sulphuric acid, and that a specific exemption was therefore required.201 In response, Baroness Barran said that the Government was “carefully considering the impact that the Bill may have on the sale and delivery of such batteries”, and that it hoped to return to the matter on Report.202 Viscount Craigavon withdrew the lead amendment. At Report, the Lords agreed Government amendments to “exempt all batteries from the prohibitions on the sale and delivery of corrosive products under Clauses 1 to 4”.203

200 HC Deb, Offensive Weapons Bill: Report Stage, 28 November 2018, c300. 201 HL Deb 28 January 2019 c174GC 202 HL Deb 28 January 2019 c177GC 203 HL Deb 26 February 2019 c173 58 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

Consultation on changes to Schedule 1 During the first Grand Committee sitting, Lord Paddick moved an amendment to clause 1 which “suggests that if the appropriate national authority amends Schedule 1—the list of corrosive products—for the purposes of Clause 1 by regulation, it should consult representatives of those likely to be affected”.204 In response, Baroness Barran gave assurances that the Government would consult with affected persons before making regulations amending Schedule 1. She said she would consider whether this should be specified in the Bill ahead of Report. Lord Paddick therefore withdrew the amendment. Returning to the issue on Report, the Lords agreed a Government amendment that added an express requirement for the appropriate national authority to consult on changes to Schedule 1 to the Bill.205 Knives and offensive weapons Sale to under 18s The Lords agreed a number of Government amendments to modify the current restrictions on the sale of bladed articles to under 18s and the proposed new restrictions on delivering bladed products to residential addresses.206 Baroness Williams of Trafford explained that the amendments would ensure that weapons that are exempt from controls under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 – including antique weapons, certain types of antique or traditional swords, and weapons intended for use in sporting, re-enactment or religious purposes – would still be subject to the prohibition on sales to under 18s and delivery to residential premises.207 Trusted couriers (Government defeat) There was extensive debate on the proposed restrictions on the delivery of knives to residential addresses, which ended in a Government defeat on amendments moved by Lord Kennedy of Southwark to introduce a new “trusted courier” scheme.208 Lord Paddick repeatedly queried why the Bill allowed overseas sellers to deliver knives to residential addresses, subject to doorstep age verification checks by the delivery courier, whereas UK sellers would be subject to a ban on residential and locker deliveries. He described this situation as “ludicrous, verging on farcical”.209 He asked the Minister to explain how age checks at a collection point were any more secure than age checks on the doorstep. In response, Baroness Williams of Trafford said that the Government wanted “to

204 HL Deb 28 January 2019 c178GC 205 HL Deb 26 February 2019 c175 and Lords Amendment 2 206 Lords Amendments 26 and 29-34 207 HL Deb 30 January 2019 c263GC 208 Lords Amendments 27 and 28 209 HL Deb 26 February 2019 c178 59 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

avoid any liability regarding checking age falling on the delivery company when the item is handed over”. She went on: This is because delivery companies indicated in our discussions with them that they might simply refuse to deliver items on behalf of sellers if the legal responsibility for checking age falls to them. We are willing to accept this risk in relation to overseas sales because we are less concerned about the impact on overseas sellers, should their trade be affected, but for UK sales we do not want to place a liability on deliverers because there is a risk that they will then refuse to deliver any bladed items. The Government position is therefore that any liability for ensuring that any remotely sold corrosive and bladed products in the UK are not sold and delivered to under-18s should fall solely on the seller.210 At Report Lord Kennedy of Southwark moved an amendment to introduce a “trusted trader” scheme, which would enable verified sellers to be exempt from the restriction on delivering to residential addresses.211 The Government resisted this idea on the basis that it “would transfer the responsibility for complying with the legislation, and for ensuring that all sales are handled properly, from the seller to the Government”, as the Government would be responsible for establishing and funding such a scheme. They also expressed concern about how effective such a scheme would be in practice: The Government are not persuaded, in the light of the results of recent test purchase operations, that sellers can provide such reassurance in a systematic and consistent way. Only by requiring age verification at the point where the item is physically handed to a person at a dedicated collection point is it possible to guarantee that a bladed product will not be handed over to a person under 18.212 Lord Kennedy withdrew the lead amendment but indicated that he would return to it at Third Reading. At Third Reading, Lord Kennedy moved a revised amendment to introduce a “trusted courier” scheme, which would “enable bladed products to still be delivered to home addresses by establishing a scheme whereby the product is delivered by a trusted courier”.213 The relevant national authority would be given regulation-making powers to determine the conditions of being designated a trusted courier. He said he had concluded that this was a better approach than a “trusted trader” scheme. The Minister again resisted the amendments. She reiterated the Government’s view that such a scheme would transfer the responsibility for complying with the legislation from sellers to the Government, and that there would be cost and regulatory implications for both Government and business. She also set out concerns about the potential impact on smaller retailers:

210 HL Deb 26 February 2019 c180 211 See Lord Kennedy of Southwark’s amendments debated at HL Deb 4 March 2019 c444 212 HL Deb 4 March 2019 cc446-7 213 HL Deb 19 March 2019 c1366 60 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

Whether deliverers would be willing to take on the criminal liability—and with it the risk of an unlimited fine—for the offence of handing over items to a person under 18 is likely to depend on the specific circumstances in each case; for example, where a major retailer is involved, a delivery company may be prepared to take on the criminal liability because the commercial benefits of the contract outweigh the risks, but a small retailer may decide not to take on the liability. Placing the liability on deliverers could therefore work against small manufacturers and retailers, meaning that big firms can still have their products delivered to a person’s home but small ones need to use a collection point. This would be a perverse outcome that would put small businesses at a commercial disadvantage to larger firms.214 She added that it might be more difficult to accredit couriers than sellers, given that many of the people undertaking work for delivery companies are self-employed on a casual or part-time basis, rather than company employees.

Lord Kennedy said that his amendments were designed to ensure that UK-based businesses were not disadvantaged against overseas ones. He pressed the lead amendment to a division and it was agreed by 234 votes to 213.215

Enforcement of offences relating to sale of offensive weapons The Lords agreed a Government amendment giving local weights and measures authorities the power to enforce the Bill’s proposed restrictions on the sale and delivery of corrosive products and bladed articles, and the existing restrictions on the sale and marketing of various types of dangerous and offensive weapon.216 The Lords agreed a further Government amendment to extend the “primary authority” scheme to the sale of knives and offensive weapons.217 Baroness Barran said that the aim of the primary authority scheme is to provide “greater regulatory consistency for businesses operating across a number of local authority areas”. Statutory guidance At Report, the Lords agreed a group of Government amendments relating to statutory guidance.218 The amendments would empower the Home Secretary, Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Justice, as the case may be, to issue guidance about the proposed and existing restrictions on the possession, sale and delivery of knives, offensive weapons and corrosive substances. The relevant national authority would be required to consult “such persons likely to be affected by” the guidance before issuing it. Baroness Williams of Trafford commented that the Government

214 HL Deb 19 March 2019 c1378 215 HL Deb 19 March 2019 c1381 216 Lords Amendment 62 217 Lords Amendment 63 218 Lords Amendment 64

61 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

“would, for example, expect to consult organisations representing both small and large retailers of knives and corrosive products”.219 Cyclone knives The Lords agreed a group of Government amendments to add so-called “cyclone” or “spiral” knives to the list of offensive weapons prohibited under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.220 Baroness Barran said that the prohibition would apply in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.221 Kirpans The Lords agreed a number of Government amendments to introduce a specific new defence relating to the cultural practice of Sikhs gifting large ceremonial kirpans to eminent non-Sikhs.222 The Government amendments were the result of cross-party round table discussions, including representatives of the Sikh community.223 The defence would apply to the proposed new offence of possessing an offensive weapon in private, and to the existing offences under section 141(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (sale, supply, manufacture etc of an offensive weapon). The defence would only apply where the conduct in question (i.e. the possession or supply) related specifically to the presentation of a “curved sword” by a Sikh to another person at a religious ceremony or other ceremonial offence. Knife crime prevention orders The Lords agreed several Government amendments to introduce new “knife crime prevention orders”.224 The orders had been announced in a Home Office press release in January: see Home Secretary announces new police powers to deal with knife crime, 31 January 2019. The Government had tabled relevant amendments to the Bill on 29 January 2019.225 On 4 February, Vernon Coaker asked an urgent question about the proposed new orders, in response to which Home Office minister Victoria Atkins provided further details: The police asked us to introduce knife crime prevention orders to reach young people before they are convicted of an offence. These orders are aimed at young people who are at risk of engaging in knife crime, at people the police call “habitual knife carriers” of any age, and at those who have been convicted of a violent offence involving knives. The orders will enable the courts to place restrictions on people, such as curfews and geographical restrictions, as well as requirements such as engaging in positive interventions. The intention is that the new orders will be

219 HL Deb 30 January 2019 c159 220 Lords Amendments 37 and 40 221 HL Deb 30 January 2019 c320GC 222 Lords Amendment 38 223 HL Deb 19 March 2019 cc1384 224 Lords Amendments 6 to 25 225 Revised Second Marshalled List of Amendments to be Moved in Grand Committee

62 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

preventive and will support those subject to them in staying away from crime.226 The Lords first considered the proposed new orders during Grand Committee.227 However, the Government withdrew the amendments after Lord Paddick indicated that the Liberal Democrats would not be supporting them. Baroness Williams acknowledged that support for the orders was “qualified” but said that the Government would be returning to the issue at Report Stage. Baroness Williams moved the amendments at the first Report sitting on 26 February 2019, with provision for the orders to be introduced on a pilot basis to begin with.228 The key features of the proposed orders are set out in paragraph 14 of the Explanatory Notes to the Lords Amendments. Baroness Williams of Trafford gave the following overview: An application for a KCPO can be made by a relevant chief officer of police to a magistrates’ court or, in the case of young people, the youth court. A court may make an order only if it is satisfied that the defendant had a bladed article without good reason in a public place or education premises on at least two occasions in the preceding two years, and that the order is necessary to protect the public or prevent the defendant committing an offence involving knives. A KCPO can also be made on conviction where the defendant is convicted of a relevant offence and, again, the court thinks the order is necessary to protect the public or prevent the defendant committing an offence involving knives. A KCPO may require a defendant to do anything described in the order and/or prohibit the defendant doing anything described in the order. The KCPO can include any reasonable prohibition or requirement which the court is satisfied is necessary, proportionate and enforceable. An order could therefore include things such as curfews or restrictions on going to a particular place. A KCPO can also include positive requirements, and we think these are particularly important. A positive requirement could be attending some form of knife awareness training or a programme to move young people away from knife crime. Some of these programmes are already being funded under the serious violence strategy, and we are keen to build on the excellent work that is already under way to help divert young people from violent crime and is often provided by groups which have first-hand experience of dealing with knife crime in their communities. Where a KCPO imposes such a requirement it must specify a person who is responsible for supervising compliance with the requirement. For instance, if the requirement is attendance at a knife awareness intervention, the person designated to supervise compliance may be the youth worker providing the intervention. KCPOs will have a maximum duration of two years and must be reviewed by the courts after 12 months. KCPOs issued to under- 18s will be expected to be subject to more regular reviews, an issue which we will address in guidance. There are provisions for variation, renewal or discharge of KCPOs on application by the

226 HC Deb 4 February 2019 c28 227 HL Deb 6 February 2019 c372GC 228 HL Deb 26 February 2019 c189

63 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

defendant or the police. There are also provisions for appeal against the order. Breach of the order, without reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence subject to a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.229 The proposed orders received a mixed response, both in Parliament and beyond. Speaking during Grand Committee, Baroness Williams commented that the “police have asked for a new order which will help them to manage those at risk of knife crime in their communities”.230 She added that support had also been expressed by the National Police Chiefs Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner.231 For the Opposition, Lord Kennedy of Southwark said that he accepted that the orders were intended to “deal with habitual carriers of knives”, and that “in that sense, we can support them in principle”.232 However, he said that the proposed scheme needed some refinement. Lord Hogan-Howe, a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, used the Lords debates to set out his support for the orders, although he queried why no search power had been attached to them.233 During the Grand Committee and Report debates, criticisms of the orders focused on issues such as: • the potential for criminalising children who breach the requirements of non-conviction orders, • the funding required to implement and supervise the orders effectively, • the potential overlap with existing tools such as criminal behaviour orders, • how effective the orders would actually be in tackling knife crime, and • how the orders tied in with the Government’s stated aim to adopt a “public health” approach to serious violence. Similar concerns have been raised outside Parliament. See for example: • Magistrates Association, MA response to Government proposals to introduce Knife crime Prevention Orders: Briefing for House of Lords Committee Stage of the Offensive Weapons Bill, 5 February 2019 • Local Government Association, Offensive Weapons Bill: Knife Crime Prevention Orders, 6 February 2019

229 HL Deb 26 February 2019 cc192-3 230 HL Deb 6 February 2019 c374GC 231 HL Deb 6 February 2019 c375GC. See also NPCC, Police given new powers to battle knife crime, 31 January 2019, APCC, APCC Chair Comments on the Home Secretary’s Announcement to Tackle Knife Crime, 31 January 2019 and West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, PCC Response to Home Secretary Announcement on New Powers to Tackle Knife Crime, 31 January 2019. 232 HL Deb 6 February 2019 c388GC 233 HL Deb 6 February 2019 c379GC 64 The Offensive Weapons Bill 2017-19

• The Children’s Society, Parliamentary Briefing: Knife Crime Prevention Orders, February 2019 • Standing Committee for Youth Justice and Prison Reform Trust, Joint Briefing on the Offensive Weapons Bill, House of Lords, Report Stage, February 2019 • Police Federation, Response to Home Secretary's knife crime announcement, 31 January 2019 The lead amendment was approved on division by 145 votes to 84234 and the amendments were added to the Bill. Firearms High-powered rifles Lords amendment 58 would require the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the minimum, mandatory security conditions that the high- powered rifles (those with a kinetic energy more than 13,600 joules) must be kept. Specifically, the amendment would require the regulations to prescribe conditions which will instruct owners how to safely store and transport their weapons. These conditions would be attached to the owner’s firearms certificate.235 The amendment specifies that the regulations should be bought under section 53 of the Firearms Act 1968. This section is currently used to bring forward statutory instruments known as ‘rules’ relating to the licensing of firearms under section 1 and 2 of the Act. For example, the Firearms Rules 1998 currently provide some conditions by which a firearm certificate shall be granted, including that the firearm be “stored securely so as to prevent, as far as is reasonably practicable, access to the firearms or ammunition by an unauthorised person”.236 The amendments require the Secretary of State to consult on these rules before bringing forward a statutory instrument.237 During the Report Stage debate on the amendments in the Lords, Government spokesman Earl Howe indicated that the consultation on ‘firearms safety’ previously committed to at Commons Report Stage would be used to consider the regulations that would be required by the amendment.238 Lords amendment 59 provides the same provision as amendment 58 in Northern Ireland.239 These amendments are the result of substantial debate both in the Commons and the Lords about the regulation of high-powered rifles. As discussed in section 4.3 of this Briefing Paper, there had been a proposal by Sir Geoffrey Clifton- Brown in the Commons to amend the Bill to specify the security measures owners of high-powered rifles would have to follow. However, these proposals were superseded by

234 HL Deb 26 February 2019 cc207-8 235 Explanatory notes relating to the Lords Amendments, 22 March 2019, paragraph 32 236 r3(4)(iv), the Firearms Rules 1998 237 Bill 363 2017-19, Lords Amendments to the Bill, 20 March 2019, amendment 58(2)(3) and 60(2)(3) 238 HLDeb, Offensive Weapons Bill, 4 March 2019, cc482 239 Explanatory notes relating to the Lords Amendments, 22 March 2019, paragraph 32

65 Commons Library Briefing, 11 October 20189

the Government tabling its own amendments remove the provisions relating to high-powered rifles. During Grand Committee Stage, the Opposition bought forward amendments that sought to return the provisions to prohibit high- powered rifles to the Bill.240 Conservative Peer Earl Attlee also bought forward amendments relating to high-powered rifles. Earl Attlee’s amendments returned to the kind of compromise that Sir Geoffrey had proposed in the Commons.241 Speaking on behalf of the Government, Earl Howe addressed the issue of high-powered rifles: The Government have given a commitment that we will consult on the issue of whether high muzzle energy rifles should be subject to a general prohibition, along with a number of other issues relating to firearms safety, after the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. But the Government recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, on all sides. I know that some, including the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, have concerns about waiting for a further public consultation to run its course, particularly if this leads to a call for further legislation. We therefore take the point that there is a case for action in this area at this time. The Government will therefore give further consideration to the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Lucas and Earl Atlee ahead of Report. I cannot at this juncture give a commitment beyond that, but I assure both my noble friends that the case they put forward has landed and will be looked at seriously.242 The amendments that were eventually adopted by the Lords were proposed by Earl Attlee at Report Stage. Earl Atlee indicated that the revised amendments had been drafted with detailed advice from the Bill team after he had been “encouraged by the response of my noble friend the Minister” during Grand Committee. He hoped that the “better drafted amendment” might be seen more favourably by Members from across the House.243 Earl Attlee’s amendments were supported by the Government and Opposition front benches. Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Labour spokesman) was cautious with his support: I am just disappointed that the Government have changed their mind. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his amendments. They go some way towards allaying my fears. I am very pleased to learn from the Minister that the Government will support them. That is progress, and I thank the noble Lord for tabling the amendments today.244 He reiterated concerns that the forthcoming consultation will not produce results.245 The amendments passed and were added to the Bill without division.246

240 HLDeb, Offensive Weapons Bill, 6 February 2019, cc405GC 241 Ibid, cc399GC 242 Ibid, cc407-8GC 243 HLDeb, Offensive Weapons Bill, 4 March 2019, cc478 244 Ibid, cc483 245 Ibid 246 Ibid, cc491

About the Library The House of Commons Library research service provides MPs and their staff with the impartial briefing and evidence base they need to do their work in scrutinising Government, proposing legislation, and supporting constituents. As well as providing MPs with a confidential service we publish open briefing papers, which are available on the Parliament website. Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publicly available research briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated or otherwise amended to reflect subsequent changes. If you have any comments on our briefings please email [email protected]. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing only with Members and their staff. If you have any general questions about the work of the House of Commons you can email [email protected]. Disclaimer This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on as a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s) shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of any kind arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any information at any time without prior notice. The House of Commons accepts no responsibility for any references or links to, BRIEFING PAPER or the content of, information maintained by third parties. This information is Number 08349 provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence. 11 October 20189