Examination of witness (Questions 332
- 339)
TUESDAY 11 JANUARY 2000
MR DAVID
PENN
Chairman: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the third evidence session of our inquiry into controls
of firearms. You will recall that when we announced this inquiry
in July we said we were principally concerned with: firstly, problems
caused by, and the control of, air weapons; secondly, shotguns—any
inadequacies in the existing controls designed to prevent their
misuse; and, thirdly, the extent to which the bans introduced
in 1997 have been effective in removing handguns from circulation.
Good morning, Mr Penn, Chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee.
Mr Howarth
332. Good morning, welcome to the Committee.
Do you feel the Firearms Consultative Committee, which has been
in existence since 1988, has made a constructive and valuable
contribution to the development of firearms legislation?
(Mr Penn) Yes, I do. If you have the opportunity to
look at our Seventh Annual Report there is a summary of the work
done to that date with the actions taken in relation to those
proposals. In broad terms, those proposals that could be implemented
through guidance or through Orders in Council were very frequently
taken. The problem with our work is the proposals regarding primary
legislation have not been taken up in the way that the Committee
would have hoped—even when, of course, there were two major
opportunities in the recent past to do so. The other way in which
the Committee has, we hope, proved of benefit to the Home Secretary
is that it allows the testing of proposals and ideas before they
reach him. Without a Firearms Consultative Committee the Home
Office sits at the centre of lines of communication from all directions—the
police, shooters and other interested bodies; but there is no
easy mechanism whereby the police can test their ideas against
the shooters and vice-versa before they reach the Home Secretary
if you do not have the Firearms Consultative Committee. It acts
as a refining and a polishing procedure for proposals coming from
different quarters.
333. You say in your evidence to us that you
seek to avoid having minority reports. Despite the fact you have
quite a disparate range of interests represented, you do appear
to come up with a degree of unanimity which is perhaps rather
surprising. Do you agree?
(Mr Penn) No, I would not agree really, because the
intention one hopes of all those people contributing to the Committee
is not to take a fixed position which is not going to succeed.
What people are looking for is to find a way forward that all
parties can accept. Parties may not get everything they want as
a result of this, but it would seem to be the best way forward
in the circumstances of the time. One has to say also of course
that a lot of the Committee's work is discussing the implementation
of existing legislation, what it actually means in practice, and
there you have the legislation—that is immoveable—and
you have to decide what it actually means in practice. Therefore,
consensus is likely where people are of goodwill.
334. Is it therefore not disappointing that
successive governments have failed to take into account the recommendations
you have made for legislation, and can you perhaps single out
one or two key areas where your disappointment is at its greatest?
(Mr Penn) Yes, it is disappointing. I would just say
that we have been going for ten years now, and I would not say
that every proposal made would be one we would wish to push forward.
One area which we were concerned about and remain concerned about
is the question of the operation of the law in relation to dealers'
registers—that we got a success on. After a long while we
were able to get dealers' registers put on a computer. That is
a sensible and a worthwhile way forward. We have managed also
to get some success in other areas; but the one thing we wanted
and have not seen (in my view) a satisfactory resolution of is
whether there should be a Firearms Licensing Board, which would
act as a licensing authority on a national basis.
335. That is for section 1 firearms?
(Mr Penn) And section 2.
336. For everything?
(Mr Penn) Yes. The Board exists as three words, as
a proposal; no-one has yet come up with details of how that Board
would operate. The way the Board would operate would be very much
in relation to whatever legislation was in place at the time—the
legislation might change. If primary legislation was attempted
to set the Board it could also change the law in other areas.
337. Going back to the membership of your Committee,
perhaps the odd one out in a certain sense is the Gun Control
Network. Can you tell us, from your position as Chairman looking
at it impartially, have they made a valuable contribution to the
discussions of the FCC?
(Mr Penn) Obviously they come with a fairly set position.
They have a set of aims generally working towards the reduction
to the bare minimum of the number of firearms in use in civil
society. Obviously those proposals enable us to test our ideas
against theirs and possibly to modify our ideas when we hear what
they say. The problem is, as I say, much of our discussion is
related to the implementation of the law as it exists. The other
people on the Committee tend to be practitioners—police,
lawyers, Customs and Excise and shooters—and they are concerned
with making the law as it stands work better. The Gun Control
Network is primarily concerned with changing law in the direction
they want. Therefore, the Gun Control Network is less likely to
agree with the sort of proposals that tend to come out of the
discussion among the practitioners.
338. The term of your office expires on 31 January.
Would you wish that the Firearms Consultative Committee continue?
Do you regard it as a valuable forum for practitioners in shooting
matters? If it is to continue, on what basis would you like it
to continue, on the current statutory basis or on a non-statutory
basis?
(Mr Penn) I would prefer to see the Firearms Consultative
Committee continue on approximately the same basis as it is now.
Obviously the Home Secretary may vary the membership—it
is his decision. The way it works at the moment is, I think, a
satisfactory one in the circumstances. It is most useful, I would
hope, as a testing ground for ideas. If he did not have a Firearms
Consultative Committee he would have to have another body of that
sort whenever major legislative changes were to be considered.
Whether it should be a non-statutory body or not is an interesting
question. I think certainly from my personal point of view and
I think most of the people on the Committee who are shooters (indeed
all of them who are shooters or representing a shooting organisation
through their presence) it should be statutory. We feel it should
be statutory because this has two main points in its favour: one
is, we produce a report, and that report is a public document—it
shows our work done and it enables us to get our ideas across
to others than the Home Secretary; and the other advantage of
the statutory nature of the Committee is that I think it makes
it easier for the Committee to get evidence.
339. Finally, could I draw your attention to
the letter which you had published in the Daily Telegraph
before Christmas in which you repudiated a suggestion which was
made in the Sunday Times on 19 December that a report from
your Committee suggested making shotguns Class 1 firearms, the
same category as rifles and handguns. The report was also carried
in the Daily Telegraph the following day. Why was that
report published by those newspapers in the first place when it
was so totally at variance with the truth?
(Mr Penn) I simply do not know.
Mr Howarth: Would you like to speculate?
|
