Examination of witness (Questions 340
-359)
TUESDAY 11 JANUARY 2000
MR DAVID
PENN
Chairman
340. It is dangerous territory. There are a
number of journalists on this Committee.
(Mr Penn) No, I would not like to speculate because
I really do not know where it came from.
Mr Linton
341. I just wanted to follow that up. In your
Ninth Report you observe that your recommendations have not always
found favour with successive Secretaries of State. It must be
of concern obviously to the Committee. You are talking mainly
here about proposals for legislative change, are you?
(Mr Penn) Yes, it is where legislative change is required
that it is a significant problem. Anything that can be done by
guidance or by Orders is much more straightforward.
342. Did your Committee support either of the
1997 handgun bills?
(Mr Penn) The Committee was not consulted about those
bills as it would have wished and made no comment.
343. What are the areas where your legislative
advice has not been taken up?
(Mr Penn) I would refer you back, they are listed
in the Seventh Annual Report. I am afraid my memory is poorI
would have to consult. One would be clarification of the definition
of a shotgun on a visitor's permit, awaiting amendment to the
Firearms Rules. This would be best dealt with by a letter, if
you would not mind.
Chairman: We can circulate that round the Committee
from the Report.
Mr Winnick
344. You mentioned in reply to Mr Howarth the
membership of the Gun Control Network. I am looking at Annex B
of your useful paper of the membership of the FCC, the most up-to-date.
I see there are in fact two people representing the Gun Control
Network?
(Mr Penn) There were two at the start of the year.
345. Tony Hill and Gill Marshall-Andrews?
(Mr Penn) Yes, that is right. Mr Hill subsequently
resigned for health and business reasons.
346. There is just one left from the Gun Control
Network?
(Mr Penn) There is just one left.
347. You said that they come to your meetings
with a desire to see further restrictions on guns. That is obvious
from their very title. I am looking at this list, there are some
from the Gun Trade Association who, presumably if anything, would
be wishing to see less controls than at present. The National
Rifle Association, if not quite its American counterpart, would
have a mandate and views which would be familiar to us. The British
Association for Shooting and Conservation, again I think along
the lines I have just mentioned. National Small-Bore Rifle Association,
and then the National Farmers Union who obviously have genuine
concerns; maybe the others also have but the National Farmers
Union's concerns are obvious to us in carrying out their duties.
Would I not be right to come to the conclusion it is not only
the Gun Control Network who are the only people who come to this
meeting with very strong views on the position over firearms?
(Mr Penn) I would say the majority of members come
with strongly held views. That would also apply to people who
are serving police officers; they have strong views as you will
have seen from the evidence put before you by the various police
associations. I would wish to re-emphasise that all these people
come to the table in a spirit of wishing to discuss, move forward,
and find a good way forward on the matters that are referred to
us.
348. That includes allincluding the Gun
Control Network?
(Mr Penn) I would hope so, but their tendency is to
stick to their party line. There are areas where we do agree,
of course. Everyone agrees we must have more research on where
illegal firearms come from. Everyone supports that.
349. The party line you mentioned, of course
the other organisations I have mentioned (leaving aside the police)
do have a party line?
(Mr Penn) That is true, but the people who are members
of the Firearms Consultative Committee are there on an ad hominem
basis; they are not there as delegates of their associations.
While they obviously come in having discussed matters with their
associations and will go back to their associations to discuss
matters further, they are not bound to a party line. I think the
fact we so generally do come to a consensus opinion demonstrates
the flexibility of the people who are there prepared to try and
make the system work.
350. Could I put one final question to you,
if I may. Bearing in mind (and I could be wrong) that all the
indications are that public opinion was very much in favour of
what was done by the previous government following the tragedy
of Dunblane and then continued by the present Government, would
you not be perhaps a more balanced Committee, if it is going to
continue, if it had more of those people on it who do believe
there should be further restrictions in firearms; rather than,
at the moment, giving the impression (leaving aside the police)
it is very much an in-built majority the other way?
(Mr Penn) I assure you there is no in-built majority,
depending on how you look at the Committee structure. At the most
half the people on the Committee could be considered to be shooters,
there defending the shooting interest. There are also people representing
Customs and Excise, the Crown Prosecution Service, magistrates
and so on who are there to represent other aspects of society.
One of the difficulties is finding people who do have the strength
of interest to represent of other interests who would be willing
to sit on the Committee. There has been, for instance, no discernable
interest from the Health and Safety Executive, the medical profession
or any other likely concerned body to go on it. We have had in
the past representatives of the Metropolitan Authorities because
at one stage they were very interested in firearms issues, particularly
air weapons, and they contributed very well to the Committee.
For whatever reason the Home Secretary chose not to reappoint
them.
Mr Winnick: If this Committee is going to continue
some of us may take the view that is a matter the Home Office
should look into and we shall see that in the future.
Mrs Dean
351. Mr Penn, the FCC chose as the underlying
theme of its work in 1998-99 the issue of illegal possession of
firearms by criminals. What are likely to be the most effective
ways of preventing criminals from obtaining weapons from legitimate
sources?
(Mr Penn) We have indicated there is research needed
on where firearms come from. Such evidence as we have to date
indicates that a relatively small proportion are stolen in modern
timesin that they cannot be traced back to a certificate
holder. There has been some indication, although only a very small
number were involved, that there has been diversion from dealers;
but there are other areas of quite major dispute as to how firearms
are obtained. I personally have to say I am not satisfied we have
settled the question of illegal imports. Your Committee, I know,
is very well versed in the matter of illegal drugs. Traditionally
arms have gone with drugs. It is neither more difficult nor less
difficult to import firearms illegally than it is to import drugs
illegally. If there is a market for them they will be brought
in. I suspect you have probably seen the recent press cuttings
about the man from Mexborough who was arrested not only with £2
million worth of drugs but with 35 firearms, one of them a submachine
gun. If the Committee has not seen this cutting I have a copy
here which I will pass on. That is one example. We also heard
from Kent Police who wrote to us during the course of the year's
work indicating it was their experience with the Channel ports
that in fact there was illegal importation of firearms. The Government
is at the moment addressing, via the United Nations and the European
Community, possibilities of better control of international trade,
which would stop arms dropping out through that route. One has
to say, the best one can achieve where illegal arms are concerned
is a basket of measures attacking specific problems. Because ultimately
people can make firearms if they want them; they are not special
technology; they have been made in tribal areas of Pakistan; they
have been made in the Philippines where there is one town where
about 15,000 people make guns, only two of the factories are licensed,
and that area is the main supplier for the Japanese Yakuza gangsters.
We have seen the possibility of making improvised firearms in
Northern Ireland. Again I can provide some details of those if
you wish. Ultimately, it is probably impossible for people to
be stopped from obtaining firearms if they really want them. The
best we can do is to make it difficult. The most successful move
to stop serious criminal use of firearms was not by targeting
firearms but by targeting their useto wit, what the Metropolitan
Police achieved with armed robbery in the Metropolitan area. By
targeting through intelligence and very firm action professional
armed robbery gangs they reduced armed robbery significantly.
Criminals went off to do other things.
352. Turning to air weapons, in your view is
a campaign of "education and enforcement" really the
most effective way of tackling the present problem of air weapon
abuse?
(Mr Penn) Yes, most certainly. We already have quite
wide ranging legislation dealing with air weapons, so there are
plenty of offences people may be prosecuted under. We were also
interested to hear from the Crown Prosecution Service that very
frequently when hooligans with air weapons are prosecuted, they
are not prosecuted under the Firearms Act; they may be prosecuted
for common assault, or cruelty to animals under the 1911 Cruelty
to Animals Act, or for various possible offences of actual or
grievous bodily harm. This is a terrible thing to say to legislators
but one has to accept that very few citizens ever read any laws
at all. We all know when we learn to drive we do so without having
to read our way through road traffic legislation. We are taught
to drive, and with a combination of goodwill to our fellow citizen,
common sense and what amounts to instructional texts such as the
Highway Code, we all get along pretty well as drivers. What we
have to do is have a stage beyond legislation which is in some
sense educational. At the moment for organised shooting, be it
target shooting or game shooting, this works in the nature of
things. It is required for target shooting that probational members
have to be instructed. The way we conduct sporting shooting in
this country also effectively ensures that people are well trained
in the proper skills for using firearms. The area where there
is no structure to do this at the moment is casual use of air
weapons. We have to find ways of getting to youngsters. Speaking
entirely personally, I believe that all educational ways forward
are the ways to go. Education ought to be for life. That is something
this Government is interested in. It has talked about training
for parents; it has got a citizenship initiative. So practical
training on practical issues is a way to go, through the school
system if necessary because at least you can get at every child
through the school system.
353. How do you ensure that those purchasing
air weapons actually see that education if there is no licensing
regime?
(Mr Penn) That is a problem. That is one of the reasons
why it may not be a bad thing to expose all school children to
the risks involved with firearms, including air weapons, in the
same way as they are exposed to the risks involved in crossing
the road, and good road manners, and that they are taught to swim.
There are various strategies for a safer and better life that
are taught in schools, and one of these could be very basic instruction
about how to react to firearms. I am not suggesting we teach every
child shooting. I am saying that every child should be told some
basic facts about firearms. That could be also used to reinforce
the fact that air weapons are dangerous, and that the hooligan
misuse of them can cause injury to persons or animals. I personally
think a lot of the hooliganism problem is not particularly evil,
but is thoughtlessness. That is something that probably can be
got at.
354. Does the FCC have any suggestions as to
a reasonable rationalisation of the present "over-complex"
age restrictions on the handling of firearms?
(Mr Penn) That is a matter the FCC has started to
look at. We believe there is a good reason for rationalisation
and simplification but we have not come up with the answer yet.
As you will know, with the existing law the vital break dates
are 14, 15 and 17. I would certainly think there could be some
rationalisation. What is absolutely clear, however, is that a
substantial case has been put forward for some possibility of
unsupervised use of firearms by those between the ages of approximately
14 and 18, because this is important for the agricultural industry,
among others. From my own experience, any normal child of the
age of 12 or 13 can be instructed to use a firearm perfectly safely;
they are not difficult machines to control safely; they are far
easier to control than a car or a motorcycle.
355. Turning to the issue of shotgun controls,
which I believe the FCC has not reached a conclusion on, does
the FCC believe that some rationalisation of the present firearms
licensing regime is necessary?
(Mr Penn) It is highly desirable. We have to accept
that we get along with the existing law, which is one of the reasons
perhaps why it has not been changed because it has not broken
down nationwide as a system. There is an opportunity obviously
to reconsider whether shotguns should be treated in any different
way from firearms; because you could come up with a simpler administrative
system if it was on the same basis. One argument which has considerable
validity is that it may not be necessary to have the present system
of control we have on section 1 firearmsrifles, muzzle-loading
revolvers, flare weapons and certain sorts of shotgunbecause
they have very little track record of misuse in crime. It would
be possible to come up with a system which is easier for the police
to administer, from the shooter's point of view better, and which
showed absolutely no loss of control.
Chairman
356. Could I ask you about the Annual Report,
who actually drafts it?
(Mr Penn) The drafting is done by the secretariatin
other words, the Home Officebut the drafts are circulated
and there are meetings at which people can discuss the fine details.
357. When you say "circulated", is
that to the members of the FCC?
(Mr Penn) Yes.
358. Do you have either formal or informal consultations
over the draft with bodies such as ACPO?
(Mr Penn) They, in a sense, are represented on the
body anyway. As I have said, everyone sits on the Committee ad
hominem, but obviously they can take it back.
359. Can I take you to page 24 of the current
Annual Report, please, to section 5.4. It says there, "The
growth of crime involving shotguns in the 1960s led to a system
of licensing being introduced in 1968". Are you sure about
that? Is there evidence to sustain that the use of shotguns in
crime had increased at that time? They are not figures of which
I am aware?
(Mr Penn) It has been disputed. I have received a
letter from Mr Colin Greenwood putting a different view which,
should the Committee be reformed, we would wish to consider. If
we were in error then we would publish a statement to that effect.
Mr Greenwood's line is that, no, this is not sustainable. I would
say that, having re-read this section last night, I am not entirely
happy with sections 5.3-5.5. There was another major change in
the legislation in 1988 which is not really picked up on here.
|