Examination of witnesses (Questions 374
- 379)
TUESDAY 11 JANUARY 2000
MR CHARLES
CLARKE and MR
GRAHAM WIDDECOMBE
Chairman
374. Good morning, Mr Clarke, and welcome to
our humble Committee. We are very pleased to see you. Would you
like to tell us who is with you, please?
(Mr Clarke) Graham Widdecombe is my colleague, who
is an official in the Department. He is responsible for Firearms
Policy in the Department.
375. Thank you very much indeed. Given the fact
that we have just had the Chairman of the Firearms Consultative
Committee with us, would you like to tell us how you see, if you
see, the future for that committee?
(Mr Clarke) Thank you for the question, Mr Chairman.
I appreciate it very much. I would like to make a short statement
about the future of the Firearms Consultative Committee. Over
the years the committee has looked at a whole range of often difficult
and complex issues. Although its recommendations have not always
been accepted in their entirety it has proved a valuable forum
for discussion, bringing together as it does a broad spectrum
of knowledge and experience of firearms matters. Bearing in mind
that your Committee, Mr Chairman, will no doubt be recommending
further areas for consideration, I am satisfied that there is
a continuing need for some kind of consultative body with the
capacity to take a detailed look at any topics referred to it
and to maintain an overview to the recent changes to existing
controls. There are arguments both ways as to whether such a body
should operate on a statutory or a non-statutory basis. This is
something we wish to reflect upon in the longer term in the light
of any views your Committee might have following this set of hearingsor,
indeed, otherwise. We are clear that whatever its precise nature
such a body should, firstly, always makes its findings public;
secondly, report to Parliament annually and, thirdly, influence
public debate upon these issues. My own current inclination is
to think that in the long term this would be better done through
non-statutory rather than statutory arrangements. However, I want
to ensure that a final decision is taken on a considered basis
which takes account of the views of this Select Committee and
others. For this reason, I am minded later this month to make
a further order to extend the statutory life of the Firearms Consultative
Committee for a period of two years. We believe there is much
useful work it can undertake during this period. We will, of course,
be taking this opportunity to review the present membership of
the FCC, but we do not intend to make radical changes to its broad
composition. We think it would be wrong to pre-judge the outcome
as between statutory and non-statutory, which we will effectively
do if we did not continue the existence of the FCC before 31 January
this year, which is why we intend to extend it for a further two
years. Before proceeding with this Order, I would be very happy
to reflect further on any thoughts which you or your Committee
may have on the way forward. We think the continuing role of such
a body is very important.
376. Thank you, Minister. I am sure that will
be of interest well beyond the walls of this room. Do feel free
to make copies of that statement available to the members of the
press that are here.
(Mr Clarke) Thank you very much indeed. I will do
that.
377. I am sure it will be of assistance to them.
Do you have an open mind about some widerwhat we callnon-shooting
representation on the FCCpossibly from those organisations
principally concerned with the leisure and recreational use of
the countryside? I am thinking about, perhaps, the National Trust
or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
(Mr Clarke) We are very much mindful of that. I think
one of the criticisms that could be made of the way the FCC worked
from its inception was that it was not able, for a variety of
reasonsperfectly understandablyto bring a range
of different interests together. One of the reasons why I am convinced
that to have a body of this kind is important is to ensure that
it can help in bringing the various interests together in various
wayswhether it is local government, organisations, as you
say, such as the National Trust, or particular organisations concerned
with the implications of shooting. One of the reasons why I am
slightly concerned about a strict statutory framework for the
indefinite future is that such a statutory framework can sometimes
be over-rigid, and it is important to acknowledge that different
interests can move forward. However, the answer is yes, there
is very much an open mind.
378. Presumably you will bear in mind the provisions
of the Countryside Bill which is due to be published next month,
because what that intends to do in terms of opening up the countryside
will have an effect on those who shoot, both for pleasure and
in the course of their work.
(Mr Clarke) Absolutely. Interestingly, I had a meeting
with the Health & Safety Executive the other day about these
issues because the implications of open access to the countryside
for the way in which shooting is regulated in those areas is very
significant, and that is one of the reasons for ensuring that
we have a framework within which the best way of achieving that
can be properly developed.
Mr Winnick
379. Just briefly: I do not know if you have
the membership of the Firearms Consultative Committee before you,
as I have, which has been supplied by the organisation? Not to
worry, Minister.
(Mr Clarke) I have it in mind but not in precise terms.
|