Examination of witnesses (Questions 380
- 399)
TUESDAY 11 JANUARY 2000
MR CHARLES
CLARKE and MR
GRAHAM WIDDECOMBE
380. The question I want to ask is, when you
say "We do not intend to make radical changes in its broad
composition", and I have heard what you have said to the
Chairman a moment ago, but do you feel, at the moment, it is somewhat
too much composed of the shooting lobby (to use a broad terms)
rather than those who have different viewpoints?
(Mr Clarke) I think that is a fair point, and that
is one of the reasons why the Home Secretary, when he nominated
additional people to this earlier in its life, did try and bring
in a wider range. I think there is some weight in what you say.
That said, I think it is important to involve the shooting lobby
very fully in it because they do have very good relationships
with those who are preoccupied with shooting and are active in
shooting. That is one of the reasons why I responded as I did
to the Chairman when he asked the question, because I think a
slightly broader remit would be positive. The choice that we face,
at the moment, is do we before 31 January extend the existence
of the statutory committee or not? That is why I have taken the
view, subject to what you have to say, that we should continue
the arrangements until we are clear what would be the best form
of replacement. I said two years in what I said to the Chairman
a moment ago, but there were arguments, fairly well-balanced,
on whether we should do it for just a year, do it for eighteen
months, or do it for two years, or whatever. It seemed to me,
before deciding what the new form was, that two years was the
right period of time.
381. Of course the shooting lobby should be
included, as you say, otherwise it would be unbalanced, it is
just a question of how far it would be possible to have a more
representative body reflecting, to some extent at least, public
opinion in the country.
(Mr Clarke) What I am very keen to achieve is a body
which has all interests there, and what I do not think is helpful
is for it to become a quasi ideological division between those
who are pro-shooting and those who are against shooting. I think
the kinds of suggestions made by the Chairman about interests
such as the National Trust, or, as I say, local government, or
other groups or health and safety interests, or whatever, is the
right way to seek to broaden, but that is precisely one of the
issues we want to consider very carefully when looking at a long-term
replacement for this, and on which we will very much welcome yours
and others' views.
Mr Linton
382. Just a supplementary on that. I was rather
concerned to hear Mr Penn say just now that the FCC was neither
consulted, nor, indeed, offered any comment on either of the two
handgun laws in 1997. It did strike me rather, what is the purpose
of a Firearms Consultative Committee if it either does not want
to or is not considered appropriate to give evidence when there
is firearms legislation?
(Mr Clarke) I cannot speak for what did or did not
happen in 1997, but what I said when I met the British Shooting
Sports Council after I was appointed to this job was that I believed
it was important that the committee was consulted on future legislation
as it moves forward. Indeed, as I think you will probably be aware
they have expressed views about the future of legislation in this
particular area, to which I have assured them—and through
you, perhaps, I can offer the same assurance—that we will
listen very carefully before formulating the form of legislation
desirable, following your report on the various issues brought
forward. The intention of keeping the committee, and the assurance
I have given them, is to listen seriously to what their thoughts
and views are on the various options which are open to us.
Mr Howarth
383. Minister, the Chairman of the FCC has told
us that they do work together very well and many of their recommendations
are unanimous. Is there not a risk that if you seek to broaden
the basis of the membership of the FCC too broadly all you will
end up with is either platitudinous recommendations or, worse
still, a recipe for paralysis?
(Mr Clarke) I certainly do not think either is true.
I agree that the key issue is the efficiency and effectiveness
of the committee as a working body. The implication of your question,
from that point of view, I accept. However, I think it is also
important that the committee should be seen to have a genuine
purchase on the various range of issues which is of concern for
the future development of shooting and, indeed, the regulation
of firearms in this country. I think there are important bodies
and interests in that which it would be beneficial to have involved
in the discussion. I have to say from the dialogue I have had
with organisations about this—and, as I said to Mr Linton,
I come as a newcomer to this—I see no sense of people wanting
to work in an obstructive way; on the contrary, I have felt that
all organisations around want to be positive in the way that they
work together on the issues. The concession I would make to your
point is that if it were the case that paralysis, in some sense,
was setting in, by the inability to get agreement, then it would
be necessary to look at the situation again. Certainly I do not
see any evidence of that at this stage.
Chairman: Can we turn now to public safety issues.
Mr Winnick
384. Minister, in the useful memorandum that
you were kind enough to send to us it does say, on page 31 in
the fourth paragraph, which I read: "Nor would the Government
wish to encourage any notion that a perceived `right to bear arms'
(which you rightly put in quotes) overrules the duties of gun
owners towards the safety of their fellow citizens and the wider
public interest." The question I want to put to you is, is
there any right to bear arms in this country?
(Mr Clarke) I do not think there is so much a right
to bear arms as I think that the state needs a very, very powerful
reason to inhibit people pursuing leisure pursuits in a variety
of ways which may be seen to be distasteful or difficult in relation
to society as a whole. For the state to say "You shall not
do this because we, the state, decide that you, an individual
group, shall not do it" requires a very powerful reason.
Obviously, in the case of firearms that powerful reason could
be the issue of safety that may arise. That is why I think the
state is entirely justified in assuring itself that firearms are
used only in a safe way. I think that is what led to the legislation
we had in the past. However, I do not think it is desirable to
say that because we do not think this is a nice thing the state
should simply say you cannot do this, unless there are, as I say,
very powerful arguments against it. I do not think that a powerful
argument has been adduced in the case of many of the aspects of
shooting as a recreation with which we are familiar, including
the aspects of shooting as a necessity of life in the rural community
in some circumstances.
385. One of the witnesses who gave evidence
to us (who was very informative, however one may disagree with
his views) said, in fact, that the right to bear arms, to a large
extent, started to be undermined in 1920 for reasons which are
in the Home Office paper. That is a fact, is it not, Minister?
(Mr Clarke) Yes, it is. I think the key test, as I
said before, is safety, and that is the issue. Unless there is
a clear safety argument which is adduced to prevent people, as
I say, engaging in either shooting as a sport or shooting in the
way of their business—for example, in agriculture—then
I myself do not think the state should say "We simply rule
this out".
386. As regards air weapons, which you will
be asked questions about later on, can I just ask about statistics?
There does seem to be a steady, year-on-year, increase from 4,813
recorded offences in 1988 to 7,506 in 1997, which amounts to an
increase of some 56 per cent. Does that worry you?
(Mr Clarke) I do not think it is a healthy development,
but does it worry me? No, unless, as I say, there is a clear indication
that there are safety implications emerging as a result of that
increase which are dangerous to society or communities more generally,
and I do not believe that such evidence exists. If you ask me
my prejudice, my prejudice is—not speaking as a Home Office
Minister—that I think it is a shame that use has increased
in these weapons. I think it would be desirable for it to go down.
Do I think the state should play that role, other than through
a general education programme in these areas? No, I do not, unless,
as I say, safety were clearly demonstrated to be at risk.
387. That is your view as a Minister?
(Mr Clarke) The first part of my view is as an individual—ie,
it is undesirable for that increase to take place which you have
described. My second view was that of a Minister, that the state
should not take the power to stop that happening unless there
were clear safety issues which were identified and which needed
to be addressed.
388. What risk do you believe is posed to public
safety by legally held firearms following the legislation passed
by the previous government and by the present one?
(Mr Clarke) I believe the fundamental risk to public
safety in relation to firearms arises from illegally held rather
than legally held firearms. I think that is the issue upon which
we need to focus. I do not think there is significant evidence
that legally held firearms in this country provide a significant
risk to public safety.
389. Are you concerned that recorded crimes
with handguns appears not to have fallen in the past two years,
despite the ban which took place in 1998?
(Mr Clarke) I am only concerned in the general sense
that I welcome all crime reductions, including reductions in crime
with handguns. The legislation following Dunblane was not intended
to attack that particular problem, and in that sense I do not
feel there was a target of the legislation—ie, to reduce
the use of handguns in crime—which was not being fulfilled.
In general, of course, I think it is desirable that all the lines
of use of weapons in crime should be going down rather than be
static or going up.
390. There is some merit, is there not, in the
argument of those who were opposed to what was done following
Dunblane, who say, in effect, that a lot of illegal guns have
always been held and there has been no change, and that the greatest
danger to the public is precisely those firearms held by criminals
who obviously are intent to use them for reasons which are perfectly
clear to us.
(Mr Clarke) I think that the illegal issue is the
central issue in the thrust of your questions, Mr Winnick, around
crime, and I think it is appropriate to say "How effectively
are we dealing with illegally held weapons?" That is an issue
which certainly preoccupies me—how well we are dealing with
that and whether we could do better with it. I do not think I
feel the same level of concern about legally held firearms as
I do about illegally held firearms.
391. Which leads to the obvious question: what
is the Government's position in trying to deal with this clearly
very serious problem, which has faced all governments, namely
illegally held firearms?
(Mr Clarke) I believe the central issue is the establishment
of the register, which we have talked about before and about which
your Committee has asked questions before. I think the central
element (and indeed I think this applies to other areas of crime)
is the establishment of a strong, clear and accurate database
which can then be used to track down and identify what is not
held within the law. I give a great priority—and from the
reports I read of your Committee before Christmas I believe your
Committee does too—to establishing a proper database of
weapons, because I believe that that will be the key weapon to
reduced levels of possession of illegally held firearms.
392. Is not one of the problems—perhaps
going wider than our present inquiry but which is very much linked—that
amongst a certain number of criminal elements there is a status
in carrying guns as previously there was in carrying knives? This
is a very disturbing trend, is it not?
(Mr Clarke) I do not know—and perhaps you can
put me straight on this—of evidence that that is an increasing
trend.
393. There is a trend, however.
(Mr Clarke) I do not know of evidence to that effect,
but perhaps you can put me straight on that if that is the case.
This question of status that you are referring to, of people feeling
"big" by possessing a gun in the same way as a knife,
I am not aware that that is an increasing trend as such. If that
were so I would be concerned, but I believe the way to address
the general issue of guns in our society is through educational
means. I think that any parent will be aware of the extent to
which guns play a more and more important part in the culture
of the society, for young people in particular, and I think contesting
that is important.
394. I am wondering how far education could
overcome the feeling of some criminal, and, clearly, potentially
criminal, elements who believe that holding a gun of one kind
or another is a status symbol of, as you say, how "big"
they are amongst their peers.
(Mr Clarke) I am certainly ready to look at that point,
but, as I say, I am not myself aware—though maybe I should
be—of evidence that that is an increasing rather than a
stable or decreasing trend.
395. The memorandum which you circulated, Minister,
expresses concern about the growth of the gun culture in the country
and states a wish to curb any such development. Do you feel that
the shooting community in any way has some responsibility of fostering
the gun culture in society?
(Mr Clarke) I think it has a major responsibility
(which, actually, I think it acknowledges) to inhibit the development
of the gun culture in society. I think the main way in which they
have to do that is to demonstrate that the use of guns can only
be legitimate in a regulated way which reflects all the various
safety issues which have been set down. My experience is, and
I emphasise it is short-term, that I believe that the shooting
community, as a whole, does take this responsibility seriously
and does seek to inhibit and attack those who try and promote
a culture of use of guns without those controls and regulations.
I believe that they positively recognise that it is damaging to
the sport of shooting, in the case of sport, or to the use of
guns in the case of livelihoods in rural areas, if any idea that
a gun culture was about grew, and I think they positively try
and inhibit that as organisations.
396. It would be true to say, would it not,
that the shooting lobby (again, using the broad term rather than
in a derogatory sense, in any way) very much vigorously opposed
the legislation following Dunblane introduced at the time, and
then even more so what the present Government did?
(Mr Clarke) I believe that is indeed the case, though,
again, I think, within what you call the shooting lobby there
was a variety of opinions about this issue and the fundamental
issue which was around about the concern of the government legislation
at the time (which I, personally, very strongly supported and
voted for) was the idea that the state ought not get involved
in this area, plus a doubt about the effectiveness of the legislation
in terms of the safety issues which have been talked about. I
do not think that the opposition, which you rightly referred to,
came from the view that it was desirable in the UK society to
stimulate a gun culture. What I am trying to say, Mr Winnick,
is that I see the thrust of your questions and I understand where
they are coming from, and I, myself, am not a shooter nor have
ever shot a gun, nor do I have friends who are shooters—it
is not a part of my culture, as it were, in that it is not something
that I find particularly attractive—but I do not think the
charge against the shooting lobby that they are about promoting
gun culture is correct. I do not think that is the correct description
of the vast majority of them. There may be individuals in that
area but I do not think that is a fair description of where they
are as organisations.
397. You have also agreed, have you not, that
the shooting lobby, at large, did oppose the restrictions which
have occurred following Dunblane?
(Mr Clarke) That is my understanding, yes.
Chairman
398. Minister, you will be aware that the Firearms
Consultative Committee made a proposal that there should be a
year-long, centrally funded study of all illegal weapons which
come into the possession of the police, Customs and Excise, or
whoever. They think that that would be a very worthwhile exercise,
perhaps done on a regional basis but, importantly, done by a dedicated
team so they bring the same judgments to bear across the country.
Are you able to react to that?
(Mr Clarke) My only reaction is that I think it is
a very good idea, it has a lot to commend it and we are actively
looking at it.
Chairman: Splendid.
Mr Malins
399. Minister, statistics—which can mislead
as well as inform. We are led to believe that crime committed
with air weapons has been increasing over the years, but you told
Parliament, I think, in December that recorded violent crime in
which air weapons were reported to have been used dropped steadily
from 1989 right the way through to 1998. Is that right?
(Mr Clarke) I believe that is correct, yes.
|
