Examination of witnesses (Questions 460
- 479)
TUESDAY 11 JANUARY 2000
MR CHARLES
CLARKE and MR
GRAHAM WIDDECOMBE
460. Can I take you on to another point then
since we have been dealing with statistics quite a lot in our
discussions this morning. Even I believe under the new draft figures
the recorded crime with shotguns has decreased from 1,206 recorded
offences in 1988 to 565 in 1997, a decline of 53 per cent, and
642 in 1998/99. They have virtually halved and virtually none
of these crimes involved legally held shotguns. I understand Mr
Colin Greenwood was making the point to us that shotguns are generally
used in family offences involving use of firearms and therefore
surely you have got to think very carefully indeed before introducing
further controls when the statistics indicate that there is no
justification for it whatsoever even on public safety grounds?
(Mr Clarke) I acknowledge the force of what you are
saying, it is true it has declined. But the question that arises
with all these matters is could we ensure that crime was reduced
or safety was increased by better regulation of the use of shotguns?
That is a central issue which you are certainly addressing and
we are certainly considering and, as I said before, and it remains
the case, we have to balance the two issues that arise there.
I am not sure other than on bureaucratic grounds (which is a real
argument) what arguments against regulation of shotgun use you
would adduce, maybe general libertarian arguments may be used,
but the bureaucratic and practical argument is a real argument
because you do not want to establish a position which is a sledgehammer
to crack a nut. However, it is the case that we want to ensure
that any use of weapons including of shotguns takes place safely
and that is what the whole thing is about.
461. How do you view the suggestion that before
people could go and shoot they would have to nominate the place
they were intending to shoot and that place would have to be subject
to police inspection? That would be an enormously invasive and
bureaucratic step to take, would it not?
(Mr Clarke) There is a series of issues which goes
back to a question the Chairman asked right at the beginning.
There is a wide variety of agencies involved in looking at shooting
ranges and so on of various descriptions including the police,
the Health and Safety Executive and even the MoD, a range of different
organisations, and there are very real issues that you are implying.
462. What about going for a rough shoot or clay
pigeon shoot out in open countryside?
(Mr Clarke) I think I would have to say that it depends
what form of open countryside you are talking about. If you are
talking about an area that people walk through freely and there
is a well established right-of-way where people are walking I
think that has to be taken into account in terms of whether one
has the right to use a shotgun or not. I do not think it is unreasonable
in principle to say that a shotgun have can only be used in certain
areas. If it is a private estate where there is no possibility
of anybody else being there that is a different issue to being
in the Peak District where people are walking around a National
Park even in the context of the open countryside let alone when
you start using the ranges.
463. I am sure you would acknowledge that the
shooting fraternity are generally regarded as being extremely
responsible, as the figures demonstrate, and that they take very
careful steps to ensure that when they undertake shooting that
they do so in a safe environment.
(Mr Clarke) They do and that is one of the reasons
why we can have some pride in the system we have and the way it
operates. The question of whether that good system, I share your
expression of view, should be extended to cover shotguns is a
major and real one. Your question was was it intrinsically reasonable
that regulations should run to where the gun is to be used? I
have to say I do not think it is unreasonable and I do not rule
it out. I think the question of how it operates and where you
do shoot is not an irrelevant question.
464. Minister, I think if you go down that road
you will have a very big fight on your hands and it does not sit
very comfortably with the other suggestions that you have made
to us but nevertheless may I put one other question to you. Under
the current regime for licensing of shotgun holders two referees
are required or counter signatures and I think people take that
responsibility fairly seriously. Certainly as a Member of Parliament
asked to do so, I do. At the moment an individual who has his
shotgun certificate revoked, as my constituent Mr Copeland has,
the father of my other constituent charged with the pub bombing
incident by the police, can apply to the courts to have that decision
overturned. That seems to me to be a perfectly sensible safeguard
and I wonder whether you would agree with that too.
(Mr Clarke) In principle I think safeguards of that
type have to operate and that is why they exist at the moment.
I am not quite sure of the thrust of your question, whether there
is an implication that we might take away that power in certain
areas, but I think in principle the idea that the courts look
at the legitimacy of decisions that are taken in this area is
perfectly reasonable.
465. You would not propose changing it?
(Mr Clarke) We have no current proposals to do so.
Mr Linton
466. Just some further points on shotguns before
we move on. The previous witness said that collectors sometimes
have, and he did not specify a number, a large number of shotguns
on a single certificate. This highlights the problem of what has
been described as an "unwarranted proliferation" of
shotguns. Do you not think there is a case now for shotgun certificates
to be for a single weapon?
(Mr Clarke) I think this is a very interesting question.
I discussed it with a big landowner in the county I live in, Norfolk,
and I asked him how many shotguns and licences he had for what
he was doing and I asked him exactly the question you have just
asked me, "Why would it be burdensome for you to have a licence
for each gun rather than one licence for a series of guns?"
I am not convinced, I think there may well be a case for having
licences for particular guns rather than having a whole series
of weapons under one particular licence. Again as I said to you
earlier, I am sorry to be appearing like a boring old record,
I do think there are practicality issues that do arise but I think
there is a case, yes, for saying that an individual should be
licensed for particular weapons and that is what is the state
of affairs.
467. Thank you. Lastly do you think that there
is a better principle that we could have that we should not judge
weapons according to their mechanism but according to their lethality
so the need to have a licence would apply to any lethal weapon
whether it was a rifle or shotgun or airgun?
(Mr Clarke) Going back to the question asked by the
Chairman earlier on, I do think some of the inconsistencies between
the legislation in some of these areas are worth sorting out and
maybe lethality might be a measure but it is quite a difficult
measure. This bottle of water might be a lethal weapon in certain
circumstances and I think it is not clear what simple measure
to replace the existing technical descriptions would improve the
situation, but if you could get to an easily agreed system I think
there might be a case for it. It is one of the areas where I think
the professional advice of the shooting organisations and so on
is helpful.
468. Do you not feel that with these distinctions
between different kinds of weapons and different powers of weapons
it is an invitation to the gun industry to try and find ways around
it whereas if the definitions are in terms of the effect that
these weapons can have, their lethality, then it makes it much
more difficult. We have seen since the ban on handguns the increasing
use of muzzle loaders and short barrelled guns. I am not a technical
expert but clearly there has been an expansion in areas that the
handgun ban has not applied to. If the definition was in terms
of the power of a weapon that would make it much more difficult
to evade the intention of the legislation.
(Mr Clarke) Again that argument does have force but
it does depend on whether you can get to a reasonably consensually
accepted definition that would extend across all different types
of weapon.
Mr Howarth
469. For the benefit of the record I do apologise,
Minister, I misled you by saying this clay pigeon shoot was organised
by the Tobacco Manufacturers, it was Imperial Tobacco. They stage
the Lords and Commons competition and modesty, I am afraid, prevents
me telling you who is the current holder of the Members of Parliament
trophy but I do want to ensure Imperial Tobacco is given due credit
because after all they are located in Bristol which is more represented
by the Labour Party than the Tory Party these days.
(Mr Clarke) And will continue to be so!
Mr Malins
470. Moving on from shotguns and tobacco which
is a sort of Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, to the
issue of replicas and imitation firearms just for the moment.
Minister, you said that you approved of the principle of tighter
regulation on the sale of replicas and imitation firearms. Is
that something you feel quite strongly about?
(Mr Clarke) I do think there are real issues involved
and obviously the answer is for people not to use them but there
are too many examples of replicas giving rise to problems of various
descriptions to say that this is a matter not to be taken seriously.
471. Can I make a serious point here about sledgehammers
to crack nuts. Would it surprise you if I were to tell you, Minister,
that more crimes were committed each year with baseball bats than
with replica firearms?
(Mr Clarke) No, it would not.
472. In that case can you tell us about your
plans to restrict the sale of baseball bats?
(Mr Clarke) No, I cannot because we have no plans
to restrict the sale of baseball bats. There are two issues here.
The first is about the crimes point you are raising but, secondly,
is the implications for individuals who have baseball bats or
replica weapons. I am speaking anecdotally here. There is a significant
number of incidents which take place where people possess and
threaten people with replica weapons.
473. How many?
(Mr Clarke) I said I am speaking anecdotally.
474. How many compared with baseball bats?
(Mr Clarke) I do not know what the comparison is but
the fact is that replica weapons do give rise to concerns. I have
just been advised by Mr Widdecombe that in 1998/99 replica weapons
have been used in 566 offences which have taken place. My general
point was that replica weapons are dangerous not only in the crimes
that they commit but also to the individuals who possess the replica
weapons in certain circumstances.
475. How are you going to enforce this sort
of thing? Mr Howarth and I were referring the other day to the
replica guns which many youngsters have. Our children have had
them and played with them. That that kind of gun only fires like
a peashooter but it looks like a gun. Are you saying that you
will ban those for under 14s because of the low number of crimes?
(Mr Clarke) I am not saying we will ban anything.
I am saying that we will listen to what your Committee and others
say on the matter. If you are asking me do I take seriously the
issue of replica weapons then the answer is yes I do. I think
they are a serious matter and I think it is certainly appropriate
to consider
Chairman
476. In public places or anywhere?
(Mr Clarke) In public places. I think there is a distinction
between replica weapons and toys, though there are serious definitional
points which arise in that context. But if you are asking me generally
do I think the case for regulating the sale of replica weapons
and the use of replica weapons in public places ought to be considered
the answer is yes I do think it ought to be considered. It should
not be ruled out from scratch even though the replica weapon itself
by definition does not have the capacity to shoot someone. Do
I think it is difficult to define how you would carry that through?
Yes, I do and I think there are serious issues which are difficult
in this area, not least the definitional points vis-a"-vis
toys and so on. Do I think that the whole issue should be dismissed
as irrelevant, as your question implies? No, I do not. I think
replica weapons are dangerous in certain circumstances and it
is right to look at it.
Mr Malins
477. I am saying that there are worse problems
than, say, replica weapons.
(Mr Clarke) I think the point about sledgehammers
and cracking nuts, which is the worst problem, is a fair point
to make. I gave the example of this bottle of water earlier on.
Weapons can be used by people desiring to commit a whole range
of different crimes in different ways. Is there a particular issue
around replicas which puts them in a different position to baseball
bats, bottles of water or whatever else? There is a different
issue about replicas because they bring one to a different position
where there is the threat, even if it is wrongly understood, that
a lethal weapon is present to do damage and that changes the climate
of the situation in which the replica weapon is taking place,
classically in cases where the police have had to bring in armed
units to deal with situations when in fact you were dealing with
a replica weapon which they would not have done with a baseball
bat or a bottle of mineral water. I think that is a different
situation when you are weighing it up that you have to take into
account.
478. I have one final question on the subject
of the deactivation of weapons. We understand there are some deficiencies
in the statutory requirements for the deactivation of weapons.
Firstly, do you want to make any comment on how the Government
would put that right? Secondly, on starting pistols, we are told
that even when deactivated they can be reactivated and are capable
of firing live ammunition.
(Mr Clarke) We have some data on this. We accept that
deactivated firearms have been used by organised criminals, in
particular handguns and submachine guns and while they are not
common, their presence in criminal hands is obviously a cause
for concern. It has been estimated that there are some 120,000
deactivated firearms in circulation and although most of these
are not being converted and used in crime, it is a serious issue
how we address these things overall, which is why it will move
up the agenda once we decide what to do. The FCC has put forward
a number of proposals for dealing with this issue which we are
considering very carefully, as we will your views on this matter.
Mr Malins: Thank you very much.
Mr Singh
479. Before I move on to Scotland and issues
to do with Northern Ireland, Minister, I would just like to clear
up this matter of bottles of water, baseball bats and guns. Would
you agree with me that a gun is designed as a weapon to kill whereas
a bottle of water and a baseball bat are not?
(Mr Clarke) Yes, you are absolutely right.
|