Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1
- 19)
TUESDAY 7 DECEMBER 1999
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JAMES HART,
CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT
PETER GAMMON,
SUPERINTENDENT KEVIN
MORRIS, MR
FRED BROUGHTON
AND MR
PAUL O'BRIEN
Chairman
1. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This
is the first session of oral evidence in the Committee's Inquiry
into Controls Over Firearms. Today we are going to be hearing
from the law enforcement officers and firearms researchers. On
14 December we will be taking evidence from representatives of
shooting organisations, the RSPCA and the Gun Control Network,
and on 11 January we will hear from the Chairman of the Firearms
Consultative Committee and the Minister of State at the Home Office.
The Inquiry received widespread publicity when we announced it
in mid July; so far we have had over 160 written submissions,
the majority of which have come from individual members of the
public. We are most grateful for the time people have taken to
express their views. We also appreciate the time that our witnesses
have given to appear before us today. Perhaps you would like to
introduce yourselves, please?
(Mr Hart) Good morning, Chairman. My
name is James Hart, Assistant Commissioner with the City of London
Police, here today representing the Association of Chief Police
Officers, as Chairman of the Firearms and Explosives Licensing
Sub-Committee.
(Mr Gammon) Chairman, I am Chief Superintendent Peter
Gammon and I am President of the Police Superintendents' Association
of England and Wales.
(Mr Morris) Kevin Morris. I am a Divisional Commander
with Surrey Police and I am the Vice-President of the Superintendents'
Association.
(Mr Broughton) Fred Broughton. I am Chairman of the
Police Federation of England and Wales.
(Mr O'Brien) Paul O'Brien. I am its Deputy General
Secretary.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr Winnick
2. I will address my questions principally to
the Assistant Commissioner, though, obviously, as the Chair would
point out, other witnesses are perfectly entitled to contribute
in answering such questions from me and other Members around the
table. There has been very tight legislation, as some would describe
it, over gun control. Would I be right in saying that the police,
in the main, are not satisfied, even now, with the position over
firearms in private hands?
(Mr Hart) The position is a difficult one, because
the existing firearms legislation is exceedingly complex. We do
not have a difficulty with the mainstream shooting, sporting,
hunting and working use of firearms, the difficulties seem to
arise from the fringe aspects of firearms legislation, particularly
in relation to those anomalies that are drawn to your attention
in our paper, where the legislation perhaps allows for some unforeseen
abuses of what Parliament perhaps intended. Secondly, to make
sure that we do all we can to ensure public safety, and again
you will see in our submission some references to the difficulties
that are caused around air weapons and replicas. And, thirdly,
of course, perhaps to suggest that the police would like to see
some easing of the difficulty of enforcement of the current legislation,
brought about perhaps by the necessary complexity but perhaps
presenting now an opportunity to refine some of the legislation.
So I think it is a fairly broad and a fairly complex answer to
your question.
3. Thank you. The Home Office give figures for
firearm and shotgun certificates on issue in 1998 which indicate
that some 1,343,000 shotguns and 295,000 other firearms were held
on valid certificates at the end of that particular year, 1998.
Would you consider those figures to be excessive?
(Mr Hart) I do not think I have a view on the excess
of those numbers. If shooting is a well-regulated and controlled
activity, whether for sporting or working purposes, the numbers
of certificates will fit that demand. Whether or not that is excessive,
I do not think the Chief Police Officers would have a view on
that.
4. I ask, you see, because the Police Superintendents'
Association and the Police Federation, in written evidence to
us, both support the introduction of a new Firearms Act, as they
describe it, "to rationalise and standardise the current
state of firearms law." Would that be your view as well?
(Mr Hart) Yes; as I mentioned a moment ago, I think
the complexity of enforcement would lead us to suggest that perhaps
new legislation could be slightly more elegant, from an enforcement
perspective. And, again, in our submission to you, there are some
charts and tables that demonstrate the complexity around just,
for instance, the ages for possession of different weapons, and
that, for instance, I think could be made much more straightforward.
So I would agree with the Superintendents' Association entirely,
and I think, again, my colleagues from the Police Federation,
I am not wishing to speak for Fred Broughton, but I am sure that
that would be his view also.
5. Mr Broughton is not usually hesitant to come
forward with his views?
(Mr Broughton) I associate ourselves with what has
been said so far, and also the evidence from ACPO, I think, we
can absolutely accept as well. We go slightly further in the written
evidence, as you quite rightly said. We believe a mere consolidation
of the existing legislation will only be cosmetic. There are,
we think, about 13 different regulations and rules and Acts which
administer firearms and shotguns, and we believe it is time for
a completely new and comprehensive Firearms Act, dealing with
the fundamental issues of definition, the scope of the legislation
to be widened, we believe, to look at alternative weapons, like
crossbows. There are all the difficulties at the moment, for instance,
a long-barrelled pistol of 30mm in length, short-barrelled carbines,
there are a number of issues that we think should be included
within that new concept of firearms legislation. And I think there
is little difference between any of us in the Police Service about
that view.
(Mr Gammon) Can I just say, Sir, that our request
for a rationalisation of legislation is not a value judgement
on the number of certificates in being, it is a consequence of
tightening of the legislation; if some people find themselves
outside the legislation and can no longer possess then so be it.
The whole basis of our proposal is to make it safer for people
in the public arena, and to make sure that we have proper controls
over firearms.
6. Yes, I appreciate that; but, despite what
Mr Hart has told us, I get the feeling, particularly from the
Police Federation, Mr Broughton, that the number of shotguns and
other firearms, the figures which I have already mentioned, are
rather excessive being held by private individuals. Would that
be or not be your view?
(Mr Broughton) I would probably take the view that
Mr Hart has given, that they are the numbers. We believe the whole
administration of the system is not as effective as it should
be. We make the point about the five-year certificate moved from
three years and the way that is being administered at the moment;
we do believe that the system is not robust in the way it is managed
at the moment. And so whether there is an excessive number of
weapons within the system or not really is a matter of anecdote.
7. It really brings me to the obvious next question,
Mr Hart and your colleagues, whether the overall level of legal
firearms possessed in England and Wales poses in any way a threat
to public safety?
(Mr Hart) No, I do not think the numbers of weapons
held are a threat to public safety, because, of course, the vast
majority of people that have weapons, firearms licences and shotgun
certificates, are mature, responsible people who pursue whatever
activity they have for their firearm in a lawful way, and the
lawful use of a lawfully-held firearm does not pose a threat to
public safety. What does pose a threat to public safety is the
misuse of firearms, the criminal use of firearms, the reactivation
of weapons that have been deactivated and the criminal use of
weapons that, perhaps if I can use the expression, fall in the
margins, are starting to give us. And you see again in our submissions
our evidence concerning air weapons and replicas; here there are
distinct threats to public safety, and those are the areas that
we would seek to curb. But, in terms of the numbers of weapons
held and the numbers of certificate holders, where those certificate
holders behave according to the existing law, store their weapons
in places that are properly approved and conduct their business
with their weapons according to the existing law, my evidence
would be that there is no threat to public safety.
8. I wonder, Mr Hart, if you would have said
much the same about handguns prior to the tragedy of Dunblane?
(Mr Hart) With respect, Chairman, I was not asked
the question prior to Dunblane.
9. No; but if you had been? Perhaps this is
an unfair question to put to you.
(Mr Hart) I can only offer you a personal opinion
on that question; if that answer would satisfy you then you are
welcome to it. I cannot speak on behalf of the Association.
10. Can we touch on the question of the fitness
of an individual to possess firearms; are you satisfied that the
criteria are strict enough, when it comes to such an assessment
of fitness?
(Mr Hart) I think the weakness with any assessment
of fitness is that it is only made at a single point in time,
and that assessment, of course, would dramatically change in several
years' time. As far as the particular type of assessment that
is made at the moment, it is adequate, it could, of course, be
tighter but it is adequate.
11. It could be tighter; in what way could it
be tighter?
(Mr Hart) There could be a great deal more information
garnered about lifestyle and medical evidence, and this type of
thing. I really think though that cost-effectiveness might start
to enter the equation very, very quickly and diminishing returns
set in on how much extra information would add value to an assessment
of fitness in the future.
12. Bearing in mind that Hamilton, the murderer
at Dunblane, had his application for a certificate accepted by
the police, are there any lessons to be learned when it comes
to fitness to hold firearms?
(Mr Hart) Chairman, I decline to answer that, really.
I am not fully briefed on the Dunblane incident, and I think it
would be inappropriate for me to comment on behalf of the Association
on my suppositions of that case. I really would prefer not to
comment on the Dunblane issue specifically.
13. Do any of your colleagues wish to comment?
(Mr Hart) They may well wish to, Chairman.
(Mr Broughton) I think our concern about fitness,
and certainly about renewal of firearms certificates, is about
the process, and we feel the process has weakened in recent years;
in other words, the three-year cycle with visits and with examination
of fitness has been weakened by the system. And that, I think,
is our concern, in relation to fitness. We want to see a robust
examination of fitness in relation particularly to renewal.
14. Along what lines?
(Mr Broughton) I think it needs a home visit, it needs
a conversation, it needs an assessment of people, to make sure
that people storing firearms in their homes are `fit', and we
have certainly seen that weakened in recent years.
15. Have you, as a Federation, put that view
to the Home Office?
(Mr O'Brien) It is certainly a subject that has been
discussed within the Committee that Mr Hart is Chairman of. And
I do not think I take anything away from him in saying that that
Committee is agreed that the best interests of everyone would
be served by doing away with the postal renewals of certificates,
that that Committee would wish to see renewals conducted, simply
and solely, by personal visits on each and every occasion. That
is a view that the Police Federation endorses, we are happy with
it, we think it is absolutely correct. We are aware that there
are other parts of the Association of Chief Police Officers that
have yet to make that decision.
16. Yes; it makes, I must say, much sense to
me. As the most senior police officer giving evidence today, Assistant
Commissioner, do you have any comments about home visits?
(Mr Hart) My chairmanship of that Committee led me
to put forward a paper which recommended that home visits for
renewals would be appropriate in every case, and that is the paper
that is currently being considered by the ACPO Crime Committee;
that will then go forward to the ACPO Council for resolution of
national policy. I think it is fair to say, Chairman, at this
stage, that that view, that I have expressed in that paper that
has gone forward, is not a unanimous view across the 43 police
forces, and there are very good, practical and operational reasons
why that should not be the case. So the issue is not clear-cut,
as far as the Service is concerned.
17. So it is not unanimous as far as the police
forces in England and Wales are concerned?
(Mr Hart) May I say, Chairman, at this point, is that
the issue just does turn on the ability of individual police forces
to carry out that function, in terms of officer numbers and the
demand that they see that it would put on their resources. So
there are some very real arguments around this point.
18. So the argument, to a large extent, is not
over the need to do so, but the fact that it may not be possible
because of shortages of police officers and time?
(Mr Hart) Exactly so; not only a shortage of police
officers and time but a shortage of officers with the right skill
and aptitude going through the relicensing process. As I made
comment in my opening remarks, both the legislation and the issues
are complex and it really is necessary to send either an experienced
firearms licensing officer, a member of police civil staff, or
a police officer who has been trained to do this work, to undertake
these renewal visits, otherwise, the process is not satisfactory.
19. I hesitate, obviously, to put any words
into your mouth or your colleagues', but would I be right in saying
that you would be far more satisfied over public safety if it
would be possible for such home visits to be made to check up
on certificates?
(Mr Hart) Undoubtedly, yes.
(Mr Broughton) Yes, and we would, too.
(Mr Gammon) And we do not think that resourcing issues
should determine whether we carry out those checks or not. We
understand that constraints are placed on the Police Service,
we acknowledge that, but we believe that this is a very important
issue, and therefore that checks should be made at renewal.
Mr Winnick: I am sure the Committee will take
that, Mr Chairman, very much into consideration when we make our
recommendations. Thank you very much.
|
