Examination of Witnesses (Questions 161
- 179)
TUESDAY 14 DECEMBER 1999
MR PATRICK
JOHNSON, MR
WILLIAM HARRIMAN,
LT COL
JOHN HOARE,
MR BEN
GILL AND
MR HUGH
OLIVER-BELLASIS
Chairman
161. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This
is the second evidence-taking session of our inquiry into the
control of firearms. We are sorry we kept you waiting just a little.
Mr Johnson, I wonder if you would be kind enough to introduce
yourself and your colleagues for us.
(Mr Johnson) I will, Chairman, and make
a short, three paragraph, opening statement. My name is Patrick
Johnson, and I am Secretary of the British Shooting Sports Council.
(Lt Col Hoare) John Hoare. I am Secretary of the National
Small-bore Rifle Association, and Chairman of the Great Britain
Target Shooting Federation.
(Mr Harriman) Bill Harriman, Head of Firearms, British
Association for Shooting and Conservation.
(Mr Gill) Ben Gill. I am President of the National
Farmers' Union and a farmer in North Yorkshire.
(Mr Oliver-Bellasis) Hugh Oliver-Bellasis, a farmer
from Hampshire.
162. Thank you very much. Mr Johnson?
(Mr Johnson) We welcome this opportunity to contribute
to the Committee's inquiry into firearms controls. The last time
this Committee examined this issue it arrived at a conclusion
which we believe is fundamental to this current exercise. The
Committee concluded in 1996 that "... policy on firearms
control appears to be formed without the benefit of statistical
material which we believe to be highly relevant". Those currently
calling for further restrictions on the sport fail this crucial
test. Their proposals do not appear to be backed up by evidence
but are based on varying degrees of uneasiness with shooting.
We would argue that the sport is already heavily regulated, and
that any further restrictions should only be imposed if they have
a clear public safety benefit; that they do not unnecessarily
restrict shooting; and that they are cost-effective. We believe
that the current system does not pose a danger to public safety,
and that attention should therefore be directed to better enforcement
of existing law, including detection of illegal weapons, and better
administration of the licensing system. We hope that our proposals,
Chairman, will be helpful to your Committee in achieving these
objectives.
Chairman: Thank you. Just in case there is any
doubt about thisthis is an inquiry and we have come here
with open minds, although not necessarily empty heads as it were.
There is no hidden agenda.
Mr Cawsey
163. Your written evidence calls for consolidation
of the existing firearms legislation. Would you be happy if this
consolidation was to maintain the present levels of controls over
firearms?
(Mr Johnson) We believe that consolidation is a minimum
step that is necessary. We share the view of others who have given
evidence that the legislation is complex and is spread about over
five or six different Acts. It would be helpful if there was some
consolidation on the existing terms.
(Mr Oliver-Bellasis) Chairman, we would support consolidation.
I think we would not agree that necessarily all the current laws/restrictions
would be carried forward into that consolidation.
164. This question is to BSSC and BASC. You
both recommend a change in the procedure of appeals against the
refusal or revocation of a firearms certificate by a Chief Officer
of Police. Would such a change, in your opinion, lead to an increase
in the number of appeals?
(Mr Harriman) I do not know. It is difficult to say
now exactly how many appeals are run at the moment. My instinct
is that it is very fewprobably under 20 or 30 a year. People
simply cannot afford to do it, for the reason that it is heard
before the Crown Court and will invariably need a solicitor to
be instructed and counsel to be briefed. We estimate the average
cost for an appeal to be between probably a minimum of £4,000
or £6,000 and double that in Scotland.
(Mr Johnson) You will note that within our paper we
highlight that the problem is costly for both sides in the appeals
procedure; and have made a suggestion (not for the first time)
that there should be some way of arbitrating these sorts of situations,
and enabling Chief Officers collectively to gather a body of opinion
and decisions in this area. That could be done by some sort of
ad hoc committee or body working under the Firearms Consultative
Committee. That would take out the confrontation in these issues
and enable people with knowledge and experience to try and resolve
some of these issues. We might complain about the expense to the
individual member, which is a clear discouragement, but there
is also a cost to public funds in a procedure which seems unnecessarily
bureaucratic and overburdensome.
165. You mentioned the Firearms Consultative
Committee and I note you support the continued operation of that
Committee; but are you happy with its current composition and
functioning and do you believe it is effective?
(Mr Johnson) The Committee is effective in arriving
at conclusions about issues which are referred to it. If we have
a criticism of the work of the Committee, it seems to die on the
minister's desk. There are many things waiting in previous reports
to be attended to, we are told, when parliamentary time is available.
The composition of the Committee has changed somewhat recently.
We are happy with any contributor to the Committee who brings
experience and knowledge with them; who seeks to play a part in
the advancement of the arguments which are there and does not
seek to merely use the Committee as an avenue for propounding
theories which are not supported.
(Mr Harriman) I think the Committee's strength is
its statutory basis and the fact that its members are there ad
hominem rather than ex officio. As a new member of it this
year I have always been struck by the fact that people leave their
hats and baggage in the cloakroom, as it were, and come to the
table with open minds. I think that the quality of debate is very
good. I think perhaps its greatest strength is its report (and
we have seen one published last week) which forms a very good
interpretative body (very sensible, very pragmatic) of useful
material that I, as a practitioner, find very useful; and I also
know my colleagues in police licensing departments will often
look at that. Mr Johnson said the shame of it is that much of
that useful advice is gathering dust on the minister's desk.
166. Let me address a couple of questions to
the National Farmers' Union. What systems are in place for the
self-regulation of those who shoot occupationally?
(Mr Oliver-Bellasis) The answer is that people undergo
voluntary training, and there are training mechanisms set up by
organisations. Certainly within farms and within communities it
is largely done by the individuals who form part of those communities.
167. I do not want to get too anecdotal but
yesterday I was talking to a MAFF Minister who was telling me
a tale which is on his desk at the moment about a couple who were
walking their jack russell down a public right of way and came
to a stile which was covered in barbed wire but, nevertheless,
was a right of way; they clambered over it holding their jack
russell, which then saw a rabbit, jumped out of their arms and
ended up in a hedgerow trying to find the rabbit; but as they
were running after it, because they were aware of livestock nearby,
the farmer came along on a moonbike, past the running owners of
the dog, went straight to the dog and just shot it. They have
written a complaint to MAFF about that, as I am sure you can understand.
How does the NFU seek to promote safe and responsible shooting
among its membership?
(Mr Oliver-Bellasis) Taking the individual incident,
I would not wish to comment on that because I was not there and
did not see what happened. It should be brought to notice that
farmers who believe that livestock are being worried by dogs are
entitled to shoot those animals, and that is fact. So far as the
NFU and encouraging people to use guns safely is concerned, all
our documents which we put out related to shotguns, rifles or
air rifles encourage the safe use of those weapons.
168. I accept entirely the right of a farmer
in the circumstances you have outlined, but in the situation I
have outlined, if a complaint came to the National Farmers' Union
and it was one of your members, is there something you would do
to give advice?
(Mr Gill) We cannot control the individual decisions
our members make. We are a voluntary organisation but, at all
times, we seek to ensure that the law is upheld. In the correct
circumstances the right to shoot a dog is particularly important.
We would want to ensure it is properly used and not abused in
anyway. Obviously I cannot comment on a particular case without
having further details.
169. Let us move on to something for all of
you. Would you welcome a system of firearms licensing which concentrated
principally on the fitness of an individual to possess firearms?
(Mr Johnson) Without doubt, Mr Cawsey, we were actually
speaking with the Home Office and our colleagues from the Association
of Chief Police Officers prior to Dunblane about focussing attention
on licensing the individual instead of the focus on the weapon,
as it is at the moment. We believe we were well down that path
towards developing a system that focussed on the fitness of individuals
to possess various types of weapons at various stages of their
lives and their shooting experience. Yes, we were happy with that,
provided that one can come up with a sensible way of examining
what is fittedness and if that can be achieved. We believe that
can be achieved by discussion, by consultation and by speaking
with our colleagues in ACPO, the Police Federation and the Shooting
Association, by discussing these issues in the round.
170. Do you agree with that?
(Mr Oliver-Bellasis) We would certainly support that,
but I think it is important to recognise that, whilst the person
is very important, the whole of the administration of the licensing
system is about a number of issues that actually are important
to the individual. Therefore, one has to take it as a complete
system, rather than necessarily focussing, in a sense, laser-like
on to the person without taking in the other things that go together
within the licensing system.
(Lt Col Hoare) There is one difficulty within the
legislation and within the firearms administration which relates
to data protection. It is very much a one-way street. We try to
work very hard with the police and vice-versa. The rigours of
the Data Protection Act make it impossible for the police to share
information with us if they find a potential club member or a
shooter to be not suitable. That is a major drawback, and if that
could be addressed at some stage in the future both the police
and ourselves, I am sure, would be very appreciative of that.
171. Generally you would welcome the move towards
the individual?
(Lt Col Hoare) Yes.
172. If you do accept that, in the interests
of public safety, it may be that the frequency and thoroughness
of the checks made upon the individual to hold firearms would
have to increase. Would you accept that as a trade-off?
(Mr Johnson) I think there is a notion which crops
up from time to time that we need to examine an individual at
specific intervals. In fact, that merely creates a false illusion
about that individual. We need a constant programme of an interchange
of information about people between ourselves, the police and
other organisations. Rather than picking a particular date for
an MOT and then finding my car breaks down the next day, there
needs to be a constant relationship between officials and the
police. That is the way we would be able to feed into the police
intelligence, which they tell us is the basis of how they operate.
Picking a date out in any given period does not serve much of
a useful purpose: a) I know you are coming; and b) it does nothing
about what happens to me the next day.
(Lt Col Hoare) I think if you look at the way in which
we regulate the safe use of firearms, particularly in target shooting,
once a person is deemed to be safe and proficient that is not
the end of it. That person's usage is monitored on every occasion
he or she is on the range. If at any time there is any suspicion
that person is unsafe then action is taken accordingly.
(Mr Gill) What we need to do is look at this in the
route not of an MOT where a car will deteriorate every year and
needs a regular update, but on the basis of a proper assessment
of the risk, the character, the stability and integrity of the
person who is licensed. It should be perfectly possible to assess
that against some sort of risk basis that goes ahead. The presumption
should be, not as with an MOT but related perhaps more to a car
licence, where the person is licensed until a specific age but
that is reviewed if there are medical conditions which arise and
come forward, or if observations are made in the operation of
that licence by the person concerned that he or she is not behaving
in an appropriate manner.
(Mr Harriman) I think it is absolutely critical that
the criticism levelled against firearms licensing departments
by the Inspectorate in 1993 about information and intelligence
management is sorted out, and that people who are offenders before
the courts are notified to licensing departments. That is a major
and fundamental thing that needs dealing with if you are to have
this flow of information to alert the licensing authority to somebody
who may be a potential risk.
173. One final question to the BSSC. In written
evidence we have received from the Gun Control Network on the
issue of "practical shooting", they say "there
is understandable public revulsion in an activity which so clearly
encourages participants to develop their killing skills in realistic
situations and which may feed the fantasies of socially inadequate
or unstable people". What is the value of the discipline
of practical shooting? Should we be concerned that people treat
the realistic simulation of the killing of other human beings
as a sport?
(Mr Johnson) My understanding of the practical shooters
as an international organisation is that they do not go for simulating
the killing of actual people. They practise those skills which
exist in target shooting, in being able to be accurate and to
meet the criteria of whatever discipline they are working within.
The lurid picture that is present of people pursuing some shoot-up
game is totally alien. It cannot occur within the safety criteria
of ranges. I am aware that the international organisation does
its best to ensure that it does not encourage any of that sort
of behaviour. It must be fairly successful at it, Chairman, in
that my understanding is that the international organisation will
be presenting the sport as an Olympic demonstration at the next
Olympics.
(Lt Col Hoare) It is an extension of current Olympic
disciplines already, where different skills are used in some of
the 36 disciplines we cover. Some require people to be extremely
accurate at static targets, others at running targets, moving
targets; none of these are humanoid. There are already Olympic
disciplines in that type of skill, as indeed there is in clay
target shooting. It is a different type of skill: it is fast,
accurate shooting, as opposed to precision shooting at a fixed
distance.
Mr Winnick
174. When my colleague asked whether you welcomed
a system whereby there would be a tightening up on the fitness
of an individual to possess firearms the answer was, yes.
(Mr Johnson) I am not sure the words "tightening
up" were used by Mr Cawsey; he talked about a system that
focussed on the individual.
175. I did not want to mislead you in any way,
but clearly one can put it in different terms. I am asking that
particular question again because one of the papers which was
circulated to us was from the Gun Trade Association which, as
I understand it, is a member of the umbrella organisation the
British Shooting Sports Councilone of your members. In
their evidence to us they say: "Lawful possession of firearms,
shot guns and air guns, are not the problem". Then it goes
on to say the following: "Tightening the law still further
will not prevent nor curtail the use of firearms by criminals".
Clearly they are against any form of tightening up of control?
(Mr Johnson) I am afraid I do not read it that way
at all. I do not think their statement is incompatible with ours.
Before there are any changes in the law it needs to be demonstrated
that the changes will be effective in terms of public safety and
in terms of cost. That is why I did not use the word "tightening"
when we were talking about fittedness. It requires a proper examination
of the individual for fittedness; that is a different issue from
tightening the law. I think the GTA there are speaking in a general
sense, that merely seeking to impose further restrictions on shooting
without proof that they will be cost effective and effective in
terms of public safety will be wasting the lawmakers' time.
176. If there was greater emphasis on the fitness
of the individual to possess firearms some would say there is
a tightening of the law, but I do not want to engage in semantics
because no purpose would be served. Therefore I would be right,
and you will tell me otherwise, that your organisation, the British
Shooting Sports Council, is in fact an organisation which has
never advocated further controls on the possession of firearms?
(Mr Johnson) You are going back some way in history
with ours but I would say, yes, my experience over the last ten
years is that we have seen attempts (in your words) to "tighten"
the law which have proved not so to do; and it is not unnatural,
therefore, we would say that at some stage somebody has got to
call a halt and say, "What are the appropriate firearms laws
for this country?"; not the ad hoc building on of
little pieces here and there that our friends in the police have
complained about, and which we complain about similarly. There
has never been a proper assessment of the value of the firearms
laws in this country. If there is anything to be taken from the
Scarman Institute it is the simple statement that "everything
requires further research".
(Lt Col Hoare) Further to that, it is fair to say
that any tightening or restrictions in firearms law is likely
to affect only those legitimate users, and will not affect those
who use firearms illegally and possess them illegally now.
177. When I look at the evidence you have submitted
from the British Shooting Sports Council, a very informative paper,
you do say on page 12, paragraph 9.1 "... that events such
as Hungerford and Dunblane, which involved the use of legally
held weapons, will produce such a powerful public reaction that
emotion rather than rational and factual analysis should become
for the time being the basis of policy development". Do I
take it from that you do believe that the reaction over those
two tragedies was simply an emotional one, and therefore there
was no need for the previous government and this present one to
act as it did?
(Mr Johnson) It is a difficult situation, and it is
perfectly understandable
178. Difficult for whom?
(Mr Johnson) For everybody. For the shooting community;
for the community at large in these areas; and for politicians
especially. Politicians are faced with having to react to situations
and, one hopes, come up with sensible suggestions and proposals
which will meet the fears of the public, meet the concerns of
the family and, at the same time, have regard to the greater mass
of, in this case, the shooting community. The only landmark I
can see amongst all of that was that the government appointed
a committee of inquiry under Lord Cullen, and it seems to be lost
in the debate about the affairs of Dunblane that Cullen actually
said there was no need to recommend a ban on handguns. You have
heard evidence from other witnesses as to an interpretation of
what the effect of that handgun ban has been. The situation at
the time is perfectly understandable, but it is the duty of government
to look at what needs to be done in the public interest and to
take steps as it seems appropriate. I personally have a feeling
that, in a sense, Dunblane occurred at a pivotal period in British
history, in terms certainly of this century, and was influenced
by the wider considerations that were going on at that time. I
think appointing an inquiry was a sensible way to go; it is a
shame political decisions were made before the inquiry published
its reported.
179. The government of the day has a duty to
act as it believes is necessary in public safety. Clearly the
previous government and the present government, as I have said,
did so. Do you support what the previous government and the present
government did over guns?
(Mr Johnson) I have to say I take the line Lord Cullen
suggested, that there was no need for a handgun ban.
|