Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 199)
TUESDAY 14 DECEMBER 1999
MR PATRICK
JOHNSON, MR
WILLIAM HARRIMAN,
LT COL
JOHN HOARE,
MR BEN
GILL AND
MR HUGH
OLIVER-BELLASIS
180. You obviously consider the present law
is unnecessary?
(Mr Johnson) In relation to handguns, it does not
serve the purpose which the government thought it would do when
it introduced it.
Mrs Dean
181. Just going back briefly to the fitness
of the individual, if you are suggesting there is no fixed period
for a review, how would you stop individuals getting through the
system and slipping through the net? There must be some individuals
who would not be in contact with people and would not have their
records available for scrutiny, if you like?
(Lt Col Hoare) I do not think we suggested there should
be no fixed period. What we are saying is, in addition to that
there should be a constant review. One of the plus points of the
1997 legislation has been the setting up of a requirement for
approved clubs to have a police liaison officer—and that,
anecdotally, seems to be working quite well. It is welcomed by
the police and, now it has settled down, also by the clubs. We
are not talking about having no fixed review—keep it at
five years, if that is what is suggested, but have a constant
review during the period.
(Mr Oliver-Bellasis) On the subject of fittedness
of individuals, I think we have to look at the way in which people
are assessed at the moment. You heard evidence from the police
in your last session where they said they had a limited number
of skilled individuals to do this job. The fact is, unfortunately,
that different forces perform in this area in different ways.
If you get individuals who are expert in this field, it is actually
relatively simple for them through their experience to be able
to assess both the reason that the individual wishes a particular
weapon, and also whether they are fit to use it and whether, in
fact, it is the right weapon for the job and so on. I actually
believe that in terms of the length of the licence there is no
reason to suggest, with checks in between (say every three to
five years), why the licence should not be extended to the same
as the driving of a motor car. Because you could have exactly
the same data bases, and you could also have the same input from
those experts and from the police. As has been mentioned earlier,
if an individual commits a crime it would be cross-checked.
Mr Linton
182. I have some questions to ask specifically
about air weapons. I understand the National Small-bore Rifle
Association is concerned mainly with air rifles?
(Lt Col Hoare) Largely with .22s, but also with air
guns.
183. My question is not addressed solely to
you but mainly to you. First, I am sure you would agree if everyone
who used an air gun was as law abiding and as responsible as you
and your members there would be no problem, but there is a problem
of hooligans using air guns often to terrorise people. Sadly,
it is very easy as the law stands at the moment for them to get
hold of air weapons. We have had circulated to us an advert which
says, "... leave your name and address, state you are aged
over 18 and we'll send a pistol to you straight away". Clearly,
although that would be illegal if they are under 18, it does not
seem to be very difficult for young people to get hold of them,
and certainly it is illegal for them to use them. I come to my
first question as somebody who has little technical knowledge
of weapons: if a gun is lethal, if it can inflict death, why should
you have different licensing arrangements for different kinds
of guns? Why should you not have the same licensing arrangements
related to the power of the gun, rather than the actual mechanism?
(Lt Col Hoare) I think you would have a very complex
situation in trying to decide what exactly you mean. You hear
all sorts of emotional words such as "firepower", the
"range of lethality", and so on. There are air guns
which are going to be especially dangerous and those are covered
within the Act and require Section 1 Firearms status.
184. Those are over 12ft/lb?
(Lt Col Hoare) They are 12ft/lb for air rifles and
6 ft/lb for air pistols. The point being, of course, that the
ownership of an air pistol in a public place (and you were concentrating
in that advert on air pistols) is an offence. We are really talking
about enforcement of the current law. The current law is very,
very severe for people who transgress it; but, unfortunately,
very few people are brought to task. I would agree with you, we
should not be selling guns to people who are not entitled to have
them by law. If you look at the Firearms Consultative Committee
report, there is a call for a code of practice on people who have
adverts such as the one you demonstrated there.
185. You accept that "lethal", meaning
something that can cause death, includes air weapons which do
not currently have to be licensed?
(Lt Col Hoare) That is correct.
186. I still do not quite understand why air
weapons which can cause death do not need to be licensed, whereas
.22 rifles that can cause death do?
(Lt Col Hoare) I think you have to look at it in the
context of the danger that is caused by air guns. Indeed, there
are no statistics (that I am aware of) to prove that .22 rifles
cause injury in the same way. Although there are a large number
of statistics about air guns, the actual damage by them, apart
from hooliganism and broken windows etc, is remarkably and fortunately
very little. I think we are looking for a balanced approach, rather
than a draconian approach which says because something is potentially
dangerous we should ban it. If you took that line I think there
would be many more things in life that would be banned long before
firearms—golf clubs, motor cars etc.
187. They are not designed for that purpose.
(Lt Col Hoare) Neither, may I remind you, are most
guns designed to kill—they are designed for target shooting
and not for killing.
188. Let us take another difference. With most
types of gun you need to demonstrate a good reason before you
get a licence. Would it not be a good thing if you have to demonstrate
or show a good reason for possession of an air gun? Your members
would have no difficulty in competitive sports or vermin control
if there was a requirement that you should show a good reason
for having one.
(Lt Col Hoare) I am speaking primarily for target
shooters and shooting clubs and that does not necessarily give
us a problem. There are many other thousands of air gun shooters
who use them for vermin control and for other forms of shooting.
There is no evidence before us to show that this is a major problem
if the law is adhered to. I have suggested in my evidence to you
for this weight of public outcry which is reported, the amount
of regulation and monitoring of that legislation appears to be
non-existent. We go through great troubles—you only have
to go into a service station or a tobacconists and be told what
is lawful in the way of buying tobacco or alcohol. The same is
not true of air guns or air gun ammunition. Bearing in mind, that
many outlets beyond the gun trade, and myself as a firearms dealer,
sell air guns.
189. Are you concerned about the way in which
weapons are sometimes sold and advertised, and ammunition is readily
available?
(Lt Col Hoare) Very much so.
(Mr Gill) You have raised the issue of vermin control—I
think the line of questioning exposes the need for a comprehensive
review of the administrative basis to understand the options there.
Air rifles for example have a particular use, they can be used
for vermin control in buildings without causing damage. One of
my major problems on the farm is in grain stores where you have
vermin coming in, and dislodging them with very substantial controls
is a major headache. Equally, to control vermin outside the building
is a major issue. Control of pigeons on crops, control of crows
and control of rabbits. Indeed, we need to have this whole spectrum
examined so we have a proper and appropriate resource to address
the issue of vermin control at every stage on the farm, with a
review of the appropriate regulation that goes with it.
190. I take your point. None of the members
of any of your organisations have the least difficulty in demonstrating
a) a reason for wanting to have a weapon, and b) getting a licence.
The problem we have, and I am sure you will agree, is that we
do have other people who misuse these weapons. Why should we allow
the unsupervised use of potentially lethal handguns by teenagers?
(Lt Col Hoare) No-one is suggesting they should be
unsupervised. The law is quite clear.
(Mr Harriman) After 14 there is parental control and
somebody between that age and 17 may not buy ammunition.
191. The supervision is up to 14, is it not?
Above 14 a teenager can use one on their own property?
(Mr Harriman) That is the key to it. It is "on
your own property". There are good controls within the age
limit brackets at the moment which recognise that as people get
older they hopefully become more responsible; also that there
are checks and balances, particularly from the parental control
point of view, that do not allow people to go out who are under
17 to make a decision to buy an air weapon and its ammunition.
I am interested by your advert there. I think the pistol shown
on there is probably a non-lethal one.
192. You can have a look at it.
(Mr Harriman) I think it is one of those which is
known as a "soft air gun", which falls below the threshold
for lethality.
193. My point was that they were asking people
to state their age rather than to demonstrate their age. I am
approaching this in a genuine spirit of inquiry. Your evidence,
Mr Hoare, is full of references to the need for coaching and training.
You talk about competitive sports, and I take your point entirely
that if you cannot use an air gun until the age of 18 that would
be a tremendous handicap for the development of sporting skills.
You emphasise that this is only possible through dedicated training
and coaching, and you talk about parents or other adults who should
supervise the use of guns. Your emphasis is on the supervision,
training and coaching. Why would it be difficult for you to accept
if people were to say that the use of air guns should be supervised?
(Lt Col Hoare) There is one point I would like to
make which relates to the simplistic approach to the law at the
moment. We have a situation where you have to be 21 to supervise
someone, regardless of your qualifications. A few years ago when
I was a commissioned officer straight from Sandhurst I would not
have been allowed to supervise someone with an air gun. That highlights
perhaps some of the lunacy of the law in trying to be simplistic.
As far as we are concerned as target shooters, we have no problem
with supervision because everyone is supervised when in a target
shooting environment. I speak only for target shooters. There
would be difficulties, and I am sure my colleagues from the National
Farmers' Union would say so, in having supervised usage in vermin
control on private land. It would create enormous difficulties
for them.
194. For teenagers?
(Lt Col Hoare) Yes.
(Mr Oliver-Bellasis) Can I go half a pace back where
you said it would be easy for us to establish good reason. It
may not be us individually as the farmer. I use young people to
come in to look after grain stores during their holidays a) because
they enjoy it and b) because it is very useful to me. These are
individuals where, at the moment, it is perfectly legitimate for
them to do the job so long as I am comfortable they are doing
the job safely and effectively. The fact is, for us to supervise
with the low numbers of people (becoming ever less) on our farms,
is an impossible task. Yes, we make sure the individuals we use
are people whom we can trust. I think the issue is actually one
of the appropriateness of the weapon to the job it is doing, and
making sure good reason is accepted as being good reason not connected
with the farm. At the moment it is difficult if it is good reason
for a shot gun or a rifle, in some cases, for us to define good
reason, for people who are not connected to that farming enterprise.
195. Do you accept you may have very good judgment,
your employees may be very responsible, and it may be very effective,
but allowing teenagers to have unsupervised use of weapons in
some cases could create the kind of fascination with guns and
develop the kind of habits that can lead to tragedies in completely
different situations?
(Mr Oliver-Bellasis) I entirely accept that, but there
are good drivers of motor cars and there are bad drivers, and
there are large numbers of accidents. If you compare the number
of accidents in a certain age group to the number of accidents
we are talking about in terms of air weapons and make the numbers
relative to each other, I suspect that the air weapons are safer
than those age groups using motor cars.
196. In the case of motor cars, the unsupervised
use of a car before you have a licence is not permitted.
(Mr Oliver-Bellasis) Absolutely, I accept that. The
point that has been made is that the whole of this area needs
a thorough look to make sure it is not as it is at the moment,
which is 12 amendments, all of them organic since the 1920 Act
was set up. Therefore, you could solve those sorts of issues by
looking at it and dovetailing the appropriateness of the weapon
to the task that it does.
197. I think you all make a very good case in
your evidence for consolidation and tidying up the law, which
I am sure many of us would agree with. One area where it could
be tidied up and it looks as though it should be tidied up is
that you do have unsupervised use of lethal air weapons by teenagers,
and that is where I am trying to get your views?
(Mr Oliver-Bellasis) I would suggest there needs to
be some trust. The fact is, these teenagers you talk about are
actually people who, in my experience, are wholly trustworthy.
We need to know very precisely, and the evidence given to you
by the police the other day showed they were unable to give you
hard facts as to the number of incidents and where they were happening.
I am merely suggesting that, in the interests of that trust, on
behalf of those who use the weapons it would be very good for
us to debate the real facts rather than the supposition of the
difficulty we think we have.
198. We are merely trying to establish this
point about unsupervised use by teenagers. It is true that many
of the laws which apply to young people are unfair in the sense
that many young people would be completely responsible. Many young
people at the age of 15 could drive a car responsibly but they
accept it is inevitable, if you are a young person, there have
to be laws that make some things prohibitive because a minority
would abuse them. Surely here is a case. No-one is saying that
every young person is going to abuse the use of air weapons; but
it is true that most firearms offences are committed with air
weapons and many offences are committed by young people in the
school holidays.
(Mr Harriman) And in public places as well.
(Mr Gill) First of all, you say there is no restriction.
The point which has just been made is that the restriction applies
in a private place on one's own property. Secondly, there is a
danger of falling into the trap, which is often the case, where
it is assumed that the people who should be subject to tighter
controls are the law-abiding citizens. Surely the people we want
to single out and identify are those who are not abiding by the
law. We are at risk of putting cumbersome new restrictions on
those who are good. You have correctly identified that somebody
of 15 might be eminently more responsible than somebody of 25;
and that calls for a proper nationwide basis that gives a proper
data base, to give that assessment in an expert way, rather than
the ad hoc way it is at the moment. In my case the local
bobby will come down and talk to me about someone: "Do you
think he is a good chap?" That, to me, is not a sensible
way to go ahead. It needs to be on a far more professional basis
to give you the ability to apportion the risk. After all, the
key element is not so much the gun (although that is relevant)
but the operator of the gun. The gun cannot fire itself.
199. I take your point. My last point is addressed
to Mr Hoare. You advocated in your evidence that, through the
control of the supply of ammunition, one can prevent teenagers
misusing air weapons. Do you really think that simply controlling
ammunition would be enough, given that they can use non-standard
ammunition, they can use darts, whatever; and it would be simpler,
if you want to deal with the problem of misuse, to have a licensing
system rather than simply the control of ammunition?
(Lt Col Hoare) What I am suggesting to you is that
we use the current laws and try to give them a chance before invoking
any others. The law, as it stands at the moment, is not enforced
and it is not monitored in its enforcement. Let us give the law
a chance before we start trying to reinvent the wheel.
|
