APPENDIX 60
Supplementary note by Mr Charles Clarke
MP, Minister of State, Home Office
LETTER TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE
INQUIRY INTO
CONTROLS OVER
FIREARMS
Further to our discussions on 11 January, I
undertook to write to you about a number of issues relating to
the control of firearms. I have also received your letter of 21
January[125]
seeking further information on a number of points. It may be helpful
if I seek to answer these points in turn.
Firstly, you asked for a fuller explanation
of the changes to the counting rules as they apply to the recording
of criminal offices.
Back in the late 1980s, Sir Stanley Bailey in
his capacity as Chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers
(ACPO) Crime Committee was instrumental in setting up a Working
Party reporting to the Criminal Statistics Committee. The working
party consisted of Home Office officials, police statistics officers
and ACPO representatives. A report listing a set of measures was
produced in 1991. At the time the estimate was that these measures
would result in a 20 per cent increase in recorded crime.
The present Government recognised that there
was a need for changes, particularly in the light of the HMIC
review of recording practices which suggested a complete overhaul
of the counting rule instructions. Given the go-ahead by the Home
Secretary, a Steering Group was set up consisting of the Home
Office, police force statistics officers, ACPO representatives
and operational officers. The package which was produced was largely
based on the recommendations of the original working party. The
Royal Statistical Society and leading academics in the field of
criminology were consulted concerning the changes in the counting
rules.
The change in counting rules was announced by
the Home Secretary on 1 October 1997. The changes were described
by Alun Michael MP in written answers to parliamentary questions
on 20 January 1998 and 23 March 1998.
The rules adopted from 1April 1998 include an
extension of coverage of notifiable offences, which means that
all indictable and triable either way offences, plus those summary
offences closely related to an existing indictable offence or
triable either way offence are included. The increase in coverage
includes firearms offences, common assault, assault on a constable
and certain Public Order offences. All offences of criminal damage
are recorded irrespective of the value of the property damaged.
The revisions to the counting rules incorporated
the basic principle of one crime per victim. Thus, the collective
protection rule was abolished. Under this rule, if 20 vehicles
in a secure car park were broken into, then only one offence was
counted. Under the new rules there are 20 offences and therefore
20 victims.
The introduction of these measures also gave
the opportunity to move to a financial year basis, which is in
line with how forces present their data in terms of the Chief
Constables' annual reports. This reduces the problems caused by
police forces having to produce figures for two different time
periods. Also, we were able to cut some of the burden to forces
by collecting data on a quarterly basis rather than monthly.
In order to be able to make some comparisons
on recorded crime before and after the change in counting rules,
a linking exercise was undertaken. This showed that there was
an overall increase of 14 per cent in recorded crime figures due
to the change in counting rules. The change impacted differently
on different offence groups, with those recording violence against
the person, fraud and forgery, drugs offences and "other"
offences being most affected in percentage terms.
Ideally, the Home Office wished for a full double
count of recorded crime in each police force area under both the
old and new counting rules for a year. We would then have been
able to assess exactly the effect of the change in counting rules.
However, after discussion with ACPO, it was decided that this
was not possible. The 14 per cent figure mentioned above therefore
included sample-based estimates. It was not feasible to set up
a sampling exercise to ascertain the effect of the change on firearms
offences.
You also asked for a full list of the controls
that apply to low-powered air weapons. Low-powered in this context
means weapons that are capable of inflicting a lethal injury if
they strike a vulnerable area, (roughly one foot-pound of muzzle
energy) but do not exceed the limits set by the Firearms (Dangerous
Air Weapons) Rules 1969. These are set at muzzle energies of six
foot pounds for pistols and 12 foot pounds for other air weapons
(ie air rifles). More powerful airguns are subject to licensing
and in the case of powerful air pistols, prohibited as with other
handguns.
When these levels were set in 1969, I understand
that they were intended to include those types of air weapons
in common circulation at that time. These in turn were based,
for air rifles, around the muzzle energy needed for shooting small
vermin such as rats or rabbits. The limit for air pistols was
intended to reduce the likely harm these might cause if misused
to a minimum.
These muzzle energies are considerably lower
than those of conventional firearms in the same calibre. The muzzle
energy of a .22 rimfire rifle, for example, the least powerful
common conventional rifle used for vermin shooting, has a muzzle
energy of some 60 foot pounds.
A summary of the main controls on the possession
and use of air weapons are set out in our leaflet "Air Weapons:
Be Safe". It may be helpful if I quote the relevant sections
of that leaflet which may be clearer than reference to the detailed
provisions of the Firearms Acts and other legislation.
THE RULES
It is illegal to:
carry a loaded air weapon in a public
placeSentenceup to six months in prison, or a fine
of up to £5,000, or both;
trespass (enter property without
the owner's consent) in a building with an air weaponSentenceup
to three months in prison, or a fine of up to £2,500, or
both;
trespass on private land with an
air weaponSentenceup to three months in prison,
or a fine of up to £2,500, or both;
possess or use an air weapon or ammunition
if you have been sentenced to three months or more in custody.
If the sentence was up to three years, you are banned from using
any air weapon or other firearm, for five years from the date
you were released. If the sentence was more than three years you
are banned for lifeSentenceup to three years in
prison, or a fine of up to £5,000, or both;
kill or injure any bird or protected
animal unless you are authorised to do so under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981Sentencea fine of up to £5,000;
fire an air weapon within 15 metres
(50 feet) of a road or streetSentencea fine of up
to £1,000;
sell or hire an air weapon or ammunition
to a person under 17Sentenceup to six months in
prison, or a fine of up to £5,000, or both; and
make a gift of an air weapon or ammunition
to a person under 14Sentencea fine of up to £1,000.
Having an air weapon or ammunition which you
intend to use to damage property is a serious offenceSentenceup
to 10 years in prison. If you have an air weapon which you intend
to use to endanger life, or you use one to resist or prevent arrest,
the offence is even more seriousSentencelife imprisonment,
or a fine, or both. Threatening other people with an air weapon
(even if it is not loaded) in such a way as to cause them to believe
that unlawful violence may be used against them is another serious
offenceSentenceup to 10 years imprisonment or a
fine or both.
YOUNG PEOPLE
BETWEEN 14 AND
17
If you are between 14 and 17, you can be given
or lent an air weapon or ammunition but you can't buy or hire
them yourself. You can:
carry an air rifle (but not an air
pistol) in a public place as long as it is covered with a securely
fastened gun cover that prevents it from being fired;
use an air weapon for target practice
at an approved club if you are a member of that club; and
use an air weapon at a shooting gallery
for air weapons or miniature rifles.
GETTING YOUR GUN
You need a firearm certificate if you want to
acquire, possess or use an air rifle that is described as being
specially dangerous by the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules
1969. You may not possess an air pistol described as being especially
dangerous by those Rules unless you have the written authority
of the Secretary of State. Ask the police if you're not sure.
YOUNG PEOPLE
UNDER 14
If you are under 14 you cannot buy, hire, be
given or own an air weapon or ammunition. You can only use one
if:
you are supervised by someone over
21 and you do not shoot beyond the boundaries of the place where
you are using it; or
you are a member of an approved club
and you are using the weapon for target practice at that club;
or
you are using an air weapon at a
shooting gallery for air weapons or miniature rifles.
The leaflet also includes information on shooting
clubs and in particular on the safe handling of air weapons. Most
fatalities and serious injuries caused by air weapons appear to
be the result of accident or mischance rather than a serious attempt
to kill or injure another persons.
You also asked about the use of "low x-ray
machines" by HM Customs for the detection of smuggled firearms.
I understand that HM Customs and Excise currently operate over
100 x-ray systems, including some mobile units, at ports, airports
and inland clearance sites. These units are typically in the 140-160
KeV power range, capable of examining baggage, packages and palletised
cargo loads.
They have been invaluable tools since their
introduction in the mid-1980s, and according to the Department's
technical advisers (DERA) will not be superseded in the foreseeable
future. This type of equipment provides an image showing any anomaly
or discrepancy and thus supports the Department's broad range
of responsibilities in maintaining controls for fiscal or protecting
society purposes. The equipment is, however, not specifically
used for detecting people, as most of the units do not scan packages
of sufficient size.
The Chancellor announced in the PBR the allocation
of CMF monies to provide large scale, high power units capable
of scanning lorries and containers. The procurement process for
these systems has already begun. Whilst the provision is aimed
at the disruption of revenue evasion, they will also assist the
detection of weapons and drugs and would reveal any people concealed
within the load.
As regards to the four issues raised in your
letter of 21 January, I shall again address them in turn.
You asked about the division of responsibilities
between the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers in respect
of the operations of the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997 and the administration
of firearms licensing by police forces.
Although firearms policy and legislation are
reserved to the Westminster Parliament, three of the licensing
functions previously conferred on the Secretary of State by the
Firearms Acts and exercised by the Secretary of State in relation
to Scotland were transferred to Scottish Ministers as a matter
of executive devolution on 1 July 1999.
The functions that have been transferred to
the Scottish Ministers by virtue of the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer
of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc) Order 1999 are those
under Section 5 (prohibited weapons) of the Firearms Act 1968,
Section 15 (approval of rifle and muzzle loading pistol clubs)
and the schedule (museum firearm licences) to the Firearms (Amendment)
Act 1988 (as amended by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997). The
issue of these authorities is the responsibility of the Scottish
Executive Justice Department.
The administration of firearms licensing and
the issue of firearm, shotgun, dealers certificates, permits etc
is carried out by police forces. The Home and Justice Departments
issue guidance to the police in England, Wales and Scotland on
how they should apply the law in the interests of consistency.
However, the final decision as to whether a certificate should
be granted rests with the Chief Constable.
To ensure uniformity of practice on all firearms
matters north and south of the border, officials of the Scottish
Executive Justice Department, the Scotland Office and the Home
Office are in constant close contact. In addition, Mr Ian Sneddon,
Head of Police Division at the Justice Department and Mr Graham
Bennet, Deputy Chief Constable of Fife Constabulary are members
of the Firearms Consultative Committee.
Turning to the scale of fees and charges applicable
under the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997, these may be varied by Order
and were set by the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order 1994 as
follows:
for the grant of a firearm certificate,
a fee of £56;
for the renewal of a firearm certificate,
a fee of £46;
for any variation of a firearm certificate
(otherwise than when it is renewed at the same time) so as to
increase the number of firearms to which the certificate relates,
a fee of £26;
for the replacement of a firearm
certificate that has been lost or destroyed, a fee of £9;
on the grant of a shotgun certificate
a fee of £43;
on the renewal of a shotgun certificate
a fee of £18;
on the replacement of a shotgun certificate
that has been lost or destroyed, a fee of £8;
on the registration of a person as
a firearms dealer, a fee of £118;
on the temporary registration of
a place of business in another area (for example at a game fair
or trade fair), a fee of £18;
for the renewal of a certificate
of registration as a firearms dealer; a fee of £50;
for the approval of a target shooting
club by the Home Departments, a fee of £84;
for the grant of a British Visitors
Firearms Permit or British Visitors Shotgun Permit (BVP), the
fee of £12;
for the grant of a British Visitors
Group Firearms Permit or British Visitors Group Shotgun Permit,
which may include up to twenty people, the fee of £60;
for the grant of a museum firearms
licence, a fee of £200 or such lesser amount as the Secretary
of State may determine. In practice, the Home Office will charge
a fee of £75 plus police security inspection costs of up
to £125, depending on the size and nature of the premises;
for the extension of a museum firearms
licence to additional premises, a fee of £75.
The Government is conscious that these fees
were set before the tragic events at Dunblane and the subsequent
changes to both legislation and good practice amongst police licensing
departments. For this reason, we are considering amending the
level of fees as currently set. Our aim has always been to set
fees at a level that achieves Full Cost Recovery for the issue
of the certificate concerned. This is in accord with the wider
policies of successive governments on setting the level of fees
and charges for public services of this kind.
You also asked what assessment we have made
of the effectiveness of the National Crime Squad (NCS) and the
National Criminal Intelligence Service (NICS) in tackling the
illegal importation, possession and use of firearms. You will
appreciate that both organisations were set up relatively recently
which means that we do not have the medium to long term information
needed to assess their effectiveness in statistical terms.
NCIS is focussed on criminals at the top end
of organised crime and not on the crimes committed. Serious professional
criminals will often be involved in a range of criminal enterprises,
depending on the risks involved and potential profits to be made,
rather than specialising in a particular type of crime. NCIS only
becomes involved operationally in investigations to counter the
criminal use of firearms when intelligence identifies that individuals
of interest to NCIS are involved in such activities.
NCIS has an interest in illicit firearms trafficking
from a strategic perspective through analysis of the international
criminal market and its potential impact on the country as part
of the UK threat assessment. Other than when firearms become a
feature of an intelligence-led operation, they do not feature
as a high priority for NCIS. If organised and professional criminals
were seeking to import firearms on a large scale we are confident
that this would be identified as such.
The National Crime Squad is mandated to tackle
serious and organised national and transnational crime. In that
capacity it will investigate criminal offences where firearms
are being unlawfully trafficked or used. Operations are directed
against the most serious criminal conspiracies and have included
several successful seizures and prosecutions as well as disruptive
activity which has prevented unlawful firearms from reaching the
UK.
Operations have been conducted against brokers
who have arranged for firearms and explosive devices including
land mines and anti-armour weapons to be imported to criminal
groups in the UK. Other operations have been conducted against
individuals who have unlawfully reactivated firearms which had
been deactivated. Several significant cases have been prosecuted.
Between April and December 1999, some 88 firearms
and 1,160 rounds of ammunition were seized in cases involving
the National Crime Squad. In the preceding year (April 1998 to
March 1999) some 54 firearms and 2,677 rounds of ammunition were
seized.
While we will of course keep the work of the
NCIS and NCS under review, we are confident that these are a major
asset in dealing with armed crime, both in conjunction with HM
Inspectorate of Constabulary specifically and in providing an
overview of wider criminal activities that might attract the use
of firearms.
Finally, you asked how the national firearms
database to be set up under Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment)
Act 1997 is to be funded. The police have taken the view that
this database is best established as part of the development of
PHOENIX. This is an acronym for the Police/Home Office Extended
Names Index and is part of the Police National Computer. Clearly,
given the statutory requirement for a computer system with on-line
access to all police forces, it would not make sense to create
a separate network outside of the PNC. Furthermore, the PHOENIX
system as a whole when fully developed will contain a wide range
of other information which will be of use to forces in determining
whether an applicant is a fit person to have a certificate.
The PNC and associated databases are maintained
by the Police Information Technology Organisation who receive
police funding for computer technology in general. There have
been many competing modules in the past for PHOENIX of which the
firearms database is but one. Since the PNC is an operational
computer system it would not have made sense to look at the firearms
application in isolation and without regard to the impact on the
whole of PNC.
The PITO work programme for any given year is
decided by the board, taking into account the wide range of other
projects which need to be maintained or developed and the operational
requirements of the police as set by the ACPO PNC Steering Committee.
I understand that the Steering Committee have agreed to treat
the section 39 database as the highest priority once current commitments
have been completed and that it will feature in PITO's business
plan for 2000-01. The cost will not be recovered in any direct
way through any sort of levy on fees for firearm and shotgun certificates
although the use police make of the system in the future will
be reflected in the usual way when fees are set.
I hope that this is helpful. If the Government
can be of any further assistance to your inquiry please do not
hesitate to contact us. I look forward with great interest to
reading your report in due course.
3 February 2000
125 Letter from the Clerk of the Committee. Back
|