TUESDAY 11 JANUARY 2000
_________
Members present:
Mr Robin Corbett, in the Chair
Mrs Janet Dean
Mr Gerald Howarth
Mr Martin Linton
Mr Humfrey Malins
Bob Russell
Mr Marsha Singh1)
Mr Paul Stinchcombe
Mr David Winnick
_________
MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE HOME OFFICE
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
MR CHARLES CLARKE, a Member of the House, Minister of State,
MR GRAHAM WIDDECOMBE, Head, Firearms Section, Operational Policing
Policy Unit, Home Office, examined.
Chairman
374. Good morning, Mr Clarke, and welcome to our humble Committee.
We are very pleased to see you. Would you like to tell us who is with you,
please?
(Mr Clarke) Graham Widdecombe is my colleague, who is an official in
the Department. He is responsible for Firearms Policy in the Department.
375. Thank you very much indeed. Given the fact that we have just
had the Chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee with us, would you
like to tell us how you see, if you see, the future for this committee?
(Mr Clarke) Thank you for the question, Mr Chairman. I appreciate it
very much. I would like to make a short statement about the future of the
Firearms Consultative Committee. Over the years the committee has looked at
a whole range of often difficult and complex issues. Although its
recommendations have not always been accepted in their entirety it has proved
a valuable forum for discussion, bringing together as it does a broad spectrum
of knowledge and experience of firearms matters. Bearing in mind that your
Committee, Mr Chairman, will no doubt be recommending further areas for
consideration, I am satisfied that there is a continuing need for some kind
of consultative body with the capacity to take a detailed look at any topics
referred to it and to maintain an overview to the recent changes to existing
controls. There are arguments both ways as to whether such a body should
operate on a statutory or a non-statutory basis. This is something we wish
to reflect upon in the longer term in the light of any views your Committee
might have following this set of hearings - or, indeed, otherwise. We are
clear that whatever its precise nature such a body should, firstly, always
makes its findings public; secondly, report to Parliament annually and,
thirdly, influence public debate upon these issues. My own current
inclination is to think that in the long term this would be better done
through non-statutory rather than statutory arrangements. However, I want to
ensure that a final decision is taken on a considered basis which takes
account of the views of this Select Committee and others. For this reason,
I am minded later this month to make a further order to extend the statutory
life of the Firearms Consultative Committee for a period of two years. We
believe there is much useful work it can undertake during this period. We
will, of course, be taking this opportunity to review the present membership
of the FCC, but we do not intend to make radical changes to its broad
composition. We think it would be wrong to pre-judge the outcome as between
statutory and non-statutory, which we will effectively do if we did not
continue the existence of the FCC before 31 January this year, which is why
we intend to extend it for a further two years. Before proceeding with this
Order, I would be very happy to reflect further on any thoughts which you or
your Committee may have on the way forward. We think the continuing role of
such a body is very important.
376. Thank you, Minister. I am sure that will be of interest well
beyond the walls of this room. Do feel free to make copies of that statement
available to the members of the press that are here.
(Mr Clarke) Thank you very much indeed. I will do that.
377. I am sure it will be of assistance to them. Do you have an
open mind about some wider - what we call - non-shooting representation on the
FCC - possibly from those organisations principally concerned with the leisure
and recreational use of the countryside? I am thinking about, perhaps, the
National Trust or the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
(Mr Clarke) We are very much mindful of that. I think one of the
criticisms that could be made of the way the FCC worked from its inception was
that it was not able, for a variety of reasons - perfectly understandably -
to bring a range of different interests together. One of the reasons why I
am convinced that to have a body of this kind is important is to ensure that
it can help in bringing the various interests together in various ways -
whether it is local government, organisations, as you say, such as the
National Trust, or particular organisations concerned with the implications
of shooting. One of the reasons why I am slightly concerned about a strict
statutory framework for the indefinite future is that such a statutory
framework can sometimes be over-rigid, and it is important to acknowledge that
different interests can move forward. However, the answer is yes, there is
very much an open mind.
378. Presumably you will bear in mind the provisions of the
Countryside Bill which is due to be published next month, because what that
intends to do in terms of opening up the countryside will have an effect on
those who shoot, both for pleasure and in the course of their work.
(Mr Clarke) Absolutely. Interestingly, I had a meeting with the
Health & Safety Executive the other day about these issues because the
implications of open access to the countryside for the way in which shooting
is regulated in those areas is very significant, and that is one of the
reasons for ensuring that we have a framework within which the best way of
achieving that can be properly developed.
Mr Winnick
379. Just briefly: I do not know if you have the membership of the
Firearms Consultative Committee before you, as I have, which has been supplied
by the organisation? Not to worry, Minister.
(Mr Clarke) I have it in mind but not in precise terms.
380. The question I want to ask is, when you say "We do not intend
to make radical changes in its broad composition", and I have heard what you
have said to the Chairman a moment ago, but do you feel, at the moment, it is
somewhat too much in composition of the shooting lobby (to use a broad terms)
rather than those who have different viewpoints?
(Mr Clarke) I think that is a fair point, and that is one of the
reasons why the Home Secretary, when he nominated additional people to this
earlier in its life, did try and bring in a wider range. I think there is
some weight in what you say. That said, I think it is important to involve
the shooting lobby very fully in it because they do have very good
relationships with those who are preoccupied with shooting and are active in
shooting. That is one of the reasons why I responded as I did to the Chairman
when he asked the question, because I think a slightly broader remit would be
positive. The choice that we face, at the moment, is do we before 31 January
extend the existence of the statutory committee or not? That is why I have
taken the view, subject to what you have to say, that we should continue the
arrangements until we are clear what would be the best form of replacement.
I said two years in what I said to the Chairman a moment ago, but there were
arguments, fairly well-balanced, on whether we should do it for just a year,
do it for eighteen months, or do it for two years, or whatever. It seemed to
me, before deciding what the new form was, that two years was the right period
of time.
381. Of course the shooting lobby should be included, as you say,
otherwise it would be unbalanced, it is just a question of how far it would
be possible to have a more representative body reflecting, to some extent at
least, public opinion in the country.
(Mr Clarke) What I am very keen to achieve is a body which has all
interests there, and what I do not think is helpful is for it to become a
quasi ideological division between those who are pro-shooting and those who
are against shooting. I think the kinds of suggestions made by the Chairman
about interests such as the National Trust, or, as I say, local government,
or other groups or health and safety interests, or whatever, is the right way
to seek to broaden, but that is precisely one of the issues we want to
consider very carefully when looking at a long-term replacement for this, and
on which we will very much welcome yours and others' views.
Mr Linton
382. Just a supplementary on that. I was rather concerned to hear
Mr Penn say just now that the FCC was neither consulted, nor, indeed, offered
any comment on either of the two handgun laws in 1997. It did strike me
rather, what is the purpose of a Firearms Consultative Committee if it either
does not want to or is not considered appropriate to give evidence when there
is firearms legislation?
(Mr Clarke) I cannot speak for what did or did not happen in 1997, but
what I said when I met the committee after I was appointed to this job was
that I believed it was important that the committee was consulted on future
legislation as it moves forward. Indeed, as I think you will probably be
aware they have expressed views about the future of legislation in this
particular area, to which I have assured them - and through you, perhaps, I
can offer the same assurance - that we will listen very carefully before
formulating the form of legislation desirable, following your report on the
various issues brought forward. The intention of keeping the committee, and
the assurance I have given them, is to listen seriously to what their thoughts
and views are on the various options which are open to us.
Mr Howarth
383. Minister, the Chairman of the FCC has told us that they do
work together very well and many of their recommendations are unanimous. Is
there not a risk that if you seek to broaden the basis of the membership of
the FCC too broadly all you will end up with is either platitudinous
recommendations or, worse still, a recipe for paralysis?
(Mr Clarke) I certainly do not think either is true. I agree that the
key issue is the efficiency and effectiveness of the committee as a working
body. The implication of your question, from that point of view, I accept.
However, I think it is also important that the committee should be seen to
have a genuine purchase on the various range of issues which is of concern for
the future development of shooting and, indeed, the regulation of firearms in
this country. I think there are important bodies and interests in that which
it would be beneficial to have involved in the discussion. I have to say from
the dialogue I have had with organisations about this - and, as I said to Mr
Linton, I come as a newcomer to this - I see no sense of people wanting to
work in an obstructive way; on the contrary, I have felt that all
organisations around want to be positive in the way that they work together
on the issues. The concession I would make to your point is that if it were
the case that paralysis, in some sense, was setting in, by the inability to
get agreement, then it would be necessary to look at the situation again.
Certainly I do not see any evidence of that at this stage.
Chairman: Can we turn now to public safety issues.
Mr Winnick
384. Minister, in the useful memorandum that you were kind enough
to send to us it does say, on page 31 in the fourth paragraph, which I read:
"Nor would the Government wish to encourage any notion that a perceived `right
to bear arms' (which you rightly put in quotes) overrules the duties of gun
owners towards the safety of their fellow citizens and the wider public
interest." The question I want to put to you is, is there any right to bear
arms in this country?
(Mr Clarke) I do not think there is so much a right to bear arms as
I think that the state needs a very, very powerful reason to inhibit people
pursuing leisure pursuits in a variety of ways which may be seen to be
distasteful or difficult in relation to society as a whole. For the state to
say "You shall not do this because we, the state, decide that you, an
individual group, shall not do it" requires a very powerful reason.
Obviously, in the case of firearms that powerful reason could be the issue of
safety that may arise. That is why I think the state is entirely justified
in assuring itself that firearms are used only in a safe way. I think that
is what led to the legislation we had in the past. However, I do not think
it is desirable to say that because we do not think this is a nice thing the
state should simply say you cannot do this, unless there are, as I say, very
powerful arguments against it. I do not think that a powerful argument has
been adduced in the case of many of the aspects of shooting as a recreation
with which we are familiar, including the aspects of shooting as a necessity
of life in the rural community in some circumstances.
385. One of the witnesses who gave evidence to us (who was very
informative, however one may disagree with his views) said, in fact, that the
right to bear arms, to a large extent, was started to be undermined in 1920
for reasons which are in the Home Office paper. That is a fact, is it not,
Minister?
(Mr Clarke) Yes, it is. I think the key test, as I said before, is
safety, and that is the issue. Unless there is a clear safety argument which
is adduced to prevent people, as I say, engaging in either shooting as a sport
or shooting in the way of their business - for example, in agriculture - then
I myself do not think the state should say "We simply rule this out".
386. As regards air weapons, which you will be asked questions
about later on, can I just ask about statistics? There does seem to be a
steady, year-on-year, increase from 4,813 recorded offences in 1988 to 7,506
in 1997, which amounts to an increase of some 56 per cent. Does that worry
you?
(Mr Clarke) I do not think it is a healthy development, but does it
worry me? No, unless, as I say, there is a clear indication that there are
safety implications emerging as a result of that increase which are dangerous
to society or communities more generally, and I do not believe that such
evidence exists. If you ask me my prejudice, my prejudice is - not speaking
as a Home Office Minister - that I think it is a shame that use has increased
in these weapons. I think it would be desirable for it to go down. Do I
think the state should play that role, other than through a general education
programme in these areas? No, I do not, unless, as I say, safety were clearly
demonstrated to be at risk.
387. That is your view as a Minister?
(Mr Clarke) The first part of my view is as an individual - ie, it is
undesirable for that increase to take place which you have described. My
second view was that of a Minister, that the state should not take the power
to stop that happening unless there were clear safety issues which were
identified and which needed to be addressed.
388. What risk do you believe is posed to public safety by legally
held firearms following the legislation passed by the previous government and
by the present one?
(Mr Clarke) I believe the fundamental risk to public safety in
relation to firearms arises from illegally held rather than legally held
firearms. I think that is the issue upon which we need to focus. I do not
think there is significant evidence that legally held firearms in this country
provide a significant risk to public safety.
389. Are you concerned that recorded crimes with handguns appears
not to have fallen in the past two years, despite the ban which took place in
1998?
(Mr Clarke) I am only concerned in the general sense that I welcome
all crime reductions, including reductions in crime with handguns. The
legislation following Dunblane was not intended to attack that particular
problem, and in that sense I do not feel there was a target of the legislation
- ie, to reduce the use of handguns in crime - which was not being fulfilled.
In general, of course, I think it is desirable that all the lines of use of
weapons in crime should be going down rather than be static or going up.
390. There is some merit, is there not, in the argument of those
who were opposed to what was done following Dunblane, who say, in effect, that
a lot of illegal guns have always been held and there has been no change, and
that the greatest danger to the public is precisely those firearms held by
criminals who obviously are intent to use them for reasons which are perfectly
clear to us.
(Mr Clarke) I think that the illegal issue is the central issue in the
thrust of your questions, Mr Winnick, around crime, and I think it is
appropriate to say "How effectively are we dealing with illegally held
weapons?" That is an issue which certainly preoccupies me - how well we are
dealing with that and whether we could do better with it. I do not think I
feel the same level of concern about legally held firearms as I do about
illegally held firearms.
391. Which leads to the obvious question: what is the Government's
position in trying to deal with this clearly very serious problem, which has
faced all governments, namely illegally held firearms?
(Mr Clarke) I believe the central issue is the establishment of the
register, which we have talked about before and about which your Committee has
asked questions before. I think the central element (and indeed I think this
applies to other areas of crime) is the establishment of a strong, clear and
accurate database which can then be used to track down and identify what is
not held within the law. I give a great priority - and from the reports I
read of your Committee before Christmas I believe your Committee does too -
to establishing a proper database of weapons, because I believe that that will
be the key weapon to reduced levels of possession of illegally held firearms.
392. Is not one of the problems - perhaps going wider than our
present inquiry but which is very much linked - that amongst a certain number
of criminal elements there is a status in carrying guns as previously there
was in carrying knives? This is a very disturbing trend, is it not?
(Mr Clarke) I do not know - and perhaps you can put me straight on
this - of evidence that that is an increasing trend.
393. There is a trend, however.
(Mr Clarke) I do not know of evidence to that effect, but perhaps you
can put me straight on that if that is the case. This question of status that
you are referring to, of people feeling "big" by possessing a gun in the same
way as a knife, I am not aware that that is an increasing trend as such. If
that were so I would be concerned, but I believe the way to address the
general issue of guns in our society is through educational means. I think
that any parent will be aware of the extent to which guns play a more and more
important part in the culture of the society, for young people in particular,
and I think contesting that is important.
394. I am wondering how far education could overcome the feeling
of some criminal, and, clearly, potentially criminal, elements who believe
that holding a gun of one kind or another is a status symbol of, as you say,
how "big" they are amongst their peers.
(Mr Clarke) I am certainly ready to look at that point, but, as I say,
I am not myself aware - though maybe I should be - of evidence that that is
an increasing rather than a stable or decreasing trend.
395. The memorandum which you circulated, Minister, expresses
concern about the growth of the gun culture in the country and states a wish
to curb any such development. Do you feel that the shooting community in any
way has some responsibility of fostering the gun culture in society?
(Mr Clarke) I think it has a major responsibility (which, actually,
I think it acknowledges) to inhibit the development of the gun culture in
society. I think the main way in which they have to do that is to demonstrate
that the use of guns can only be legitimate in a regulated way which reflects
all the various safety issues which have been set down. My experience is, and
I emphasise it is short-term, that I believe that the shooting community, as
a whole, does take this responsibility seriously and does seek to inhibit and
attack those who try and promote a culture of use of guns without those
controls and regulations. I believe that they positively recognise that it
is damaging to the sport of the shooting, in the case of sport, or to the use
of guns in the case of livelihoods in rural areas, if any idea that a gun
culture was about grew, and I think they positively try and inhibit that as
organisations.
396. It would be true to say, would it not, that the shooting
lobby (again, using the broad term rather than in a derogatory sense, in any
way) very much vigorously opposed the legislation following Dunblane
introduced at the time, and then even more so what the present Government did?
(Mr Clarke) I believe that is indeed the case, though, again, I think,
within what you call the shooting lobby there was a variety of opinions about
this issue and the fundamental issue which was around about the concern of the
government legislation at the time (which I, personally, very strongly
supported and voted for) was the idea that the state ought not get involved
in this area, plus a doubt about the effectiveness of the legislation in terms
of the safety issues which have been talked about. I do not think that the
opposition, which you rightly referred to, came from the view that it was
desirable in the UK society to stimulate a gun culture. What I am trying to
say, Mr Winnick, is that I see the thrust of your questions and I understand
where they are coming from, and I, myself, am not a shooter nor have ever shot
a gun, nor do I have friends who are shooters - it is not a part of my
culture, as it were, in that it is not something that I find particularly
attractive - but I do not think the charge against the shooting lobby that
they are about promoting gun culture is correct. I do not think that is the
correct description of the vast majority of them. There may be individuals
in that area but I do not think that is a fair description of where they are
as organisations.
397. You have also agreed, have you not, that the shooting lobby,
at large, did oppose the restrictions which have occurred following Dunblane?
(Mr Clarke) That is my understanding, yes.
Chairman
398. Minister, you will be aware that the Firearms Consultative
Committee made a proposal that there should be a year-long, centrally funded
study of all illegal weapons which come into the possession of the police,
Customs and Excise, or whoever. They think that that would be a very
worthwhile exercise, perhaps done on a regional basis but, importantly, done
by a dedicated team so they bring the same judgments to bear across the
country. Are you able to react to that?
(Mr Clarke) My only reaction is that I think it is a very good idea,
it has a lot to commend it and we are actively looking at it.
Chairman: Splendid.
Mr Malins
399. Minister, statistics - which can mislead as well as inform.
We are led to believe that crime committed with air weapons has been
increasing over the years, but you told Parliament, I think, in December that
recorded violent crime in which air weapons were reported to have been used
dropped steadily from 1989 right the way through to 1998. Is that right?
(Mr Clarke) I believe that is correct, yes.
400. From 1,940 such crimes in 1989 to 1500-odd nearly ten years
later.
(Mr Clarke) I have not got the statistics you are referring to in
front of me, but with that qualification I believe you are accurately
describing the statistics.
401. There has been big changes in the system for counting the
statistics for criminal offences in 1998, have there not? Can you tell us why
they have been made and what effect they are going to have on our ability to
spot continuity?
(Mr Clarke) There has been a real difficulty about the whole basis of
police statistics for a long period of time. The first difficulty has been
comparative bases of statistics across different forces throughout the
country, where different forces have used different bases for counting
statistics. The second difficulty has been the definitions of what is
recorded crime and in what circumstances does a crime count as a recorded
crime or not, where quite different practices have been operating in different
parts of the country. That is why the Home Secretary decided, with the
support of ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities, to move on to a
basis which was comparable across the country and where people knew where they
were. That is running through every category of crime, and that is why we
have made the changes which you are referring to and which we are developing
over a period of time. It is difficulty, as any researcher in criminology
will confirm, I think, to be clear on what is the best basis for statistical
assessment - what is the ground line in the case of crimes, since there are
so many subjective judgments involved in what is a crime and what is not a
crime. We are trying to get a comparative basis so that we can discuss it in
a more intelligent way. Incidentally, I believe that is something the Select
Committee has been pressing for for some time, and rightly so.
402. It is going to make it jolly hard, is it not, to identify
trends over time and might make it impossible to evaluate the effects of the
pistol ban?
(Mr Clarke) Obviously, with any change of statistics there is a
discontinuity at the point of the change which makes comparisons more
difficult. However, as you know, there are statistical techniques for
addressing it, by looking at the comparisons between the streams up to the
point of change and the streams after the point of change. We certainly want
to make that happen. For example, the statistics that were published before
Christmas in these areas were published side-by-side - the old basis with the
statistics on the new basis - in order that there could be some form of
comparison. I cannot dispute your central point, however, that any change in
the basis leads to more difficulties in doing comparisons over time than would
otherwise have been the case. We think it is more important to establish a
consistent and coherent basis to the system, and we thought that was
necessary.
403. On this point of crime committed with air rifles increasing,
do you not agree with me that this may or may not be the case given that we
have had a change in statistical methods, which now includes all cases of
criminal damage and not just those of over œ20, as used to be the case, which
can make comparisons unreal?
(Mr Clarke) I agree with you that the qualification that you have
expressed in the statistics is important to take into account when looking at
the way figures have moved, but I do not believe it is true to say there is
no meaningful information we can get out of this situation.
404. Fair enough. A couple of last questions. The use of
shotguns in crime is falling, is it not?
(Mr Clarke) That is what the evidence shows at the moment, yes.
405. Finally, I know you accept the importance of education so far
as young people are concerned, but would you accept my general principle that
the real problem is not the lawful shooters, of whom there are many thousands
in this country, but the criminals and the illegal guns? That is our real
problem, and it is a mistake to hammer the former when we should be hammering
the latter.
(Mr Clarke) As I said, fundamentally I do think that is right, and it
is right to look at the illegal use of weapons in terms of crime. However,
I also think it is important to have a proper regulated system for the legal
use of guns. Obviously, the better regulated the system for the legal use of
guns then the more difficult it is for guns to slip over that line between
legal and illegal, which is why the state - in my view rightly - takes upon
itself the job of regulating that properly. I think it is important and, in
many ways, the more it is strengthened and clarified the better.
Mr Malins: Thank you very much.
Mr Stinchcombe
406. Minister, when Mr Winnick gave you some figures about
offences with air weapons at the beginning of his questions you said that you
were not worried by them. Those figures which showed an increase from 4,813
to, I think the figure given was, 7,506 in 1997 - over a nine-year period -
were figures to do with reported crimes. Indeed, the figures for 1998/99 show
us that there were 8,665 reported crimes. Notwithstanding the comments made
by Mr Malins, which have to be taken into account, as to the statistical basis
upon which these figures are collected, surely no Minister in the Home Office
can fail to be concerned by a virtual doubling in reported offences with a
single weapon over an eleven-year period?
(Mr Clarke) Firstly, no Home Office Minister can be but concerned
about any increase in crime with any weapon - whatever it is. I agree with
you. As I said in answer to Mr Winnick, however, I think that the question
of the extent to which legislation would help deal with this problem is a very
major question. I am looking forward very much to the recommendations that
you intend to make about air weapons, to see how that moves forward. Yes, I
do have a general concern about any increase in crime with weapons of any
description, that is right.
407. Do you know whether the majority of these offences caused by
air weapons are caused by air weapons which are illegally or legally held?
(Mr Clarke) I do not myself know the answer to that question, as you
speak, but I can let you have a note on any information we have. I do not
know if Mr Widdecombe has any information on that to hand.
(Mr Widdecombe) Well, by definition they will probably be legal
insofar as they are not controlled or certificated. There may be some which
were donated wrongly to somebody under 14, but, by and large, because they are
not certificated they are legal.
408. They are legally in circulation?
(Mr Widdecombe) Yes.
Mr Stinchcombe: Thank you very much.
Mr Linton
409. Further on the same point, Minister, did I understand you
earlier to say that as far as legally held weapons were concerned you thought
they presented no significant risk to public safety?
(Mr Clarke) I do not recall using those words, but taking it through
I do not think they do present a significant risk to public safety, as we
stand at the moment, although I believe that we have to be continually
vigilant in looking at the way they are regulated.
410. Is that related simply to the use of weapons in crime? If we
just look at the criminal damage, there is a lot of use of air weapons - as
I understand it two-thirds of firearms offences are caused by air weapons -
and it is almost entirely criminal damage.
(Mr Clarke) Let me put it like this, Mr Linton. I think there is a
case for bringing air weapons within the regulated system more explicitly -
I think there is a strong case for that - and it is a matter you will be
considering as to how we should operate. That is for a variety of different
reasons. However, I think there is a case for having consistency in the way
the law operates in relation to different types of weapon. I think one of the
problems about the current legislative framework is that it is patchy in the
way it operates in different areas. However, when you ask me the question
directly "Do I believe that actually these weapons present a substantial and
significant threat to public safety", I cannot say that I do feel that that
is a major concern. I think the far bigger concern is the whole issue of the
illegal use of weapons which we have talked about before and where I think we
need to perform better.
411. What I am inviting you to do is draw a distinction between
the use of weapons in crime, where I think it is common ground that it is not
air weapons that are mainly used in crime, or cause the problem, and the
problem in the use of air weapons mainly by 17- and 18-year olds in the summer
holidays on many housing estates. Although it is not a problem of crime in
the sense of robbery or burglary, it is, nevertheless, a considerable problem
to people living in those areas.
(Mr Clarke) I accept the distinction you are making, and I was talking
about crime in the sense you described it in the first part of the question.
I think it would be highly desirable to have a situation where the type of use
of air weapons which you are describing was inhibited more effectively by the
law, which is one of the reasons why my personal view is that there is a case
for having a more coherent system across the whole range.
412. You do not think it would be impractical to have some kind of
certification system?
(Mr Clarke) I think there would be very significant practical issues,
and that is one of the reasons why it has not happened in the past. Do I
think, ultimately, it would be impractical? I think it depends upon the
precise scheme that can be developed. There are significant practical
problems in doing it, which is why it has not happened in the past, but, on
the other hand, I acknowledge, as you are implying in your line of
questioning, that there are also significant benefits in being able to put
such a system in place. It is that balance between the benefits which you are
implying and the practicalities of the system which we have to weigh up in
deciding where to go.
Mr Howarth
413. Minister, you explained to Mr Malins why it was that you had
introduced changes to the recording of crime in order to reduce inconsistency
between different police forces, but you did not explain why you changed the
calendar date for reporting, from the calendar year to the financial year.
Can you explain that change?
(Mr Clarke) There is always an argument about years and dates, but the
central reason at the time was to ensure that you had comparability between
the various targets and approaches that are being set for police forces,
basically on the basis of the financial year because the is the legal year
that operates, and we wanted to ensure data was collected in a way that was
consistent with that so that we could monitor more effectively the way in
which different parts of the criminal justice system were operating in
relation to that data. That is the fundamental reason.
414. It was not to tie-in with calculations of budgets and looking
at the figures to coincide with budgetary implications?
(Mr Clarke) It is an interesting debate to go down the whole approach
of the role of targeting budgets, and so on, in the way we are trying to
develop more efficient public service, but it certainly is the case that I
think there is a strong argument for aligning budget years, target years,
performance years and data in a way that we can measure more effectively how
different parts of the public sector are performing.
415. Minister, can I tell you that it came as a surprise to us
that the changes had been introduced. It was only in the last few days that
we have discovered, on this Committee, that the change had been introduced.
I understand there has been no public consultation about it, particularly with
those who, in this debate on firearms, are very concerned about the accuracy
of the statistical evidence upon which we, as law makers, are making
decisions.
(Mr Clarke) I may be talking at cross purposes, and I do not mean to
be, if I am doing so, but the data that we are publishing and on which we have
moved forward was decided more than a year ago - and I am speaking from memory
now.
416. Consultation took place at the time?
(Mr Clarke) It certainly did with organisations such as ACPO and the
APA, across a wide range of opinion there. I am exercised about what you say
about the information to your Committee and I will look at the situation and
establish what the time-scales were and let you have a note on that.
417. I would be grateful, and it is not a point of simple,
academic interest, because there are those who might well suggest that the
effect of this change in the data that has been recorded on crime is to make
comparison with the conditions that applied before the introduction of the
framework legislation introduced by this and the previous governments very
difficult to make. Those who are extremely cynical might suggest that it has
been deliberately done in order to muddy the water so that it is not possible
to see what effect the ban on handguns has had on crime.
(Mr Clarke) I know that you, Mr Howarth, are not cynical in your
assessment and motives in any of these areas.
418. Indeed.
(Mr Clarke) However, I do think it would be extraordinarily cynical
to suggest that the Government has skewed the whole of its data reporting on
crime throughout the whole of the criminal justice system in order to bypass
some concerns that some of the shooting lobby might have. The fact is we are
trying to get to a consistent basis across the whole of the system, for the
reasons that you implied and I accepted about the questions of performance and
targeting. The idea that it was pushed through in some kind of surreptitious
way to hoodwink the shooting lobby, or anybody else, I really think is
mistaken.
419. I am encouraged by that response and, also, by other
responses you have made, Minister, but you will be acutely aware that this
Committee in its deliberations is under strong pressure from certain quarters
to persuade you to introduce Draconian further legislation on air weapons and
shotguns, in particular, and that it has not helped a proper and calm
assessment of these matters if people are going to bandy around hugely
increased crime figures which are not based on reality but are based on the
change in statistical arrangements.
(Mr Clarke) Two or three points, Mr Howarth. Firstly, I think we
would all oppose Draconian legislation, in whatever form it arose. Secondly,
I agree with that there is always an issue in statistics and arguments for
legislative change, and, as I said to Mr Malins in his earlier question, I
think the question of how data sequences work is part of that debate but is
changed by the way in which we change the basis. I acknowledge that point.
However, thirdly, I think it is fair and legitimate to consider - for the
reasons identified by Mr Linton in his question - whether some form of tighter
legal regulation of air weapons ought to be taken into account. We have been
very careful to say, as a Government, that we are relatively open-minded on
this point and we are looking to see what the FCC has said - and they have
made their view clear - and we will very much be looking to see what the
Select Committee says on this matter, and to look at opinion right across the
whole range, because there is a difficult balance between the desire of
inhibiting the use of firearms in a way that can be dangerous and anti-social,
as a minimum - in the way Mr Linton has described - and the practicality of
putting the proposition into place. That is the balance and judgment we have
to come to.
Mr Howarth: Can I thank you very much for that comprehensive reply,
Minister, because I think you are going to need to be clear to the public
about the way in which those statistics are now being dealt with and. In
particular, in respect of air weapons, I hope you will also take into account
that the previous figures, which excluded any criminal damage of less than
œ20, need to be considered in two respects: not only in the removal of that
exemption now, which obviously has inflated the number of offences, but, also,
inflation over the period since 1988 itself has naturally increased the likely
number even further still. Minister, to move one other subject which I
promised the Chairman of the FCC I would raise with you, in their report they
did suggest to you - agreeing with you, as they do, that illegal weapons is
a real problem - they should undertake research into the origin ----
Chairman: Mr Howarth, I think you were out of the room when we put this
point to the Minister and he said they are actively looking at it.
Mr Howarth
420. I am sorry. The Minister is actively looking at it?
(Mr Clarke) Yes, we are and just to say, Mr Chairman, on Mr Howarth's
first point, I take inflation as a valid point, and œ20 is an issue as to what
that means. However, I do want to place on record that any government would
have to be concerned even if it was small amounts of damage caused by guns
being shot, of whatever kind. That is a matter of concern and something we
would want to bear down on, and I am sure all Members of the Committee would
agree with that.
Mrs Dean
421. Can I clarify one thing? Does the figure of 7,506 recorded
incidents of air weapons in 1997 equate exactly to the 4,813 in 1988? In
other words, was there a change of the basis ----
(Mr Clarke) As I understand it they are on the same basis.
422. So the change is since 1997 and, therefore, there was a
dramatic rise between 1988 and 1997 on the same basis.
(Mr Clarke) As I understand it, that is right.
Chairman
423. Mr Clarke, can I ask you, as far as illegal weapons are
concerned, whether the Department has made any assessment of the use at ports
of entry of low X-ray equipment, for the purposes of detecting weapons, drugs
and people?
(Mr Clarke) I cannot tell you that actually.
424. Would you like to give us a note on that?
(Mr Clarke) I am very happy to give you a note about it.
425. Thank you very much indeed. Can we turn now please to the
existing controls and procedures. You will be aware that one of the findings
of the Cullen inquiry was that had the police fully and properly applied the
regulations in place at the time that Thomas Hamilton would not have had his
licence renewed. You will also probably remember that something similar was
said in the case of the tragedy at Hungerford. Can you say in which way the
Home Office is able to monitor the consistency with which police forces apply
the controls or is this left in practice almost entirely to the Inspectorate
of Constabulary?
(Mr Clarke) This is a very important and powerful point. The way in
which monitoring takes place is, as you say, through Her Majesty's
Inspectorate of Constabulary. In this case it is reinforced by the ACPO
guidelines which police authorities have to follow in relation to the
operation of these areas and it is the job of the Inspectorate to report on
how effectively controls are being carried through. We believe that a central
element in the approach is the national register which I mentioned earlier and
we are not in a position to monitor properly because we do not have a national
register. There is no doubt whatsoever that there have been different
practices operating in different police forces throughout the country in ways
which can be very damaging to our ability to understand exactly what is
happening and to monitor properly what is taking place. Fundamentally the
weapon for this, as you imply in your question, is the Inspectorate of
Constabulary rather than any separate monitoring arrangements.
426. You mentioned the ACPO guidelines. We have been told that
the Home Office guidelines are out-of-date and they have been added to rather
like extending a greenhouse at the back of a garden. Would it concern you if
the ACPO guidelines were out of kilter with those issued by the Home Office?
Do you have any plans to update the Home Office guidelines?
(Mr Clarke) Our publication is called Firearms Law Guidance and the
police and we are currently updating that. The document sets out legal and
policy issues for the police in the interests of national consistency and that
work is taking place. It is taking more time than we would like but the
purpose is to make sure that the guidance is as useful as possible. ACPO has
been holding meetings at both national and regional level to ensure that
individual licensing officers in forces share information and adopt common
strategies. HMIC has expressed a concern that licensing should not be
detached from the work of the Police Service for the reasons we were talking
about earlier and it is proper that licensing officers should build up a good
level of professional knowledge and specialised experience. HMIC are
currently working on improving their procedures for inspecting firearms
licensing departments within constabularies. So there is a series of
initiatives at Home Office and HMIC level and through ACPO which are designed
to dovetail together and be consistent in the way you are implying but I think
the thrust of your question that it would be beneficial if that were
accelerated is a correct thrust and one which I accept. We do need to
accelerate the work that we do in that area.
427. Just so I have not misunderstood you at all, you take the
point that the Home Office guidelines and ACPO guidelines ought to fit
together?
(Mr Clarke) Absolutely.
428. You mentioned, Mr Clarke, the vexed matter of the register.
We have a note from Assistant Commissioner Hart this morning (he promised to
write to us after an earlier evidence session) saying that at best it would
be up and running by the summer of 2001. You will obviously be aware of the
long number of years that this proposal has been under discussion by ACPO.
It was first raised by ACPO as long ago as August 1996. For some reason they
reconstituted that Committee in March 1998 although I understand that they did
not meet until September 1998. Do you get the impression that ACPO is
dragging its feet over this?
(Mr Clarke) I accept the phrase "dragging its feet" but I do not
accept the phrase "ACPO is dragging its feet". What I believe is the case is
that we the Home Office and the Police Service as a whole have been less
effective than we need to be in developing the use of databases across a wide
range of different approaches. If you look at the introduction of information
and communication technology into the police force in a variety of different
ways, of which the firearms register is only one, the fact that we have had
a negotiated process between the 43 police authorities and police forces on
the one hand, the Home Office on the other and also the collective
organisations of ACPO, APA and HMIC has led to a process of introducing
technology into the police which in my opinion has been less rapid than it
needed to be. That problem and weakness in our system that we are currently
taking very active steps to address has had its impact on this particular
issue of the database for the register of firearms certificates. So I do not
think the implication of your question that ACPO are in a sense holding back
and dragging their feet because they do not think this is desirable is right,
but the criticism that the system has not been as fast as it needs to be in
this area (and others) to develop proper use of information and communications
technology including this database is a fair criticism but that is because the
system has not been effective in the way that it has taken decisions in those
areas.
429. Thank you for that, Minister, but what that national database
is going to show up among other things, is it not, is evidence that may
support accusations or suspicions of inconsistency of application for the
certificates. The 43 separate police forces would not be human if they did
put their hands in the air to volunteer for that.
(Mr Clarke) But that point, Mr Corbett, as you know from your much
better experience of this whole area than I, is a comment which could be made
legitimately about a whole range of areas of consistency across the different
police forces in different areas. It is certainly true in this area of the
firearms certificates. It is also true in relation to the number of other
areas related to technology and databases. What I was trying to do, perhaps
illegitimately but I think legitimately, was to say that it is wrong to state
in my view that ACPO is trying to hold back work in relation to firearms
certificates. It is more accurate to say that there is a real problem in
getting a common technological means of common databases across the whole
country right across the field including the area of firearms.
430. I think you have been refreshingly frank about that. Just
finally on this particular point, are you minded to agree a deadline for the
staged introduction of this database?
(Mr Clarke) You correctly said that summer 2001 is what we currently
expect. I am not prepared to commit myself to that deadline absolutely here
but I could well understand if the Committee sought a deadline that was moving
forward.
431. Are you prepared to ask ACPO to commit themselves to a
deadline?
(Mr Clarke) It is not so much ACPO as the whole of the Police Service
and ACPO and the forces.
432. They speak for the Police Service.
(Mr Clarke) One of the difficulties in the whole of the ICT point -
I was discussing this yesterday with colleagues - is we have no deadlines so
things have slipped all the way down the line in many of these different areas
including this and what we have to do is establish a system of getting
deadlines that can be respected. I well understand the point you are making
that it would be very good to have a deadline in this area but I am not
prepared to say to you today, "Yes, I commit myself to this deadline." I am
saying I can understand why you would think it reasonable that there should
be a deadline.
433. We have had a lot of evidence suggesting at the very least
that there should be a rationalisation of the firearms law which in many
instances is a hotch-potch. Are you sympathetic to that point to tidy it up?
(Mr Clarke) I am very sympathetic to it. There is a whole series of
issues about ages and styles and systems where some consolidation would be
very beneficial. The ideal way of doing that in my view would be through a
new Firearms Act but that is of course subject to all the issues of
parliamentary time and all the rest of it and where it finds its place in the
priorities. Failing that, consolidating the existing law with the help of the
Law Commission might be an attractive option in the case of some different
areas. Obviously the superior option would be to get some primary legislation
which would be consistent right across the range.
434. You told us, Minister, that the firearms rules of 1998 are
aimed at identifying the suitability of a person to hold firearms rather than
licensing the firearms themselves. Are you able to say how that is working?
(Mr Clarke) I think that goes back to your initial question about the
effectiveness of the process. I do not consider that we yet have enough data
to say to you it is working well or not well in relation to particular
geographical parts of the country or particular forces. I do think the whole
process has been highlighted by the actions taken by this Government since
it came to office and by the processes I describe. Would I feel confident in
saying to you, "This is my assessment?" No, I would not at this stage because
I think that we need a more systematic approach through the Inspectorate and
ACPO and the Home Office before being able say to you hand on heart, "This is
my full assessment of what has been happening."
435. Do you have any thoughts on the suggestion that the licensing
system should be shifted by having matching provisions for both firearms and
shotguns on a single licence?
(Mr Clarke) I think there is a case for that in the general context
we have talked about but, as I described in my responses to Mr Linton, I think
there are really quite serious practical issues to be addressed before being
able to say one can do that. There is a case in terms of the logic of
bringing that together but the practical issues are genuinely substantial.
436. When you and I were much younger there were proposals
knocking about for a civilian firearms licensing authority. Is that something
that is still under consideration or has it been rejected?
(Mr Clarke) It is under consideration in the context that everything
is. I certainly do not feel that we are sympathetic to that approach at the
moment because I think it is very important that the police's direct
responsibility for this is retained with the degree of local knowledge and so
on that exists for the situation, provided that we have a proper regulatory
system in the way we have talked about through ACPO and Home Office guidelines
and with the Inspectorate producing a proper approach. You will obviously be
considering whether you want to make recommendations in this area but the
reason why I certainly am prejudiced (and I would say it is the Government's
position at the moment) towards keeping the responsibility with the police is
that we think that that local input and knowledge is very important to the
effective operation of the system provided that we can be confident that it
is being done properly and inspected properly by the devices that we have
established here. I am not convinced that establishing an entirely separate
organisation to do that nationally which would need to have all the local
orientations that are necessary would be as cost efficient or as effective as
a properly regulated system through the police.
437. I think it is the case that the charges involved for both
firearms and shotguns are meant to make that system self-financing?
(Mr Clarke) They are, yes.
Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr Russell on air weapons.
Bob Russell
438. Minister, you have acknowledged today that the amount of
misuse of air weapons has increased and of course we are referring here not
just to criminal damage but also attacks on people, pets and wild animals.
Did I detect from your answer, though, a degree of complacency within the Home
Office and perhaps this is also reflected in the police forces in tackling
this issue?
(Mr Clarke) I hope you did not. If you did, I think you are wrong.
I do not think it is a trivial issue, I think it is a very serious issue. As
I say, I have never been part of any organisation or approach to shooters in
a way that is at all sympathetic but the questioning started from the point
of view did I see this as a significant threat to crime and that is where I
was saying no I did not think that was the case. But do I think there are
social and other issues related to it which are important? Yes I do.
439. We have been given evidence that it is relatively easy for
young people particularly to obtain these weapons in the first place. Do you
think there should be legislation or restrictions placed on how these weapons
can be acquired in the first place?
(Mr Clarke) Particularly for young people there is a genuine case for
looking at how we might better regulate access to them. I say again the
reason why I perhaps appeared complacent to you, which I would hate to do, is
the fact that I do not think this is a serious issue in terms of the general
crime issues that have been going around. There are other issues which are
important of the type Mr Linton raised in the questions he was putting which
I take extremely seriously but from the straight crime point of view I do not
think the issue is so significant.
440. But you would agree this is a matter of great social
importance for many people particularly, as I say, in urban neighbourhoods
where air weapons are used to attack pets, wild animals and so on?
(Mr Clarke) I agree with that absolutely and with your emphasis on
urban areas. I think it is a particular problem in urban areas.
441. The Firearms Control Committee have recommended a more
vigourous enforcement of existing legislation controlling air weapons to do
with their misuse but is it realistic to expect that this alone will
adequately address the general problem which you and I have just debated?
(Mr Clarke) The issue one has to judge here is the question of the
practicality of a different legal and otherwise regime versus the benefits
which would come from it. That is the balance of judgment that has to be
made. It is certainly the case, as the FCC has indicated, that a more
effective use of the existing law can make a difference. The question which
you are addressing is whether it will make enough of a difference to mean it
was not worth introducing a change in the law. I am saying my mind is
relatively open on that point but I think that the arguments have to be made
that the potential benefits would in fact flow from a change in the law.
442. Do you think there should be a minimum age limit for somebody
for not just ownership but having possession of an air weapon?
(Mr Clarke) I think there is a case for that, yes.
443. Also the size of the weapon, the volume, the power?
(Mr Clarke) I think there is a case for that too, but I come back to
the point, Mr Russell, which I made earlier. I think there is a case for
tighter regulation of air weapons, I think there is a strong case in relation
to age in particular and the examples you have mentioned, but I also think
there is a serious issue on the other side which has to be taken into account
which is the practicality of the regime which could be put into place.
444. Acknowledging, as the Home Office does, the difficulties in
pursuing and prosecuting those who misuse low-powered air weapons, are you
satisfied that the police forces are in fact taking this issue seriously?
(Mr Clarke) I think that relates to the answer to the question which
the Chairman was asking me. I cannot say I am satisfied in the sense that I
do not believe we yet have the full data from across the country for how these
are being moved forward to be able to say, hand on heart, that I am satisfied.
What I am satisfied about is that we are moving steadily towards a better
system of answering the question that you just asked and I think that is a
pre-condition for where we start.
445. Finally, in view of the obvious social concern there is about
the misuse of air weapons, will you be advising chief constables of existing
powers and imploring them to take firm action whenever this is reported in
their neighbourhood?
(Mr Clarke) As I indicated, the Home Office guidelines on all this are
being reworked and brought up to date at the moment and ACPO is having
seminars on these matters now. That is a very effective means, in my view,
of providing the reminding role which you describe.
Mr Stinchcombe
446. Just a few further questions on that, Minister. Firstly, so
far as low-powered air weapons are concerned, we have received evidence of a
child being killed by a low-powered weapon. What are the existing controls
as to their ownership, possession and usage?
(Mr Clarke) I do not want to give a detailed answer and be inaccurate
about it. As I understand it, the position is that they are not within the
same legal framework as other firearms and therefore controls are less. I can
give you a detailed answer in writing to set out precisely what the controls
are. If your point is a debating point, I acknowledge that there is less
control of low-powered weapons than there is of other weapons.
447. The mother of the 13-year-old who died has given us evidence
and suggested that the air weapon classifications should be reviewed by
reference to the experience that she suffered, that all air weapons should be
kept in approved secure and locked cupboards, and also that there should be
a licensing regime for low-powered air weapons. Are those matters which you
would wish to look at?
(Mr Clarke) We are practically looking at them but, as I indicated
earlier, we will be very interested to hear what this Committee has to say on
these matters. I would like to counsel caution in one area. There are a
number of ways in which particular things can be used as weapons to lead to
people's deaths, as we know. I think it is important, as I was implying
earlier, to look at the nature of the individuals who have the weapons rather
than anything else which is one of the reasons I am sympathetic to the point
made by your colleague, Mr Russell, on the question of age in certain areas,
but I think that it is important not to make legislation from one case and it
is important to look at the whole balance of issues that go around use of
weapons, whatever type they are, and crimes that arise out of them.
448. One of the ways in which someone can get killed by reason of
these weapons is when they hold up something with a replica and get shot by
the police.
(Mr Clarke) Yes.
449. Replicas are at the moment sold by unsolicited literature
being sent to households, read by youngsters, sold over the phone to someone
simply saying they are 18. We have seen evidence of that at the last meeting.
Does that seem to you to be a satisfactory state of affairs?
(Mr Clarke) The implication of your question is clear and my own view
is that there is a strong case for tighter regulation of the use of replicas.
450. Not just the use but the way in which they are sold and
advertised?
(Mr Clarke) The whole range of these issues.
451. What about ammunition used by air weapons? Do you see room
for further control over the supply of ammunition and the type of ammunition
supplied?
(Mr Clarke) Again, I certainly think there is room for it. I
certainly think it is something to be considered very, very fully but I think
that the question in all of is the proportionality of what one it doing on the
range between benefits and practicalities which is what I have tried to
describe. I think there is a powerful case for what you are saying. I do not
want you to interpret what I am saying as inimical to the thrust of your
questions but what I think is very important to be sure any changes in the
licensing system and any changes in the legislation in this area can be
effectively introduced and are proportionate in character. I think that is
the important consideration.
452. Just one final question on the practicality issue. The
practical benefit of further controls of ammunition would appear to be that
it would restrict the amount of physical damage that could be done by such a
soft weapon or the harm to an animal.
(Mr Clarke) That is absolutely true. That is a practical advantage
that could arise from legislation in that area.
Mr Winnick
453. Following up my colleague's question, I wonder whether the
Home Office was notified about a case which has been circulated to us by the
mother where on 28 July last year her son aged 13 was killed arising from a
game the boy was playing with his cousin who was 11. As a result of their
playing with an air rifle her son was killed. Are you familiar with that
case, Minister?
(Mr Clarke) The Home Office certainly is and I am familiar with the
description you have given briefly but I have not examined the case in detail.
454. The mother takes the view that much firmer controls are
needed which had they taken place her son would be alive now. It is a very
tragic case, Minister, and quite likely not the only one which has occurred
in recent times.
(Mr Clarke) It is tragic and I am sure it is not the only one and it
certainly strengthens the argument for looking very carefully at what
licensing regime you should have.
455. Would it be right to say that when the Home Office is looking
at the whole subject what the mother has written to us (which obviously the
Clerk will let you have a copy of) will also be taken into account?
(Mr Clarke) I can say absolutely categorically, Mr Winnick, that we
will take very closely into account the specific examples of the misuse of
weapons which have led to tragedies of the kind you mentioned, including the
one in particular you have mentioned and, as I said earlier, in the balance
between benefits and practicalities which we are considering a very powerful
argument is the type of case that you are describing.
Mr Winnick: The Chairman will ask the Clerk to let you have a copy of
that letter.
Mr Howarth
456. Minister, there have been suggestions that shotguns, which
are I believe class 2 firearms, should be dealt with in the same way as class
1 firearms. Although the Home Office has not itself reached a decision on
whether that is desirable or not and the FCC equally has not made up its mind,
you have been kind enough to reveal some of your prejudices so far, so can we
invite you to reveal your prejudices on this one?
(Mr Clarke) I think the issue here really revolves around the issue
of "good reason" to possess or not to possess a particular weapon and the
issue around shotguns is whether there should be a requirement that people do
show good reason for having a shotgun. As you know, the police have concerns
that that ought to be the case. There are possible arguments in public safety
for that to be the case and I think we have to take that very, very seriously
indeed. I do not know if that is revealing a prejudice in any particular
direction but, as I said, the key question for me in all of this is public
safety and I think that the question of the safe use of any shotgun (and
implied in that the person who has it and the need to have it) is a very
important factor.
457. Earlier on you said that you attach great importance to
people in this country being allowed to do that which they wish in as far as
it does not impinge disproportionately on public safety and you were very
strongly of the view that the state should not interfere unless it was really
warranted. May I put it to you that your suggestion that those who wish to
shoot with shotguns should show good reason could well exclude altogether
people living in towns and cities with no rural connection, for example people
like me who enjoy the occasional opportunity to go clay pigeon shooting or
rough shooting with a shotgun. Afterall, what good reason would they have?
(Mr Clarke) Whether they could or not would obviously depend on the
regulation. It is important to emphasise that the Home Office has accepted
for decades now that membership of a relevant practical shooting organisation
should be considered a good reason to possess a shotgun and I think that is
a perfectly reasonable thing to look at. I acknowledge, and you are right to
put the point in this way, that there is a balance here that has to be drawn.
If, for example, you in your recreational activities wish to possess a shotgun
then I think it is perfectly reasonable for you to say, "I wish to pursue this
as a recreation" and that to be considered as a good reason to operate.
458. I should say I do not own a shotgun and I only go shooting by
the very kind invitation of the Tobacco Manufacturers who are a splendid body
who are promoting another sort of freedom in this country. I do register it
in the Register of Members' Interests and I can tell you it is a jolly good
day out and I would very much resent being inhibited from enjoying it.
(Mr Clarke) If I was a member of a shooting organisation I would
resent being twinned with the obvious killers of the tobacco manufacturers in
the way that you are doing!
459. There is a serious point there, Minister. I am not a member
of an organisation and there are many people in a similar position who are not
members of organisations and if you therefore make it a requirement that they
should be members of some organisation you are imposing, I will not say
draconian, more bureaucratic controls over the rights of people to pursue a
sport.
(Mr Clarke) I was not suggesting that the requirement would be that
you do have to be a member of an organisation. I was simply citing the fact
that membership of organisations could be seen as a good reason. I
acknowledge completely that if a good reason criteria were to be established
then it would be necessary to define that good reason in a way that was
widened generally in character so that people could pursue legitimate activity
in a perfectly reasonable way. But it is a very good question implied in what
you say, the fact that shotguns are dangerous things, they can do damage and
there is a case for saying that before having a shotgun you should have good
reason to do so.
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 (?) 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 afterall 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 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-…-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 it is feared most of
these are not being converted and used in crime and 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.
480. And that is the essential difference we are talking about, is
it not?
(Mr Clarke) Yes.
481. The Scottish police force have concerns about the use of
carbines and muzzle-loaded weapons. I do not know what they are. Apparently
the Home Office is dismissing their concerns about proliferation of those
weapons. Do you accept that there are different circumstances and
sensitivities surrounding the issue of controls of firearms in Scotland, for
instance, regarding those weapons?
(Mr Clarke) I am not aware of that being said by the Scottish
Executive, but I will listen to that. It is not an involved matter, as you
know. Certainly, we should look carefully at what the Scottish Executive has
to say about its concerns in relation to these or other categories of weapons,
but I am not aware of any specific dismissal by us or the Scottish Executive
position. I would say generally that I gather there is not a track record of
criminal use of these weapons in Scotland or elsewhere. I am not sure I would
accept there is a qualitatively different position of sensitivity in Scotland
to elsewhere in the UK. I am sure people living around Hungerford would feel
equal concerns to those living around Dunblane. I am not sure there is a
qualitatively different position, but the answer is yes, we will certainly
take seriously the representations of the Scottish Executive.
482. How does the Government seek to ensure that firearms
licensing is enforced in England, Wales and Scotland in the same way?
(Mr Clarke) The real issue here is the different law enforcement
structures which are different in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to
Scotland and the different legal regime which applies. The process that I
have described about Her Majesty's Inspectorate looking at the situation, the
ACPO guidance and so on does not apply in quite the same way in Scotland
because of the different legal framework, but it is the case that the chief
police officers in Scotland are on the FCC and they are also represented on
the ACPO Committees dealing with this, so there is a consistent level of
dialogue between the police forces in Scotland and in England and Wales on
this issue.
483. Having said that, there may be different approaches.
(Mr Clarke) Indeed. One of the issues which I think is difficult for
us to deal with in relation to all of this is that, of course, even within the
43 police forces in England there are different approaches and I talked in my
answer to the Chairman earlier on about why we are trying to develop a better
approach on this and we wish to have a reasonably consistent approach in
Scotland as well, but of course the legal situation is different in Scotland.
484. Firearms legislation in Northern Ireland diverges quite
considerably from the legislation in Great Britain. Will the reform of
firearms legislation in Northern Ireland have any effect on firearms
legislation in Great Britain and is there any prospect of these two different
regimes converging?
(Mr Clarke) We have maintained contact with the Northern Ireland
Office throughout their review of firearms controls and have sought to offer
our experience to them as well as to draw on their experience. It is obvious
that Northern Ireland has always had different and generally stricter controls
on firearms for all the obvious reasons and we respect that. The process of
whether there could be convergence and how it would move forward and how that
would relate to firearms legislation in the Republic of Ireland is a matter
that will need to evolve over time and of course the issues around it fail
into insignificance in comparison with the very major issue of arms
availability across the north, which is obviously a subject of large scale
discussion. We maintain contact with them. We discuss it with them. I
gather the law in Northern Ireland is not the same as the law in Scotland.
We simply remain in dialogue about the situation.
485. And an even bigger issue is obviously Europe. I understand
there is an on-going review of the European Weapons Directive. Does that have
any implications for the present controls in Great Britain?
(Mr Clarke) It may do. The European Union Weapons Directive has
generally sought to set a minimum standard for controls on firearms in Europe
and to help citizens of the Member States move more freely between states with
their firearms, which is a non-trivial point and which the shooting
organisations mentioned generally. I know there are some members of the
Committee who think that freedom of movement within Europe is a difficult
thing to address. There are serious issues there. Our controls on firearms
are stricter than those of most EU countries and there is no question of us
weakening our controls or making changes as a result of the EU situation. The
Directive does allow Member States to set their own level of control on
firearms but with a common understanding of other systems of control. We are
working closely with the European secretariat on its review of the Directive
along with other interested parties in the UK. The difficulty for us in all
of this is we are keen to ensure that unnecessary bureaucracy between the
European states is reduced. I thought other colleagues on the Committee would
agree with that. However, we do not want to see any diminution of our rigid
system of controls and I think that we would prefer to see stricter controls
in other EU countries and to go down that line. There is the standard trade-
off in European Union issues about how we deal with that relationship.
486. In evidence given to us on a previous occasion our controls
were described as a gold standard in the world.
(Mr Clarke) Yes, indeed.
487. Is it not the case that the EU has more to learn from our
controls than maybe we have to learn from the European Union?
(Mr Clarke) I believe that is absolutely the case. I believe there
is every case for saying we want to extend our system more widely rather than
to see things move in another direction.
Mr Singh: Thank you, Minister.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr Clarke. You must come and see us again because
we have finished with five minutes in hand. You have been refreshingly
helpful, you and Mr Widdecombe, and given us a great deal to ponder. Thank
you very much indeed.
