Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180
- 192)
THURSDAY 14 NOVEMBER 2002
EDWARD KING
AND JOHN
BATLEY
180. Comparatively speaking there are far more
people participating in golf, in the millions, far more people
riding bicycles than there are engaged in the sport of shooting.
How can the figures stack up in comparison to the percentages?
(Mr King) It is interesting you should mention that,
in fact shooting is the third biggest participator sport in the
country.
(Mr Batley) One million people minimum.
181. You use golf and bicycle riding as examples,
can you say against golf and bicycle riding comparatively what
are the number of injuries and fatalities per participants in
those two and shooting?
(Mr King) The difficulty is whereas firearms injuries
are likely to be recorded golf injuries are subjective.
182. It depends how serious they are.
(Mr King) The spotlight on golf injuries does not
happen to be as intense as it is on firearms. You know the dog
bites man, man bites dog headline principle does come into play.
When a firearm is used it is a firearm and it is quite rightly
taken seriously, whether it is accidental, intentional or whatever,
when a golf club hits someone because the person is not minding
what the back swing is doing I do not think there would be a reporting
procedure.
183. You accept that it is difficult to use
as a comparison.
(Mr King) I would say that it is difficult to get
figures that would be a direct comparison, I would not accept
that it is difficult to use it as a comparison because a lot of
people play golf and a lot of people shoot and a lot of people
are injured playing golf.
(Mr Batley) I have a paper here on the subject of
airguns in which I have probably 10 years of statistics from the
Home Office which I would be delighted to leave with you.
Mr Clarke: That would be helpful.
Mr Bailey
184. Can we just explore the issue of competency,
Article 5 of the draft Order provides for the Chief Constable
to be satisfied with the competency of an applicant. How do you
think you would define it and how would you test it?
(Mr Batley) In actual fact based on the evidence we
actually do not see any need for a competency test. Let us look
at the United Kingdom mandate for a moment, we are the only partner
in the European Union that does not have mandatory competency
tests of one sort or another. We have the smallest incidence of
accidental wounding and fatalities within the whole of the European
Union, we have no competency test whatsoever. Over and above that
we feel that voluntary training and self-regulation, as we have
already explained, is quite adequate. We have heard suggestions
that dealers in Northern Ireland might be required to certify
the competency of a potential purchaser of a firearm, we think
that is a very, very dangerous route to go down, it is a question
of public liability, who tells whether the dealer is competent
to tell the purchaser that he is competent as well.
(Mr King) If the dealer is going to be asked about
the matter of competence under our current Firearms Act a dealer
cannot act as a referee for the application of a certificate,
so it would be an unusual requirement for him not to be able to
do one and to be able to do the other.
(Mr Batley) I would add, should the Chief Constable
for any reason in an unusual case be concerned about the lack
of possible competence of the person who wishes to acquire a firearm
he conditions the firearm certificate. After all, all the hoops
that one has to the jump through to get a firearms certificate
granted if it was then a condition that some form of instruction
should be required that would solve the problem, I think, should
there be a problem.
185. Basically you do not agree with it full
stop.
(Mr Batley) We do not see the evidence or the need
for it.
(Mr King) The statutory framework for it.
186. You did make the point in effect that we
have the lowest incidence here in comparison to those countries
that did have some sort of competency test. That may be statistically
correct, I do not know, but it might also be argued it is possible
that there would be fewer such tests. Could you just envisage,
perhaps with difficulty, that you have lost the argument on this,
there will be some sort of competency test, how do you think the
existing proposals might be made more appropriate and effective?
(Mr Batley) There are some proposals but we are not
in possession of this particular paper, we would like to answer
that in writing, if we may. It is a paper that came out very recently
and we have not seen that paper, not until this morning anyway.
I would like to answer that in writing.
Chairman: You may.
Mr Bailey: It would be better if you went into
it greater detail. I will leave that line of questioning and you
can send a written response to this.
Mr Barnes
187. Although I last held a firearm 46 years
ago in Iraq, I deal with certificates on a regular basis so I
will ask a question on firearms certificates. The renewal of a
firearms certificate in Great Britain has changed to a five year
cycle, what are your views on how that functions?
(Mr Batley) Its function perfectly well in the United
Kingdom mainland at the moment and we think it is to be encouraged.
We do not see any need for a return to three years and if the
draft Order suggests five years we think that is a good thing.
The only problem we could envisage is one of administration, when
we changed from three to five there will be a bulge because there
will be a two year gap, the same as there was in the United Kingdom
mainland, otherwise we are perfectly happy with five years. We
see no reason to continue on three.
188. You are happy about that being introduced
in Northern Ireland?
(Mr Batley) Yes.
189. You do see the bulge problem as a temporary
hoop to overcome?
(Mr King) The bulge problem is an administrative challenge,
if I can use that word. If you look at police forces on the United
Kingdom mainland many dealt with it very efficiently and it was
not a problem. In some cases, for whatever reason, they did not
see it happening and it did become a problem, it is not insurmountable
by any means and it is one which with adequate preparation and
a little bit of consultation with what happened on the mainland
it would certainly forearm them well to deal with it.
190. Another problem that has been raised by
the Commissioner of City of London Police, James Hart, is that
in some police areas there has been an increase of up to 40 per
cent in the number of individuals who cannot be traced in order
to renew their certificate, so might that not be—
(Mr Batley) Probably not.
191.—less of a problem in Northern Ireland?
(Mr Batley) In the United Kingdom mainland we have
something like 750,000 certificates for shotguns and firearms,
in Northern Ireland you have 83,000 certificates and I think that
would be dealt with quite competently by the Northern Ireland
Office.
Chairman: In a much smaller area.
Mr Beggs
192. Good morning. Under the proposed the draft
Order the Chief Constable is still provided with a discretion
to refuse the grant of a firearm certificate, although all the
criteria has been met by the applicant. What are your concerns
about this provision?
(Mr King) We are quite concerned about that. We are
in particular concerned about the terminology of "may"
as opposed to "shall". There are a number of conditions
and quite a number of hoops that somebody has to go through in
order to make this application correctly and appropriately. It
is our belief, and our very firm belief, if somebody has satisfied
all of the conditions, including the good reason requirement,
that the Chief Constable should, as in shall, grant a certificate
purely on that basis then I cannot see any other reason why the
word "may", should be used if he has any concerns there
is a serious concern there any way and certain of the conditions
will not have been met, but to make somebody go through all of
the hoops that they have to go through and then it is to be left
to the opinion or the mood of the Chief Constable on the day when
he is going to sign the document is not an equitable way of dealing
with it. There are concerns and the Chief Constable will make
those concerns known during the application process and if more
work needs to be done in speaking to the referees, and so on,
that, I am sure, can be done during the application. Once the
form is done and dusted and presented I am concerned that to put
the word "may" in there just leaves another window of
doubt.
(Mr Batley) The 1968 Firearms Act quite categorically
uses the word "shall" throughout as far as the UK mainland
is concerned. We feel it is possibly charging the Chief Constable
with too much responsibility. He already has a huge responsibility
in granting and then at the very last moment to say he "may"
is slightly unfair on him as well.
Chairman: Mr King, Mr Batley, thank you very
much indeed. Do I take it that the two gentlemen at the back are
Mr Doe and Mr Glaister? Good. As we do not have any members of
the public, could the four of you just leave the room for a moment,
I do have one item of business I need to discuss with the Committee
before we go on to the next session and then you are all welcome
to come back.
| 
