Examination of Witnesses (Questions 175-199)
GILL MARSHALL-ANDREWS AND DR MICK NORTH
2 NOVEMBER 2010
Q175 Chair: Ms
Marshall-Andrews, and Dr North, thank you so much for coming to
give evidence to us today. You've heard some of the testimony
that we have received so far. But can I start with you, Ms Marshall-Andrews?
You argue that a significant proportion—a significant proportion—of
gun offences are committed by those with legal weapons. What is
the basis of that assertion?
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
There are two different kinds of legal weapons: there are those
that are licensed and there are those that are held because a
licence is not necessary. First of all taking the licensed weapons,
almost all of the mass shootings around the world—including
the three that we've had here since 1987—have all involved
licensed gun owners and licensed guns. In this country we don't
collect figures for licensed guns that are involved in crime.
We can't get hold of that information; freedom of information
requests are routinely rejected. But looking to another country,
Canada, a third of all traced murder weapons are licensed. So
it is clearly not the case that licensed weapons are not part
of the problem. They are part of the problem.
Chair: Dr North, would you like to comment?
Dr North: Of course,
I agree with what Gill has said.
Q176 Mr Winnick:
Ms Marshall-Andrews, you argue in your organisation that the bar
should be raised so only those who meet the strictest criteria
should be allowed to have guns. Do you think that that is feasible,
bearing in mind the need for people in the agricultural community,
as they constantly tell us, to have weapons?
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
I do. I think that the starting point should be that guns are
lethal weapons and the onus should be on the applicant, somebody
who wants to own a gun, to prove that they are okay to have a
gun. It shouldn't be that the police have to demonstrate why somebody
should not have a gun; it should be the onus on the applicant
to say, "I'm an okay person to hold this gun in every respect,
and I can prove that every two years". We suggest renewals
every two years.
I think that the essence of licensing should
be that a gun licence is a privilege and not a right. If you start
from that point, then you can raise the bar and say, "We
are only going to have very particular people that we are going
to allow to own a gun for a particular purpose".
Q177 Mr Winnick:
Can I put this to you—if you like as the Devil's advocate—the
gun lobby, if that's the right description, would say, "You
can virtually ban all firearms but it won't alter the fact that
those who are determined to commit mass murder would do so by
using illegal weapons and, therefore, the tragedies that we know
about and that your organisation came into being as a result of—I
think of Dunblane and now Whitehaven—will occur all the
same." What do you say to that?
Dr North: As someone
who lost a daughter at Dunblane, I'm well aware of the damage
that licensed weapons can do. I also sat through the Cullen Inquiry
at the time, and Lord Cullen made comments in his report to the
effect that the Dunblane massacre was planned in the context of
Thomas Hamilton owning the weapons that he did. He did not consider
it likely that he would have been able to commit that atrocity
in any other way. Neither do I feel that there is any evidence
that Thomas Hamilton, nor Derek Bird, would have been able to
get hold of weapons illegally. They did it in the context of holding
their weapons legally.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
That is borne out by the fact that almost all mass shootings are
committed with legal weapons.
Mr Winnick: As were the three tragedies,
which I mentioned.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
Yes.
Q178 Steve McCabe: Am
I right in thinking you've found some common ground with representatives
of the shooting lobby who also argue for a single licensing system
for shotguns? Is there much difference between what you're proposing
and what they're saying?
Dr North: I think
it's news to us that we have common ground on something, which
is encouraging. Certainly we had for a long time advocated a single
system, not only to include shotguns and Section 1 firearms but
also air weapons as well.
Steve McCabe: I think
air weapons—
Dr North: I suspect
that the gun lobby would differ with us on that.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
I think—
Steve McCabe: And just tell me—sorry.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
Just one thing: I think that would depend upon whether there is
a common system, a common licensing system that seems to coalesce
around the shotgun procedure, as opposed to the Section 1 procedure,
which is much more demanding.
Q179 Steve McCabe: Okay,
yes, that's fair enough. Tell me, what is the benefit you expect
to achieve with a shorter renewal period for licences?
Dr North: We've
seen a number of instances over the years of people whose behaviour
has changed over a short time period. In five years a lot of things
can change. I have had a look to see what other countries do.
New South Wales, as far as I can tell, does ask for renewal every
two years. So it's not unusual. Of course, it was a shorter time
period in this country as well until comparatively recently.
Q180 Steve McCabe: Just
so I am clear on this, is the two-year figure based on what you've
seen elsewhere rather than the fact that there's any obvious immediate
benefit from that period of time?
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
It's a compromise because it's expensive—it's labour- intensive—but
it would be a reasonable period in our view.
Q181 Lorraine Fullbrook:
Thank you, Chairman. I would just like to pick up something that
Gill Marshall-Andrews has just said. You said all mass shootings
were with legal weapons. The staff of the Committee requested
an up-to-date figure of the use from the Home Office and received
the following responses, "In 2008-09 there were 39 shooting
homicides. Four of these deaths involved a weapon that was held
on a firearm or shotgun certificate." So that is contrary
to your evidence a minute ago.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
No, no, we're talking about mass shootings. That is the Hungerford,
Dunblane, Cumbria here, plus the international ones from Australia,
France, Germany, Finland. This is a sort of syndrome of the mass
shooter, the loner who loves his guns, who goes berserk and kills
a lot of people. What you're talking about, these are individual
murders. You have managed to get information that we haven't managed
to get, if you've had that from the police. We are always asking,
in the case of a serious gun crime, "Was this a legally held
weapon?" and we are never given that information.
Q182 Lorraine Fullbrook:
It is clear that the figures will change because of the Cumbrian
shootings, for example, but 17 of those 39 shooting homicides
involved a weapon where a certificate was not held.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
Right. Well, you know more than we do, but in terms of the broader
figures, if you look at the figures for slight injury in the UK
it's—sorry, I haven't got them.
Dr North: 67% involved
imitation guns and airguns, which don't need any licence at all.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
20% of all serious gun injuries in this country are committed
with airguns. So if you want to do something about gun crime you
do need to think about airguns.
Q183 Chair:
And you have put that in your written evidence to the Committee?
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
Yes.
Dr North: Yes.
Chair: Excellent.
Q184 Nicola Blackwood:
Just to follow up on that airgun point slightly, there are an
estimated 7 million airguns currently out there unlicensed. If
you want to start addressing that, how would you go about it?
You can obviously license people who can buy new ones, but what
about the 7 million that are already out there? Aren't they responsible
for the majority—
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
We have been talking to the police about that and what we've suggested
is that the new airgun, as you suggest, is brought into a new
system of licensing. And that over a period of, say, two years,
you allow an amnesty where people can hand in their airguns or
license them. After that period it would be an offence to be holding
an airgun after a licence. So you have to phase it in. We recognise
that it's a very big problem and that it would have to be phased
in, but it is done. You know, Australia licenses airguns. A number
of other countries are moving towards that. New Zealand is very,
very concerned about the high powered airguns now, and the growth
in airgun crime.
Q185 Nicola Blackwood:
We have received mixed evidence on exactly how GPs and the medical
profession can help ensure that only those who are appropriate
to be holding licences should retain them. The main difficulties
seem to centre around data protection issues, but also around
the ability of individual GPs to actually make an assessment of
deteriorational behaviours which may occur outside their time
with the patient. How exactly do you think we can get around those
problems?
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
I think that you have to establish a very clear protocol for GPs.
I have two GPs in my family, my daughter and my daughter-in-law,
and I've talked about this extensively with them. GPs are frightened
of losing the good will of their patients, obviously. So it has
to be taken, in a sense, out of their hands. There has to be a
clear protocol which says—for instance it might say, "If
you are prescribing this drug for somebody" or, "This
kind of level of drug for somebody", then that should trigger
some sort of notification as a matter of course. So it is taken
out of the individual hands of the GP, who doesn't have to make
a proactive decision to say, "I don't think this person really
should have a gun; I'm going to tell the police about that".
That won't work, I don't think. But if it is done as part of a
protocol, which takes it out of the hands of the GP—
Chair: Thank you.
Q186 Nicola Blackwood:
Sorry, could I just interrupt?
Chair: Yes, of course.
Nicola Blackwood: The
slight problem I see with this is it is predicated on the principle
that people regularly see their GPs. In order to assess a change
of behaviour you would need to see a pattern over time, and I
haven't seen my GP for at least two years. So I just wonder how
you address that.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
I think the change of behaviour is probably not a change; I think
it's probably got to be much more about, "This person is
depressed and, therefore, should not be owning a gun". I
think that to ask a GP to assess somebody's changed behaviour
is probably not viable.
Q187 Mark Reckless:
Ms Marshall-Andrews, in your final recommendation in your memorandum
to this Committee, you recommend notification to present and indeed
former, up to two years, partners.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
Yes.
Mark Reckless: Could you
tell us a little more about how that would work in practice in
light of the Australian and Canadian experiences you cited?
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
Yes. Do you think—
Dr North: On the
application form for anyone applying for a firearms licence, there
is room for a current spouse or an ex-spouse of up to two years
to complete and sign, and if they fail to do so then that triggers
an additional level of investigation by the registering authorities.
Q188 Mark Reckless:
To a spouse or ex-spouse?
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
Or a partner.
Dr North: Or a
partner. I think it is "consummal" or something are
the words that are used on the actual application form. But it
is up to the applicant to declare their partners for that past
two years, and get each one of them to sign the form. If they
don't then an additional investigation—it doesn't veto the
application but it ensures that additional investigations take
place.
Q189 Mark Reckless:
Are we reliant on the applicant to give the information as to
who those individuals are?
Dr North: I assume
so, yes. I don't know the details beyond looking at the application
form itself.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
In Canada, where they brought this in in 1995, in the ensuing
eight years the gun murder rate of women went down by 40%. In
New Zealand, where there is also what they call a "spousal
hotline" that is—
Dr North: That's
in Canada that, sorry. The hotline is in Canada.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
No, it's also in New Zealand there's a spousal hotline.
Chair: It would be very
good if you could let us have a note about that.
Q190 Lorraine Fullbrook:
I would just like to ask about the recommendations of changes
to gun controls from the Gun Control Network, your organisation,
specifically about lifting the secrecy about gun ownership and
making it available to members of the public, so they can find
out who actually has a licence, and a hotline for those who wish
to record their concerns about a gun owner, and where it is appropriate
they should prompt a review. Don't you think this information
is making it easier for the criminal fraternity to know, without
a bit of digging, who has guns and where they need to go and find
them and therefore, would increase robberies and, therefore, theft
of legal guns, legally held by responsible owners?
Dr North: I think
there's a lot of evidence that the criminal fraternity know already.
We had an article from the Northern Echo this morning,
a police warning to gun owners after two break-ins at farms in
that area.
Lorraine Fullbrook: That's
my point.
Dr North: Well,
there's no public information that there were guns there, but
they would have known—and a warning from the Metropolitan
Police about shotgun thefts in London last year. These things
are happening now. Breaking the secrecy has nothing to do with
letting the criminals know, and neither is it going to be information
that is available for the general public. It is so it can be checked
by those who might be at risk in going into a house where there
is a weapon.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
Could I just add one thing about openness? That is that there
is a culture of secrecy here and there is collusion between the
police and the gun owners to keep it all very quiet. It is our
belief that if it is exposed to the light, first of all there
will be fewer gun owners; secondly, they will be much more careful
about their guns and how they store them, and it will provide
communities with a clear route to register their concerns about
inappropriate people that they think might be holding guns.
Q191 Mr Burley: Just
following on this argument, I am not sure I follow your logic,
because at the moment you obviously have criminals who probably
take a punt that certain types of households may have a gun in
them, a farmer or so on, and as you heard from the Northern
Echo there, they are obviously targeting certain houses where
there is a probability. Under your proposal you are going to make
that even easier because the information is going to be made available,
and it says here one of your suggestions is that members of the
public can find out who has a licence. So isn't that just going
to lead to—
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
Certain members of the public. We are not suggesting—
Q192 Mr Burley:
My point is that if it is more open you are going to have more
criminals targeting more premises where there are known guns to
steal.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
That is clearly an argument. Our view is that where a criminal
clearly wants to go after guns they will know where they are anyway.
The criminals already know where the guns are. We have a lot of
evidence from the police that says that there is an increase in
burglary and the theft of legal weapons. There is an increase,
which implies that people know where they are already and that
they are not being cared for properly. They're not being stored
properly. So what we have to try and do is to open it up so people
know where they are and the guns are kept very, very tightly stored.
Chair: I think you have
made that point very clearly, Ms Marshall-Andrews.
Q193 Mr Burley:
I have a question on the GP issue, because we had some evidence
last week saying that if someone was depressed that in itself
would not be a reason for revoking their licence, or not issuing
one to them. I'm just wondering from your conversations with your
family and other GPs what sort of conditions would prompt a GP
to say, "Right, we should revoke that person's firearm licence".
I am thinking, for example, if they were neurotic, if they were
depressed, if they were drinking alcohol to excess. All of those
things?
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
It can't be left to the GP to revoke the licence. That's not what
this is about. This is about the GP having the information on
a record that somebody has a gun licence, and with a proper clear
protocol that says to them, "I am prescribing something for
this person who is depressed, therefore, maybe I should call the
police and let them know". If it's to work it's going to
be very prescribed how the doctors have to behave and not in their—it's
not going to be a matter of, "Should I? Shouldn't I?"
It's going to have to be prescribed, a bit like doctors at the
moment have to record gunshot injuries in hospital.
Q194 Mr Burley:
Just in practical terms then: someone loses his wife, he goes
to his GP, as Nicola said, who maybe he hasn't seen for a year,
two years. He's put on some mild antidepressants. That GP under
your system would then have to notify the police that they have—
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
It depends on what the protocol said.
Q195 Mr Burley:
Okay, is that what you're suggesting the protocol says? Because
that would be a mental health issue.
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
I don't want to define the protocol, but I—
Q196 Mr Burley:
Well who does?
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
Well, that's for the doctors to do. But there needs to be something
which is very clear which says, "If you pass this threshold,
if this happens to a patient I'm going to tell them this".
Q197 Nicola Blackwood:
On this point of making it possible for certain professionals
and members of the public to find out, what kind of professionals
and members of the public do you mean?
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
We get a lot of paramedics who are shot at when they're called
into a street to help, as they come out—airguns that might
be used to shoot at them. Care workers sometimes say to us, "I'm
very frightened of going into that house because I think that
person is a bit unstable and I believe they have a gun"—that
sort of thing.
Chair: We get the point.
Q198 Steve McCabe:
Can I just ask a very minor point about the organisation? We're
often asked about groups who give evidence. I know that the network
came out of the aftermath of Dunblane. Can I just ask, you are
a not for profit organisation, where do your finances come from?
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
We run on empty basically. We don't employ anybody.
Steve McCabe: Okay.
Chair: I think that's
fair enough.
Mr Winnick: He wants to
make a contribution.
Chair: Mark Reckless has
the very final question, if he is very brief.
Q199 Mark Reckless:
Ms Marshall-Andrews, you stated a few minutes ago that there was
collusion between the police and firearms applicants. Could I
ask you to clarify what you meant by that?
Ms Marshall-Andrews:
Well, we try and get information repeatedly about the legal status
of guns used in crime, and we can never get it. What's said to
us is, "Oh it's not in the public's interest" or, "It's
insecure". I forget what the phrase is but it's a threat
to public safety to tell us whether a particular gun was a legal
gun or not. Having worked in the business for 14 years there is
collusion between the shooters and the police to keep things quiet,
to keep things secret. I think that festers and it's not good.
Chair: Thank you, Ms Marshall-Andrews,
Dr North. For you in particular, Dr North, your daughter died
at the age of only five in Dunblane; she would have been 19 this
year. This is something that you would obviously never forget
and the sympathies of this Committee are obviously with you as
well, as you think of her and as you pursue your campaign. You
can never get her back, but we do respect the fact that you have
come here and that you have shared your views with us.
Dr North: Thank
you, Chair, and could I just use this opportunity to offer my
sympathy to all those who have lost loved ones in Cumbria in June.
Chair: Thank you very
much.
| 
