WEDNESDAY 17 JULY 2002

MR COLIN GREENWOOD

  1. Good afternoon, Mr Greenwood. This is the first firearms evidence session of the Committee's inquiry into the control of firearms in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the legislation and the differences between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are hoping to look at any inadequacies in the existing controls designed to prevent misuse of firearms and the potential for the amendment of the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to progress the reasonable expectations of legitimate firearms users, while ensuring public safety. Thank you very much for coming to give evidence to us. Can I start with an obvious question that we need to get on the record: what are the main uses for legally-held firearms in the United Kingdom?
  (Mr Greenwood) I think that shotguns particularly are simply tools for a large proportion of users. The farmer in Northern Ireland is no different to the farmer in England and Wales, and he needs a shotgun, which he regards almost as a spade. It would be impossible in certain circumstances to continue farming. Shooting wood pigeons is an example. It is a straightforward tool, but for other people it is a recreational instrument: target shooting, clay pigeon shooting, game shooting, et cetera.

  2. That is the shotgun side.
  (Mr Greenwood) One would say exactly the same about rifles, particularly .22 rifles. A significant number will be used by farmers for vermin control and so on. A probably smaller number will be used for recreational purposes for target shooting. The centre-fire rifles, which are usually put in as a separate category, would be used for larger vermin and stalking—again, a mix of occupation and leisure.

  3. Does the usage vary in type and extent in different regions within the United Kingdom?
  (Mr Greenwood) I think not, sir, no. I did produce some additional figures for you. What struck me was that if we compare population sizes, there does not seem to be any relationship—there are many more firearms in Northern Ireland than there are in England and Wales per head of population.

  4. Legally-held?
  (Mr Greenwood) Yes. One of the mistakes that might be made was to think that the police in Northern Ireland are perhaps not as experienced, because of numbers, as the police in Britain; but that would be wrong. Per capita they handle a lot more firearms certificates and so on. But the thing that struck me forcibly is that you can equate the relationship in numbers of certificates with acreage, but not with population. In other words, it is predominantly a rural thing. It depends more on land size than population numbers. There would be the exception of course in Northern Ireland with firearms for personal protection. That would be a city problem perhaps, more than a rural problem.

  5. But that is relatively a small amount of the legally-held firearms in Northern Ireland.
  (Mr Greenwood) I suppose you would have to say it is small. If you translate it into England and Wales, it would equate to 360,000 people having a firearm for personal protection in England and Wales, which seems to me to be quite a significant number.

  6. You will forgive me if I say I am not a great fan of firearms and we may differ in our views. For me, the main focus of this inquiry would be that the most significant difference between two jurisdictions is the prohibition of the private ownership of hand guns in Great Britain, the so-called "handgun ban" which was brought in by the Firearms Act 1997 after the aftermath of the fatal shootings at Dunblane Primary School. At the time, the Secretary of State chose not to bring forward legislation to ban handguns in Northern Ireland, but like any government policy, said that that would be kept under review. What are your views as to whether or that Act should be enacted in Northern Ireland?
  (Mr Greenwood) Contrary to what is often thought, it is possible to apply logic to firearms legislation, so you have to first identify the problem; then you need to identify a solution that relates to that problem. In England and Wales we have seen an enormous increase in the use of illegally-held firearms in robbery and homicide. We can certainly say that the ban on handguns has had no effect on the use of firearms in crime. In Northern Ireland we have seen that legally-held handguns have not caused any problems at all.

  7. Is there not a risk that legally-held handguns do eventually end up in the hands of criminals?
  (Mr Greenwood) Not to such an extent that it would justify any legislative action, because the pool of illegal firearms is enormous and is refreshed according to demand. People keep asking where illegally-held guns come from: they come from any source you like to mention, depending on demand. What we have seen in England and Wales is that the demand of the criminals is very easily filled, and I do not say this as a matter of opinion, I say it as a matter of fact: there has been no effect on the use of handguns in crime arising from the handgun ban.

  8. There is an additional demand in Northern Ireland in as much as handguns fall into the hands of paramilitary groups. Would you not see that as different to the situation in England and Wales?
  (Mr Greenwood) We have then to ask ourselves whether a ban on legally-held firearms prevent the paramilitaries or terrorists obtaining firearms. The answer on the evidence we have is "no". There is another point, and that is that it is becoming more and more significant from the evidence that the rate of other crime in Northern Ireland is less than it is in England and Wales, and these are the July figures published by the Home Office. The rate of burglary is lower. The chance of victimisation for burglary in Northern Ireland is half or less. The chance of having your car stolen is half. Contact crime—robbery and that kind of thing—is half.

  9. Reported crime is also lower in Northern Ireland than it is in England and Wales. A lot of crime goes unreported, particularly on housing estates, but that is a different point.

  10. You used the word "logic", but in the Northern Ireland situation would you agree that it would be completely illogical to remove legally-held personal protection weapons from folk who were under threat, while those who were threatening them had availability of weapons?
  (Mr Greenwood) This is really the point I was trying to make. I attended a conference in Australia about ten years ago, and there were all the leading anti-gun academics at the conference. I had prepared an address, which I actually tore up having listened to the first two speakers. I asked if someone could give me one example anywhere in the world at any point in time when introducing further legislative controls on firearms had reduced crime—and terrorism is crime. Nobody could do so. I have continued to research it since, and I can find no example. When Britain introduced controls on shotguns the use of shotguns in robbery increased. Each further step of legislation has not caused an increase in crime—it is an irrelevance. It is necessary to look at what can be achieved by legislation, because strange as it may seem, criminals do not obey the law! It is therefore necessary to examine what firearms control can do, and to accept that your ability to influence things is not absolute. You can make a law, but whether or not people comply with it is quite a different matter.

  11. The Great Britain 1997 firearms control legislation did not follow fully from the Cullen report because the Cullen report suggested that for target shooting what should occur is that the small arms should be dismantled? I know that that would be rather difficult in Northern Ireland because there would have to be two categories, those for defence and those for target shooting. Might it be that if Cullen's recommendations had been followed in Great Britain, the problems you were referring to of illegally-held arms might have been able to contain them in the circumstances, and that some solution that involved the dismantling for the purpose of target shooting might be a possibility in Northern Ireland?
  (Mr Greenwood) I think not. I have a very poor view of Cullen's report. It certainly lacks logic. The idea that I am a member of a club and a committee member or office-holder, and I leave one bit of the pistol in the club and take one bit home, and I want to go and shoot somebody and I cannot find a way of putting the whole thing back together again, does not seem to me to be logical at all. Cullen's proposal in that regard was, I think, just looking for another proposition. I do not think it was practical and it would not have worked; and I do not think it would work in Northern Ireland. I think in any event none of them will have any influence on crime. I have the Chief Constable's statement that legally-held firearms are not used in crime in Northern Ireland, and that includes the 11-12,000 personal protection weapons, which one assumes are kept and carried loaded. It knits in perfectly with a monumental study in the States, because there, 33 of the states have got what they call "mandatory concealed carry permits". If you are able to prove that you are a respectable person, with no connections with crime or drugs or drinking and so on, you are entitled to a permit to carry a gun. To everybody's amazement, in every state where it has been enacted, homicide has gone down significantly; rape has gone down significantly; and burglary has gone down significantly. On the burglary score, the interesting thing is that we have 43 per cent of what we call "hot" burglary where the householder is at home, and the United States has 9 per cent. Burglars do not break into houses in those states when the people are there. There is a benefit to the personal protection weapons, which is not apparent in the first instance, but can be seen in the victimisation studies. I think that disassembly of firearms is impractical, and one of those fudging-the-issue suggestions.

  12. We are very grateful for the information you have provided us. Appendix 2 shows the very substantial increase in the number of shotgun certificates issued between 1974 and 1988. We also know from the information you have supplied today that within an England and Wales context, one in 38.5 people own a shotgun certificate, and yet within Northern Ireland that reduces down to one in 17.6; so the likelihood is almost half of someone having a shotgun certificate. In the evidence you supplied earlier you suggested that the increase overall from 850,000 in 1974 to 971,000 in 1998 was attributable to in part increasing interest in sport and clay pigeon shooting; but then you went on to say that from 1998 onwards the decline was directly caused by stricter controls.
  (Mr Greenwood) Yes.

  13. Does the evidence not suggest that the rise between 1974 and 1988 had less to do with clay pigeon shooting and more to do with the fact that those stricter controls were not in place?
  (Mr Greenwood) One of the problems with people, particularly those who are in middle life who are looking for a hobby—the bank manager taking early retirement; he looks at taking something like clay pigeon shooting. The hoops that he has to jump through are such that he says he will take up golf. The important thing is the precise relationship with the downturn in certificates, which were going up progressively—it was not a sudden leap. A near neighbour of mine, five or six years after shotgun certificates had been introduced, said: "I do not need one; I only use it on my own farm." It took a long time for it to be taken up. Then there was a continual increase, and an analysis of people taking part in sport showed that clay pigeon shooting had the greater part of that increase. The reduction is directly attributable to the impositions of the 1988 Act. Legislation is an enormous inhibition to that particular sport.

  14. So legislation had a clear effect on the number of shotgun certificates.
  (Mr Greenwood) Yes, but it did not have a clear effect on crime. The use of shotguns in crime doubled.

  15. In the Firearms Act, 1968, and the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, the firearm is defined as "a lethal barrelled weapon". What do you understand is the official definition of lethality?
  (Mr Greenwood) There is a dispute. "Lethal" in law means that it could kill, not that it is likely to, but it could kill if misused. The Forensic Science Service in Northern Ireland has suggested an energy level of between 3-4 joules. The Home Office people came up with 1 joule, and that has been largely accepted in England and Wales because the items to which it refers are soft air pistols, which are all made below 1 joule. So neither the public nor the trade were concerned by it. For my part, I am sure that lethality is much nearer 3 joules. To be lethal, a thing has to penetrate. I very much doubt if you would get any penetration at 1 joule anywhere, even in the eye; but at 3 joules you are beginning to. Below 1 joule in England and Wales is considered not to be lethal and not a firearm. In terms of the legislation, I suppose one question is whether there is a demand for these things between 1 and 3. I do not know of any, but 3 is more logical.

  Chairman: This is very relevant to air weapons, which we are coming on to.

  16. There are suggestions that the licensing of air weapons in effect should be deregulated in Northern Ireland. What is your opinion on that? What benefits or potential disadvantages do you see?
  (Mr Greenwood) I think the cost side will be that you will see growth in misuse of air guns: that is an absolute certainty. It will not be a significant one, and the extent of that growth will depend on the ability of the police to enforce the other laws. I did some research some time ago and found that in every instance in England and Wales where air guns were misused by youngsters, they were committing offences which would have allowed the police to take action—they had an uncovered air gun in a public place and this kind of thing. What they were doing before the harm was caused was illegal, but if the same system were applied to Northern Ireland, it would cause an enormous increase in the number of air guns in Northern Ireland and a small increase in the misuse of air guns. It would save countless hours of police time, an enormous volume of police time, dealing with something that is only marginal. There is on average in England and Wales half a death a year—one death every two years. If you think of the things that children do on skateboards and bicycles, it is difficult to think of any leisure activity which causes a smaller problem. You then have the fact that the air gun is the entry into sport for young people in England and Wales, and whilst we hear about the misuse, we do not hear about the millions of young people who are shooting with dad in the garden and this sort of thing. It is a very proper leisure activity, but like every other leisure activity, it will have a cost. The benefit to Northern Ireland is that it would be an enormous saving in police time. The cost would be some misuse.

  17. Can I take two angles that are totally different. You are probably aware that Gun Control Network comments that the potential misuse of air weapons, particularly in terms of damage to animals and property, would increase. I have to say that from a personal point of view, the experience in my own constituency is that this is an increasing problem, particularly with regard to local wildlife. Although there may be savings in terms of bureaucracy and administration of regulation, there would be a distinct downside in other areas.
  (Mr Greenwood) When I did my research on air guns, I analysed the evidence about the abuse of animals with air guns. You have to make the assumption that this little gang of yobs on the canal bank during the school holidays would not maim a duck with a catapult or throw big rocks at it and so on. You have to make the assumption that if you remove air guns you remove the mentality and the criminality of the people involved, and that is not so. I policed for a while at Morley, just outside Leeds. I instituted for a few weeks a Sunday morning canal bank patrol, policemen in plain clothes, who confiscated half a dozen air guns very quickly; and the problem ended because little Johnny went home and said, "I have just had my air gun taken off me. I only got it as a birthday present." We are in danger of punishing the millions for the offences of the few, when there is an alternative way. The bottom line is that whatever you do, you would not prevent all air gun misuse.

  18. We are not really talking about punishing millions in Northern Ireland.
  (Mr Greenwood) There are 20,000 odd, but they are licensed anyhow. What I thought we were talking about is reducing the level of control on air guns.

  19. I accept your point that somebody who is likely to abuse an animal with an air gun might equally be inclined to do so with some other means; on the other hand, I do not think there is any doubt that an air gun is a more lethal way of doing it than perhaps other means, and so in effect it does make the potential for abuse of wildlife that much greater.
  (Mr Greenwood) I would need to be convinced that an air gun is more dangerous than half a brick to a duck.