WEDNESDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2002

MR DAVID PENN

  Chairman: Thank you for coming to give us evidence. We shall start off with air weapons.

  311. We notice that in the Firearms Consultative Committee's eleventh annual report you make reference to the question of air weapons and the necessity for greater control. You set out different guidelines. Are you satisfied, especially when we hear that there are toy weapons with the capacity of less than one joule which can be converted into missile firing weapons which can cause damage, that the recommendation is that weapons above one joule come under the regulations or should it be even lower than that?
  (Mr Penn) I should like first to clarify something in relation to very low powered BB guns. Unfortunately the term BB gun refers to two different sorts of air weapon. Traditionally it refers to a true airgun of relatively low power, something like four or five foot pounds firing a steel pellet. These have been made since the late nineteenth century and are still used very much in America but have never been used very much in the United Kingdom or in Europe where air rifles using small lead pellets are the norm. The modern use of BB guns refers usually to entirely plastic weapons, apart from the springs. The majority of these are made in Japan where there is a virtual ban on the possession of real firearms, certainly pistols, where there is a tight ban on the possession of metallic replicas, but where the possession of plastic BB guns, which are very low powered indeed, is permissible. This reflects the sort of interest you get in almost any society in firearms and the way they meet this legitimately in Japan is with this extremely low powered arm. The Japanese style of BB gun, in my opinion, is not suitable for conversion. In the UK, we have had a longstanding system of either specifying air weapons as specially dangerous, in which case they need a firearms certificate, or as not requiring a certificate, with an upper power limit for an air rifle or an airgun of 12 foot pounds and an upper power limit for an air pistol of six foot pounds. The 12-foot-pound level is about the minimum acceptable for the humane dispatch of small vermin, rats, corvids and that sort of thing and even rabbits. If the power levels for ownership of air weapons in the UK were significantly lowered and these ceased to be available for vermin destruction off certificate, a large amount of vermin control which is at present done with air weapons which have the virtue of losing projectile power very quickly—no air weapon is significantly lethal beyond 70 or 80 yards—would cease and you would find a lot of people applying for shotgun certificates or firearms certificates for what would inevitably be considerably more powerful weapons to do the job. The main problem with air weapons in Britain is one of petty vandalism. It is believed that there are between four and seven million unlicensed air weapons in Great Britain. Even given the thoroughly irritating levels of vandalism, of shooting at animals and that sort of thing, the level of misuse is actually very low. The Firearms Consultative Committee has been looking much more towards education as a solution to this problem, because it is felt that a lot of what goes on which is socially undesirable is born out of ignorance and silliness rather than downright evil or criminal intent. It is better to address the problem by education. The prospect of attempting to license four million air weapons is one which would be daunting and the people who brought those arms forward for licensing would most certainly be the keen target shooters, the farmers and pest controllers, who are not the problem.

  312. That is a very good answer. Do you therefore think that the recommendations in the Order are sufficient to protect the people and to control the use of air weapons or do you have any other suggestions you think we should consider?
  (Mr Penn) In my view, if harmonisation is the intention, provided you have in place a system whereby people can be educated in proper use, I would hope that in Northern Ireland you could adopt the power levels which are current in the United Kingdom and remove air rifles and air pistols from the certification system if they fall below 12 foot pounds or six foot pounds respectively. Frankly, they are not weapons of crime other than being used as imitations in holdups. They are certainly not weapons of terrorism. We have difficulty enough anywhere in the world controlling truly lethal weapons without spending huge amounts of effort controlling relatively—relatively I stress—harmless types of arm.

  313. Speaking of harmonisation, you have heard the evidence of others that tight regulations in Northern Ireland should be retained and not reduced below 18 years of age. Is there not a case for harmonisation elsewhere if you believe that is the answer?
  (Mr Penn) It was pointed out quite correctly that harmonisation can go two ways, but all the evidence from ACPO is that the use of licensed firearms, rifles, shotguns, in Great Britain by young persons under 17 produces almost no problems at all. The system is fine so in my view there is no reason to tinker with it. If it can work in the Great Britain it can work in Northern Ireland, it can work throughout the UK.

  314. We appreciate the point you have made. Some of us are more concerned about illegally held weapons.
  (Mr Penn) So am I.

  315. I notice you said in answer to my colleague there that the level of misuse of air weapons is relatively low. I have seen figures which suggest that the number of incidents in 1997 was 7,506 and that by 2001-02 that figure had risen to 10,227 incidents involving misuse of air weapons. Would you agree with those figures? If you do, is that a cause for concern?
  (Mr Penn) I am not going to dispute them. Any level of misuse is a cause for concern but it is generally felt that these numbers are going up because the level at which criminal damage is recorded is a value of damage of £25. That level has been in place for many years and £25 is of course worth less and less, therefore more and more minor damage gets reported.

  316. You will have heard the Chief Constable's response to my questions about the life of firearms certificates and the extension from three to five years and whether this situation could be handled and the counter-position by Commissioner Hart to indicate that various problems emerge in this change. What are your views?
  (Mr Penn) I have to state that I am a keen shooter and have been for many years. >From the point of view of the shooters, they like the five-year renewal period. The renewal of the certificate inevitably takes a period of time, weeks possibly months, when they are without their certificate and it makes following their sport or hobby more difficult for them. The great majority of certificate holders are law abiding people trying to follow their interest. The likelihood is that they are not going to be a problem. Since Lord Cullen's report, there has been greater emphasis on the police monitoring what shooters are doing during the currency, the life of the certificate. This provides an opportunity to make sure that someone has not dropped out of the sport and is not holding onto a firearm unnecessarily. They are also required to be more active in monitoring the way clubs run themselves, to make sure they are being run properly if they are approved clubs, in monitoring the way firearms dealers conduct their business. It is perfectly possible that in the so-called fallow years, which will eventually iron themselves out as shooters drop out and new shooters come in at various times but which exist at the moment in Great Britain, the police licensing authorities could well turn their officers to monitoring those other aspects of the legislation which they are now required to keep a more active eye on.

  317. Even law-abiding citizens can be forgetful.
  (Mr Penn) True.

  318. There seems to be some indication in Great Britain that the extension to five years led to a situation where some people just forgot to renew their certificate. Is that a problem?
  (Mr Penn) I have been told it is a problem. I am unaware of the extent of the problem. It may be a small problem, it may be larger. Possibly at some point the FCC could have a look at this problem and have a look at some figures.

  319. You heard me questioning the Chief Constable about this question of competency. What conclusions has your committee drawn on the issue of determining an individual's competence? What do you think would be the practical implications of the provision in this Order for the first time?
  (Mr Penn) The FCC has actually not looked at the question of competency in any detail as far as I can recall and I have been on the committee throughout its life. It is fair to say that the FCC would support any measure which allowed the training of non firearms certificate holders in appropriate circumstances.