Offensive Weapons Bill (Third sitting)

Kevin Foster Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Q Mr Harriman, you said that you believe that instead of banning these rifles, we can better meet the concerns by specifying a high level of security. What would that mean?

Bill Harriman: One way I would always go at security is what people refer to as dispersion in separate units. You have the stock and the barrel in one steel cabinet, the bolt somewhere else—preferably in another room—and the ammunition somewhere else. You have to do three things to get the rifle, its component to make it function and the ammunition with which to fire it. I go back to what a Crown court judge said to me in, I think, 1991: security is a series of difficulties presented to a burglar. The more difficulties you present by dispersing things, the better the security is.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

Q I draw your attention to page 26, clause 28(2), which will amend the Firearms Act 1968 by adding paragraph (ah) to section 5 of that Act; I will give you a moment to get there. Do you have any concerns with the type of firearm listed there?

Bill Harriman: There are these types of firearms that are licensed by chief constables to certificate holders who have satisfied the good reason test that is enshrined in law and who use them legitimately for target shooting, and I believe that they are favoured by some disabled people because they are slightly easier to use.

[Kevin Foster]

Q Do you have any concerns about the fact that these weapons could potentially be rapid-firing weapons?

Bill Harriman: I think the term “rapid firing” is always a bit difficult to define, because one man’s rapid fire is another’s very slow fire. I go back to the previous comments about bump stocks, which really do push the firing rates up, as far as I am aware. I have to say, though, that I have not actually seen a bump stock in this country, and I believe that when people here wanted to examine one, they had to buy one in. I have not seen one of those, but I have seen these rifles being fired. And while the firing rates might appear to be quite high, I think that the rates are very much lower than, say, those of a military rifle or perhaps a rifle fitted with a bump stock.

[Kevin Foster]

Q I am always a bit reticent about using comparisons with military rifles, given that military rifles can fire at very high rates of fire that we would not accept. Mr Graffius, do you have any comments?

Christopher Graffius: My comment would be that when Parliament sets a limit, the industry then seeks to comply with that limit, and that is precisely what has happened with these rifles. I have never seen one of these weapons used, but I would say that anyone who possesses one legally in this country has been determined by a chief constable to be to safe to possess it, and his security is adequate. That is quite a substantial test for any rifle. The owner must also have good reason to possess it, and that may well be a disability.

[Kevin Foster]

Q To be clear: you are comfortable with the ban on bump stocks—in your evidence, that was quite clear—but you do not have a concern about this particular element?

Christopher Graffius: I would be sorry to see people who have been judged capable of owning these weapons securely and safely having them removed by Parliament, and their recreation lost.

Bill Harriman: May I also say that the good reason test in the legislation is actually quite hard to satisfy and the onus falls on the certificate holder to prove that they have a good reason?

[Kevin Foster]

Q In theory, the same could be argued for bump stocks, but—

Christopher Graffius: No, I do not think so. I can see no legitimate reason to have those weapons, including for target shooting. I fear what happened in Las Vegas: we have an example there of a bump stock being abused to kill large numbers of people. It is interesting to reflect that that bump stock turned a rifle that was not an automatic rifle into virtually an automatic rifle. If the murderer had been using a .50 calibre, it would have been a bolt action rifle and he would not have fired anything like that number of shots, because the .50 calibres in domestic possession are single-shot rifles.

[Kevin Foster]

Okay. Thank you.

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

Q Mr Graffius, you mentioned shooting as a sport, and we know that we have world-class sportsmen and women in this field. What effect, if any, do you think this legislation would have on that?

Christopher Graffius: It would mean that Britain would not compete internationally, for example, on .50 calibre and it would mean that people would have a legitimate recreation destroyed, and I think that would be a great shame. People get very passionate about their shooting, as I am sure members of the Committee do about their own hobbies, and to have it removed is always a tragedy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karin Smyth]

Q Thank you. This question is for Ms Longfield. We heard that a lot of the crime associated with the sorts of weapons we are looking at is around London, where there are major problems. Do you have a view about the geographical spread of the problems we all have in relation to the outcomes of the sorts of things we are looking at in the Bill?

Anne Longfield: There are certainly urban hotspots in terms of violence, and clearly London is one of those, but we have seen over the last few years that that is increasingly affecting every area of the country—perhaps not the extreme violence and murder that we have seen in London, but certainly things like county lines. At one point, that largely involved drugs being exported from urban areas to coastal towns and the like; now, every police force in the country says they have county lines in their area. The strong message from that is that none of us should think it is something that happens just over here or in particular communities—in urban areas that are the most disadvantaged. The prevalence may be higher there, but this actually happens in every area now. We know from the NCA that there are more than 1,000 county lines around the country.

Any of us would be shocked by the viciousness and tenacity of that business model, which is based on extreme violence. Young people who live in areas where it happens sometimes say, “I’ve got no choice. Joining isn’t a lifestyle choice to me—I can’t see any other way. I don’t have the protection of a family. I don’t have the kind of consistency at home that gives me the safety net and the resilience to be able to fight this.” They want to belong. They want to be protected. Someone from St Giles said the other day, “Kids pick up knives like you might pick up car keys before you leave the house.” It is on that level of normality. We need to understand that and then act in a very determined way to ensure that it does not remain normal going forward. It cannot be right.

Again, there are reachable, teachable moments, but this is a concern for anyone—every police force in every area of the country—because the business model is very determined and it acts very deftly, so if there is a blockage here, it will go a different way. County lines, which are based on violence and coercion, now work in a way that recruits young people from a local community, and they are the ones who go out to sell and deliver the drugs, and report back to a base, sometimes hourly, with photos to show how they have been doing. That should be a concern for all of us, which is why I talked about the new safeguarding arrangements. They are in every area and they have a consistent responsibility and requirement to pull those agencies together. They all have to write a plan based on what they know the risks are, and we should be explicit about violence and knife crime as part of that plan.

[Kevin Foster]

Q I found it interesting to hear what you said, Chair, about being conscious that we are a Bill Committee, so I will focus on a couple of questions about the Bill. In terms of clause 1, which details the sale of corrosive products to persons under 18, we have asked in the other evidence sessions whether 18 would be a suitable age. I have asked retailers. Do you have any thoughts about that provision?

Anne Longfield: Certainly many agencies now look at young people up to the age of 25. We know that 18 is often quite an arbitrary age, because children are still developing. In terms of mental health, for instance, most of the mental health care that is most effective looks at under 25s, so—

[Kevin Foster]

Q I am conscious that we have only nine minutes. Is 18 still the appropriate age to be in the Bill, or should it be 25?

Anne Longfield: We are working on the basis of 18. I do not have any opposition to 18. I just put before you the fact that 18 is not always the most effective age in terms of improving outcomes for children and their communities.

[Kevin Foster]

Q I accept that there has to be a cut-off, because we are making a piece of law. What impact do you think the provisions on corrosive substances will have on reducing the number of victims of those offences given, as you outlined earlier, Baroness Newlove, the huge impact it has on people?

Baroness Newlove: I think it will send a message to victims of acid attacks. At the moment, people use acid to injure people, and it is an easy thing to do, because there is no custodial sentence for it. We have to make it clear, but we also have to look at the sentencing. It is a life-changing injury, which costs a lot to the state in healthcare, so we have to have a good sentence. The whole Bill has to mean what it says on the tin, and that is why this is important, but the sentencing guidelines have to follow through. We already have knife crime legislation and it does not have that effect.

[Kevin Foster]

Q Thank you for those comments. Can I take you to clause 6(1)(b) of the Bill, which says

“when the offence was committed, the person…was aged 16 or over”?

Are you content with that provision? Is it appropriate?

Anne Longfield: Again, for 16 and 18-year-olds the response needs to reflect the age of the young person. If they are criminalised at that stage, they will only go down one track. I would prefer a way that triggers a response. I am not looking to be soft on people who are perpetrating crimes in any way, but if we are looking for an effective response, it has to be robust about that.

Baroness Newlove: Can I add to that? I know somebody else who has gone through it. If you have an offender who is 16, or under 18 years old, a victim who is 18 years old is seen not as a child but as an adult, and they will then get an adult provision. We are messing around with ages here. There is no clarity for victims of that age. That is my worry—that it will not have the right effect for victims to feel supported.

[Kevin Foster]

Q Given that we have spent a lot of time talking about the provisions on the prohibition of certain types of firearms, which are quite a major part of the Bill, do you have any specific thoughts on those areas in relation to your positions and roles?

Baroness Newlove: I do not have any evidence to produce on that. That is not my area, so I would not like to add anything.

Anne Longfield: No, the young people I talk to are not as involved in this area. I do not have particular evidence to offer.

[Kevin Foster]

So not a particularly strong view either way on those provisions. Thank you.

[Louise Haigh]

Q What do both of you think about mandatory minimum sentencing for children?

Anne Longfield: Where do I start? My starting point will always be prevention. I do not want kids to be in prison; I want them to be elsewhere and I do everything I can not to have them there. While they are in there, I acknowledge that some young people say it is the first time that they have felt safe. Those who work with them say that when they know that the average time they are in custody will be 14 weeks, all they can do is stabilise and move on. I want to have a system that can respond to individuals, so my instinct is not to go down the mandatory minimum sentences route but to look at individual cases.

Baroness Newlove: As Victims’ Commissioner, I have to say that victims tell me they want mandatory; only then will it be effective.