ANOTHER VOICE
The Government thinks it is all right to persecute people who obey the law
CHARLES MOORE
t seems to be a convention of current politics that it is rude to discuss anything controversial. For a Conservative to say that the Government should not sign away our currency or Parliament at Maastricht is a breach of etiquette. At the Labour Con- ference in Brighton, whence I write, it is a faux pas to call for public ownership of the means of production, distribution or exchange, or for anything else that could be labelled left-wing.
Perhaps it is this new courtliness of 'a country at ease with itself that has prevent- ed reporting of the fact that from Novem- ber of this year a policeman will have the right to enter your house without a warrant if he suspects you of possessing a firework.
This power is contained in Statutory Instrument 1991 number 1531 (who knows what may be in the other 1530?), the Con- trol of Explosives Order. Explosives, appar- ently, are controlled by the Explosives Act of 1875, but that act, being Victorian, does not give nearly sweeping enough powers to officialdom, and so, in 1974, it was brought within the competence of the Health and Safety at Work Act. Under that act, Health and Safety Executive explosives inspectors may do whatever they like ('. .. any other method which is necessary for the purpose mentioned above') in pursuit of things that explode. Their power, however, is circumscribed, by the fact that there are only three such inspectors in the country. Statutory Instrument no. 1531 changes that. It hands inspection over to the police, giving each Chief Constable the right to appoint his policemen as inspectors.
Once appointed, a policeman can walk through your front do9r (or window, I pre- sume) if he has 'reasonable suspicion' that you possess explosives. It is not illegal to possess explosives such as a firework or a shotgun cartridge, so you can be 'reason- ably suspected' of doing nothing wrong and yet find a constable in your hall. Not only in your hall, of course, but all over your house — he can search as widely as he wants. If the constable is not pleased, he can require you to leave your house. He can also ask questions of your wife and arrest her if she refuses to answer. The constable is not even restricted to entering by himself or with other inspectors. The Statutory Instru- ment entitles him to bring along as many companions as he wishes.
No one seems to know the reason for these new regulations. In its discussions with shooting organisations, the Home Office mutters vaguely about 'security'. For example, the Statutory Instrument insists on a new licence for possession of black powder. Black powder is the sort of gun- powder you shove down the muzzle of an old musket, but it is also alleged that the IRA have used black powder as a propel- lent for their mortars. The theory seems to be that once they know they must get a licence to propel their mortars they will give up the armed struggle in despair.
A more likely explanation for the new rule, though, is that the Home Office and the police wish to abolish the private own- ership of guns. Possession of a shotgun licence, after all, will give the police the 'reasonable suspicion' they need that you own some explosives. You are automatical- ly suspect. This is the 'sus' law, about which black men used to complain, brought into your home. The policy of bureaucratic dis- approval is already working. Since the post- Hungerford massacre Firearms Act of 1988, 150,000 of the 800,000 shotgun licences in Britain have not been renewed, so expensive, wearisome and intrusive are the new regulations. Under Instrument no. 1531, the process will accelerate. It will be said, as usual, that 'the innocent have noth- ing to fear'. It will probably be said by P.C. Nosey as he and his friends and relations bounce on your bed, insult your wife and drive your children out into the night.
It almost goes without saying that these new rules will do nothing to diminish vio- lent crime. I simply point out in passing that Michael Ryan, of Hungerford fame, owned his shotgun illegally under the Law that existed at that time; I might also men- 'I expect you'd rather be Mr and Mrs John Smith.' tion that in London in 1954, when not even shotgun licences were required, there were four robberies involving firearms and that in 1989, when criminals had to endure the full rigour of the 1988 Act, there were 1,811.
I shoot a little, and so will be an object of 'reasonable suspicion'. But I am not partic- ularly worried for myself. In fact, I take a malicious pleasure in the thought of 20 policemen searching for explosives in the chaos somewhere in the south of England where my cartridges lie concealed. Nor do I think that shooting will actually be destroyed by the new rules. They will be regarded by those who shoot, rather like barbed wire and new roads by those who hunt, as unpleasantnesses which can be sur- mounted.
No, two things are deeply depressing about Instrument no. 1531. The first is that the Government thinks it is all right to per- secute people who obey the law. Suppose the Government decided that because the Chief Medical Officer said that Aids was a nasty disease policemen should be free to call on people whom they reasonably sus- pected of being HIV positive and give them a blood test. The police would reasonably suspect homosexuals. Would that make such a law right? Why is it right in this case, then? One could argue that it is even more wrong. Far fewer people are killed in Britain by shotguns than by anal inter- course.
The other thing is that we have so con- structed our politics that no one seems to care. Because it is an order and not a piece of new legislation, this milestone in oppres- sion will go through Parliament on the nod unless enough MPs enter what is called a 'prayer' that it be debated. So far only 12 have signed the necessary motion. It is not in the interest of any party to discuss the matter. Labour is against shooting for class reasons. The Conservatives always favour anything that the police want and, particu- larly in the conference season, anything that looks like 'cracking down on crime'. The shooting lobby has no Sir Ian Mc- Kellen to whom Mr Major can winningly confess that he is 'ill-briefed'.
From time to time I write grandiose arti- cles about how the House of Commons defends our liberties. This November the Fifth, as I light a samizdat banger to cele- brate its deliverance from Guy Fawkes, I shall wonder why I bother.
Previous page
