HC Deb 29 March 1973 vol 853 cc1669-96

10.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills)

I beg to move, That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved. This Order in Council extends existing controls over the legal possession of firearms, and modifies the conditions under which registered firearms dealers may operate. The order was made under the urgent procedure provided for by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, because the Government considered that in the interests of public safety these new measures should come into force without delay.

Until recently, it has been possible to say that licensed firearms have not been used in security incidents, and are not a security threat. It is still true to say that the vast majority of shooting incidents in Northern Ireland involve illegal firearms, and I am glad to say that the security forces have had great success with arms searches. They have recovered 333 firearms since 1st January. But in certain incidents, licensed firearms have been used for illegal purposes and there have been raids on firearms dealers. It has therefore become necessary to ask Parliament for powers to give the police stricter control.

The general principles governing the grant of firearms certificates have not been altered—that is, the applicant must show good reason for acquiring the firearm, he must not be unfitted to hold it and he must be able to have it in his possession without danger to the public safety and peace.

The police are, however, being given greater powers to refuse a firearm certificate. Article 3(2) of this order gives the police discretion whether a certificate should be granted, even though the applicant has satisfied the requirements. This is a difference from the Act of 1969, under Section 23 of which it was incumbent on the police to grant a certificate once the requirements had been satisfied.

At present, firearm certificates for bullet-firing weapons are granted in two types of case only. The first is where the police consider that the person's life is in danger and that he needs a handgun for personal protection. The second is where a farmer shows that he cannot control vermin—[Interruption.]—such as crows and foxes by any means other than by the use of a .22 rifle. It is not intended to place further controls on the grant of firearm certificates in respect of shotguns or air weapons, although of course, applicants wishing to acquire such weapons will have to satisfy the police that they have a good reason for acquiring them and can hold them without danger to the public.

A firearm permit authorises the holder to have a firearm in his house, and only in his house. Formerly the applicant had to show only that he could hold the weapon without danger to the public.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North) rose—

Mr. Mills

The hon. Member will have plenty of time to make his own speech. I can then give it all of my attention.

The order requires that the applicant for a permit must satisfy the same conditions as those prescribed for the grant of a certificate.

Under the Act of 1969, the police had power to vary conditions already imposed on firearm certificates, but they did not have power to impose conditions where the certificate had been granted or renewed without conditions. Article 3(3) gives them this power. Article 3(4) gives the police additional powers to revoke certificates and permits.

Under the Act of 1969, a certificate or permit could be revoked only if the holder was disqualified for a criminal offence or was in some way unfitted to hold a firearm. Certificates can now be revoked if the possession of a firearm by the holder is likely to endanger the public safety, or the peace, or if he no longer has good reason for holding a firearm. A certificate can also be revoked if he fails to produce his firearms for a test— I shall come back to the question of tests later—or if he fails to furnish a photograph for attachment to his certificate or permit, as required by regulations.

It is not proposed that there shall be any general revocation of firearm certificates. However, should the police decide that a person cannot hold a weapon without danger to the public, for instance because there is a real danger that it may be stolen and used by terrorists, the certificate can now be revoked. The holder will, of course, have the same right of appeal as before.

I now come to the paragraphs relating to firearms dealers. Article 3(5) introduces a new condition, requiring that the police must be satisfied that there is a need for a firearms dealer's business at the place where the applicant proposes to trade.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Under the 1920 Act, the Minister has no authority to take away a man's livelihood. Has he studied this matter to see whether the order is legal? In a High Court case which was fought right to the House of Lords, it was established that the Government had no right to take away any man's business under the 1920 Act.

Mr. Mills

With respect to my hon. Friend, I am certain that it is legal, or I would not be pronouncing on it tonight. The dealers are very happy and satisfied with what is being done.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

Yes, but is it legal?

Mr. Mills

Surely.

I was saying that Article 3(5) introduces a new condition, requiring that the police must be satisfied that there is a need for a firearms dealer's business at the place where the applicant proposes to trade. Article 3(7) applies this condition to the registration of new premises in the name of an existing dealer. There is provision in Article 3(6) for additional controls over the number and types of firearms and quantities and types of ammunition which a dealer may keep on his premises, and the Minister is also empowered to give directions to the police as to what conditions should be imposed on dealers' certificates of registration.

A direction has already been issued which prohibits the holding of bullet-firing weapons by dealers, and dealers have handed over their stocks of these weapons to the police. Arrangements are being made for the dealers to be paid for the weapons handed over. The dealers have co-operated in every way with the police and the Ministry of Home Affairs, and I want to emphasise that there is no suggestion that firearms dealers are not entirely trustworthy. The directive was issued because, about a month ago, for the first time, a dealer's premises were raided and there have been three further raids since then. In the interests of public safety, it was essential to prevent any further robberies. The purchaser of a bullet-firing weapon in future will make his selection from a catalogue and not from stock.

Article 4 provides that ballistic or other tests may be carried out on certain firearms. In the first instance, all handguns will be tested. Hon. Members will be interested to learn that test firing has started and is under way at 15 test centres. The characteristics of the builets fired at these tests will be codified, and checks will be made against bullets found at the scenes of crimes. Every effort is being made to ensure that holders of handguns held—

Miss Bemadette Devlin (Mid-Ulster)

When ballistics tests are being made of handguns, will they include handguns held by the British Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment?

Mr. Mills

No, I do not think they will. These tests will be confined to the certificates which are given to the general public.

Every effort is being made to ensure that holders of handguns held for personal protection will not be without their weapons for longer than a day.

Under the Act of 1969, the Minister has power to make regulations requiring applicants for a firearms certificate to furnish photographs. Article 5 of this order introduces a new provision regarding photographs—the Minister is given power to make regulations requiring existing holders of certificates to furnish photographs. It is proposed to make regulations shortly requiring applicants for certificates in respect of bullet-firing weapons, and the holders of certificates on which such firearms are held, to furnish photographs which will then be attached to their certificates. This will help the security forces and the police when checking legally held weapons.

The additional powers provided in this order will ensure strict control over legally held guns, and I can therefore commend it to the House.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

The Opposition welcome the order as far as it goes. We are concerned, however, about the question of guns in Northern Ireland. The latest figures that we have of legally held weapons in Northern Ireland, on 3rd March 1973, show a total of 107,330 guns. That figure includes 73,000 shotguns, 11,000 air weapon, 13,000 .22 rifles, 737 other rifles and 7,812 hand guns.

We have a breakdown of weapons by area. A considerable number of guns are held in the Belfast area. We have been told that most of the guns are held in rural areas by farmers, and so on. If that is so, why are there so many legally held guns in Belfast? Does the Minister have any idea of the proportion of these guns which are shotguns?

Captain L. P. S. Orr (Down, South)

It is 68 per cent.

Mr. Orme

The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it is 68 per cent. Will the Minister confirm that? What shotguns are needed in the built-up area of Belfast?

My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has raised this issue on a number of occasions. On 6th April 1971 he asked the Prime Minister to give urgent thought to a ban on all privately held arms subject, as I suggested, to stringently licensed authority for people in remote rural areas; appropriate provision for farmers to possess appropriate weapons. My right hon. Friend also said, Outside that, the Government should come to the conclusion that the possession of private arms should be forbidden.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th April 1971; Vol. 815, c. 280.] The Minister is tightening up on this matter. Photographs of guns are to be taken and ballistic tests will be made. Nevertheless, there are far too many guns in Northern Ireland, licensed or otherwise.

That point was re-emphasised and endorsed by the Labour Party conference. We have been told consistently that the murders and killings which have occurred in Northern Ireland have not been done by authorised gun holders. But I have here a letter which was sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) by the Very Rev. P. Canon Murphy. He states in the letter, The News Letter of Wednesday, February 14th clearly indicated that an unreasonable supply of arms was held by the accused on licence and that one of these was used in the murder of the policeman of which he has been found guilty. The second, the Belfast Telegraph, of Thursday 15th February, details the accused's own story of the events from which it emerges clearly that his superior officer of the U.D.A. of which he is a member arrived at his home and told him to report to a meeting point and to bring his gun. On proceeding to the meeting point he was given ammunition for the gun. The gun referred to was, as already stated, the one employed in the killing. It also emerges clearly from the statement of the accused under examination that under the aegis of the U.D.A. he had been given instructions in the use of arms. The points of concern to us all that emerge from the foregoing evidence are:

  1. 1. That the Security Forces were aware from the 21st October 1972 that legally held guns had been employed in the killing of one of their members.
  2. 2. That on the same occasion it came to the notice of the Security Forces that the U.D.A. were using guns and giving instruction in the use of arms."
I have here photostat copies of the news letter and the Belfast Telegraph report detailing this point. The reason I raise it is that it gives explicit evidence as to the use of legally held weapons. While this order will tighten up the position, it is still not satisfactory. We believe that there are still too many licensed guns in Northern Ireland, and they can be used in circumstances which are not in the interests of the community as a whole. One notices that in communities such as those of the United States, where there is a large issue of arms, it is very easy to get guns and licences. The number increases and never decreases.

The Government, particularly in the new legislation we are to have following adoption of the White Paper, should take steps to withdraw—not merely to review and examine—licences which may not be used for legitimate purposes in present circumstances.

We will not divide the House against this order, which goes a few short steps in the direction we want to see taken, but it should go still further.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)

I shall not develop the point which has been made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I share his doubt about the legality of depriving the firearms dealer of his livelihood. I was not satisfied with the reply, given as it were off the cuff, by the Under-Secretary of State.

Much emotion arises out of the licensing of guns. I believe that most people in Northern Ireland accept that the terror faced by the ordinary Ulster man and woman is that from those who possess unlicensed guns. It is easy for my hon. Friend to say, as I believe he said, that 333 unlicensed firearms have been recovered since 1st January. No doubt the statistics are admirable. Yesterday I heard the Prime Minister, when opening the debate, giving statistics about the number of IRA members who have been apprehended, but that is no comfort to the ordinary person, particularly old people huddled in fear at the prospect of death at the hands of other Republican terrorists.

On the number of unlicensed guns in Northern Ireland, I do not differ much from the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). There are just over 7,000 revolvers and pistols. I did not take a note of the figure he mentioned, but I believe the total was 7,345 in February this year, the latest figure I have seen. That ought to be borne in mind when stating the sum total of all licensed firearms in Ulster. There are a great number of air rifles which have to be licensed in Northern Ireland whereas there is no legal requirement for them to be licensed in England. They number almost 12,000. It is easy to evoke emotion about the number of firearms, but common sense should require people to look at the totals.

Mr. Frank McManus (Fermanagh and Tyrone)

I am sure that the hon. Mem- ber does not want to appear unreasonable and one-sided. He said that the Prime Minister gave figures about guns and ammunition held by Republican terrorists, as the hon. Member described them. Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister said that the greater proportion was found in Protestant areas?

Mr. Kilfedder

The hon. Member is making a fair point. He is right to have drawn it to my attention. I would not wish to, nor could I, mislead the House with the hon. Member here. It is true that some guns have been found but I do not recollect the figures. But we are dealing with unlicensed guns and I am all for the authorities searching out and capturing unlicensed guns because they are the ones which pose a threat to the people of Northern Ireland.

May I add for the benefit of the hon. Member that the RUC and the Army walk around the Protestant areas of Belfast. They cannot engage in the same easy searches in Republican areas. The RUC cannot go into the Republican areas anyway unless the members of the force are well protected by the Army. If the Army and the police could walk around as freely in Republican areas as they do in Protestant areas they might find considerable caches of unlicensed arms.

Mr. McNamara

In his willingness not to mislead the House, will the hon. Member recall that area in which the UDR lost its rifles on the eve of the border poll? Was it Berlin Street?

Mr. Kilfedder

Once again a red herring is drawn in, because there is no evidence that the UDR was guilty of negligence in that instance and we do not know who was responsible for capturing those rifles. [Interruption.] I do not think—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that hon. Members will confine their remarks to the terms of the order.

Mr. Kilfedder

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. McNamara

Just to get the record straight, I did not say who took the rifles, I merely said that they had been taken at a certain place on the eve of the poll from the UDR without loss of life or even any sign of a struggle.

Mr. Kilfedder

Of course those rifles are now illegally held arms. Anyone caught with them is liable to be prosecuted by the police and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. So the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) can rest content in his bed, worried only about his Icelandic problems. If he sends a gunboat to Iceland perhaps he might want some of those unlicensed arms for the seamen.

I am, however, conscious of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I intend to abide faithfully by it. The hon. Member for Salford, West asked the Minister what was the breakdown of the shotgun figures for different areas in Northern Ireland. He cannot understand the large number of licensed shotguns in Northern Ireland. He wanted to know whether there were any shotguns in Belfast. I would not be a bit surprised if, when the Minister replies, he confirms that there are shotguns in Belfast. Northern Ireland is a very small community. The country is never far away for city dwellers. People go out to shoot vermin and to enjoy themselves. It is, I believe, a condition of holding a licence for a shotgun that the police must be satisfied in advance that a landowner has given permission for a potential licence-holder in Belfast, for example, to shoot on his land. Licences are not granted to people in Belfast who want to shoot rabbits in their back gardens.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Some people do not have gardens.

Mr. Kilfedder

That is true.

The hon. Member for Salford, West ought to remember that at weekends and on summer evenings many people go into the country and do a great service to farmers by keeping down vermin.

Mr. McManus

You are talking about people using shotguns in the country. What sort of vermin are you talking about?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. MaUalieu)

The hon. Member must not call upon me to do these things.

Mr. Kilfedder

I heard the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), at some stage, say something about Catholics when the Under-Secretary was referring to vermin. I did not intend to take it up because I thought it was in the worst possible taste. The hon. Gentleman can laugh, but to my mind that is not a pleasant thing to state in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has his own armoury. He is a Roman Catholic and he has his guns. He should not talk about Protestants shooting Catholics. Let us be fair—[interruption.]—I never expect fairness from the hon. Gentleman. If he has the courage to do so, let him stand up and put his questions rather than grunt away like a pig in a parlour. [Interruption.]

Rev. Ian Paisley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to continue to heckle another hon. Member without asking him to give way?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

No.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I raise that as a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The point of order has been made and met by the Chair.

Mr. Kilfedder

I think it is worth remembering that these guns are vital for crop and animal protection. They are also used by farmers for their personal protection in rural and border areas. There are few instances of guns being used illegally.

In view of the mutterings of the hon. Member for Belfast, West it is worth pointing out that the breakdown of the number of licences shows no religious bias. There is no reason to support that, pro rata, Protestants have more guns than Roman Catholics, but perhaps the Minister can give us the figures. The vast majority of guns are held by farmers and sportsmen, and I hope the House will accept that the availability of firearms, and in particular shotguns, to the Catholic community for lawful purposes is no less than to the Protestant community.

Roman Catholic farmers in my constituency have shotguns. They have their farms to look after, and they use their guns to shoot vermin. What is said by some people about this issue is nothing but an attempt to draw a screen or cloud across the danger to Northern Ireland from sources other than licensed guns.

I conclude by referring to pistols and revolvers, to which I referred earlier. In February of this year the total was 7,345. I remember that 7,345 was the figure stated fox February last. I may be wrong about that figure—

Mr. Orme

It is 7,812.

Mr. Kilfedder—but perhaps the hon. Gentleman who replies will give the correct figure.

These licences are issued for guns for personal protection by members of the reserve security forces and for people in public life, including the hon. Member for Belfast, West. Perhaps he might like to tell the House of all the guns he possesses—licensed guns. Licences are issued for others in danger of personal attack. A considerable number of the total of pistols and revolvers are antique ones and it is worth bearing in mind that many of these have been made incapable or are incapable of being used.

We should remember in this debate that three magistrates have been attacked in Northern Ireland and that one was fatally injured. He was Mr. William Staunton, a stipendiary magistrate in Belfast, shot in front of his daughter as he was taking her to school. These guns are necessary for persons in public life such as magistrates and they should not be denied that protection. I have still not recovered from the ferocity of the attack on the unfortunate magistrate, Mr. Staunton, who had merely been doing his duty for all citizens in the community, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. There are others. Perhaps we have forgotten Senator Barnhill who was murdered in his own home. This elderly man was murdered.

There were attacks also on Mr. John Taylor, a junior Minister in the Stormont Government, and Senator Mrs. Taggart. An attack was made on the wife of the Lord Mayor of Belfast and on others, and they should not be denied protection. We should not forget the former Speaker, now retired, of Stormont, Major Ivan Neill, who was also attacked in his own home. The evidence shows that protection is needed.

I wanted to ask my hon. Friend about one thing he said in opening. He said that there had been four raids on fire- arms dealers. One took place in my constituency at Newtonards. It is essential to prevent any further raids and to prevent guns falling into unlawful hands, whether Republican or any other. As a precaution against this the Minister said that bullet-firing weapons would in future be selected from catalogues and not held in stock.

I have talked to firearms dealers about this problem, which I think is a grave one. I suggest—and I hope this is not too late, although we cannot amend the order, but perhaps the Minister will take it up—that a dealer might be able to keep on his premises one gun and one revolver of each type with the firing pin filed down so that it is useless to anyone. Potential purchasers would be able to test the weight of the gun and to examine it. If they decide to purchase a similar weapon they will go to the nearest police station or armoury to buy it, in the same way as they get the ammunition. I put that to the Minister for consideration. I agree that there is a need for ballistic tests—no one in my constituency would object to that. We know that they will prove our case that the licensed gun holders are not engaged in terrorism.

Although I agree with the order, I share the grave doubt voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North and I think that the Minister should take legal advice before answering the debate.

11.1 p.m.

Miss Bernadette Devlin (Mid-Ulster)

Before coming to the three main points that I want to take up on the speech of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), I refer to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) which were prompted by a happening in my constituency involving the possession and discharge of a shotgun and the shooting of vermin.

A gentleman was found at 1.30 in the morning firing a shotgun. He was subsequently acquitted on the technicality that he was firing not from a public footpath but from within half an inch of his own gate. By sheer chance, the direction of his aim was towards a Catholic housing estate on the other side of the road. The victims were a number of residents in that Catholic housing estate, who were not seriously injured because the weapon was a shotgun.

The gentleman was brought to court and acquitted on a technicality, but the evidence brought in his defence and seriously accepted by the court was that he was in legal possession of a shotgun for the purpose of keeping down vermin. It was claimed, in all seriousness, that what he was doing by pointing his shotgun in the direction of the housing estate was keeping down vermin. That might be referred to in the broad sense of keeping down something—

Mr. Kilfedder

We are both Irish. Perhaps I may draw an analogy with what happens in England during—what is the season?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is embarking on a lengthy intervention. I allowed the hon. Lady to go rather wide. Will she relate her speech to the order that is being discussed?

Mr. Kilfedder

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was going off the point, but my remarks are relevant to what the hon. Lady is saying.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That may well be, but a good deal of what the hon. Lady was saying was wide of the order. I am trying to bring the House back to the order. It is late at night and it is better that we should get on with the contents of the order.

Miss Devlin

To return to the three major points I mentioned, what may in all seriousness be a statement from the Front Bench that shotguns are required to put down vermin may be questioned in the parochial areas of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Peter Mills

Perhaps I can dear up this point at once. I am a farmer and I have had a lot of contact with farmers in Northern Ireland. They know what I mean. This is an extremely difficult pest to deal with, and one has to have a gun to deal with it. It is a problem common to all farmers in protecting their stock. It must be dealt with. Certainly I did not wish to give the impression, and I do not believe that I did, that I meant anything else. The farmers know what I mean.

Miss Devlin

I accept the hon. Gentleman's statement.

I return to the question of legality. I claim no particular expertise in this respect, but I join the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in saying that it is not good enough for the Under-Secretary of State to dismiss the matter simply by stating that it is legal. One casts one's mind back to the fact that the British Army was operating illegally between August 1971 and March 1972. A very embarrassed Government had to put a very hasty Bill through the House to rectify that situation. In all fairness, it would be better for the Government to look into this question now instead of glibly dismissing it, only perhaps to discover, after legislation has been passed, and there may well have been something in what the hon. Member for Antrim, North, said.

The Under-Secretary of State said that ballistic tests would be made only of those weapons for which certificates have been issued to the civilian population. Here I do not particularly want to score political points against the British Army, I am not making a generalisation against it, and I do not want to go into matters already before the courts. I shall merely refer to certain cases.

There is at the moment a case before the Northern Ireland courts concerning members of the British Army who used a firearm against members of the civilian population. As I say, I have no knowledge whether the arms in that case were legally held or illegally held.

We have yet another case about which I do not wish to make further comment but merely refer to. It concerns another member of the British Army who recently, we were told—

Mr. Kilfedder

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not like to interrupt the hon. Lady, but as a lawyer I must ask whether it is fair to defendants who are facing charges if these statements are made in the House, since in Northern Ireland the people to whom they refer can be easily identifiable. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to damage the chances of anyone.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Lady is not getting out of order so far.

Miss Devlin

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no intention of saying anything that might prejudice the interests of defendants. I am merely referring to the fact that such cases exist and that such charges are being brought. These people are not readily identifiable, in any case; they are unknown British solders.

There was the recent case of a soldier who, in civilian clothes and off duty, returning from a dance, passed through the Bogside area of Derry and there discharged a weapon. He was subsequently arrested by the British Army and the police and is facing charges. Again I am not saying, because I do not know, what weapon he discharged, from what kind of handgun he fired shots. I am making no claim that anyone was injured —no one was. This may have been an isolated case [Interruption.] I am sure that if I am out of order the Chair will draw my attention to it. I am not making judgments on these cases. I am merely referring to their existence. While these cases exist, there is doubt.

I want to refer now to cases which are not yet before the courts and, therefore, are not sub judice. They are the death of Patrick McVeagh, killed on 15th April 1972, the death of Daniel Rooney and the shooting of the two Conway brothers in May 1972. Subsequent Army statements admitted to the involvement in some degree or other of British Army personnel, but to date no charges have been brought. I have asked Questions in the House—

Rev. Ian Paisley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) really must relate her remarks to the order and its contents.

Miss Devlin

With respect, this refers to the order and to the fact that the order will not make provision for ballistic tests on handguns held by individuals who are members of the Armed Forces, despite the large body of evidence to show that to some extent there has been misuse of weapons in the possession of such individuals in Northern Ireland.

If the civilan population who are legally holding and legally entitled to firearms are expected to co-operate with the forces of law and order to establish the extent to which legally held weapons might be misused or illegally used, it is not too much to expect those very forces of law and order to exact from their own ranks the same discipline as they impose upon the civilian population.

I have asked Questions in the House about the case of Patrick McVeagh, the death of Daniel Rooney and the shooting of the two Conway brothers in Belfast, so they cannot be sub judice. The cases have not been put before the Director of Public Prosecutions and are still being investigated by the civilian authorities. But there remains sufficient doubt as to the possibility of weapons legally held being illegally used to make it necessary that they be subjected to the same tests as civilian-held weapons.

My third point concerns persons needing firearms certificates for their own protection. Is the hon. Member for Down, North aware that I myself, the hon. Member for Antrim, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) are not, according to the Firearms Act, allowed to hold firearms, although it might be argued that all three of us could claim, like many other people in Northern Ireland, to require protection? We cannot hold firearms because we have criminal records. There are many people who, because of the situation there, have gone to prison to serve six-month sentences for crimes such as marching when they should not have done so. While this may be an offence for which a person can be sent to gaol in Northern Ireland, it cannot really be said to be the kind of offence which makes a person unsuitable to hold firearms. There are many people whose political involvement in a legal and respectable way has in the past resulted in their serving prison sentences of more than three months for criminal offences. As a result, they are not entitled to protect themselves by the possession of firearms.

I ask the Minister to look at these points seriously, especially with regard to the necessity for the Army to submit its own handguns for ballistic test and for cases of people in my own position to be reconsidered.

11.14 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

The Government's priorities are wrong. We are discussing an order which is applicable to legally held firearms, yet in Northern Ireland there is a campaign being carried out by the Irish Republican Army and many people are suffering not from legally held weapons but from illegally held weapons. Recently an atrocious murder was committed in which a machine gun was used. Three sergeants of the British Army were brutally murdered. Yet tonight, after a lengthy debate on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland, we find that the Government determine their priorities by choosing to deal with licensed guns. I thought that the Government would be dealing with more important business than that.

As this order is before the House it is only right that Northern Ireland representatives should express themselves upon it. I regret that the only thing the Minister can say is that he would not be here to present the order if it were not legal. That is no argument.

I have a good relationship with all the Ministers for Northern Ireland. I have always found them courteous and helpful in all matters relating to my constituency. I have found the Under-Secretary of State particularly helpful when dealing with agricultural matters. I represent a large agricultural constituency. However, the Ministers for Northern Ireland are not properly briefed. The amazing statement has been made by my hon. Friend that there are Protestant schools in Northern Ireland. There are no such things. There are State schools and Roman Catholic schools, but there are not Protestant schools as such connected to a Protestant denomination.

Mr. Peter Mills

May I put my hon. Friend's mind at rest. When, with permission, I come to reply I may have something helpful to say on that matter.

Rev. Ian Paisley

Good. I am glad that the usual channels between the Civil Service and Ministers for Northern Ireland are open and that the information is available. I have not seen the Attorney-General in the House since the main debate, but no doubt, like all members of the legal profession, his mind is active at 17 minutes past 11 o'clock and he is applying himself to the problem.

It would be interesting to know whether the order was raised and discussed with the licensed gun dealers in Belfast. The Under-Secretary of State has said that they are all happy. If that is right, all the licensed gun dealers who made representations to me were not included. If my hon. Friend has been informed that all gun dealers are happy about this legislation, that is definitely not true. The dealers who have approached many hon. Members from Northern Ireland in this House are not happy that they cannot have at least one sample weapon to show would-be customers.

I have had strong representation from many of the dealers in Belfast about this matter. Is it not a fact that the number of gun dealers in business has been reduced already because of the troubles? Many dealers have gone out of business during the course of the troubles and have closed the part of their business which is concerned with guns, or closed down their licensed gun businesses altogether. Perhaps my hon. Friend can give me the figures. How many licensed gun dealers were in business in 1967, for example, and how many are there now?

The way that licences are revoked goes to the very hub of the order. The order provides that licences can be revoked if the chief superintendent is satisfied that the possession of a firearm by a holder is likely to endanger public safety or the peace. Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that that provision will not be used in a blanket manner and that each person who has a licensed firearm will be judged on his merits?

Mr. Peter Mills indicated assent.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I would not like any chief superintendent of police, or any other officer, to be able to say that over a vast district every gun will be automatically called in. That would be totally unfair and would be investing far too much authority in that officer.

I turn to ballistic testing. If a gun that has not been fired for two months is brought in for testing, can a ballistic test be carried out on it? How far back can a ballistic test go? What is the use of testing a gun if the test covers only the firing of the gun within a few weeks? If it was a realistic series of tests the guns would have to be brought in regularly, and I am sure this is not envisaged.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)

I think my hon. Friend is making a mistake. The gun is not tested to see whether it has been fired. It is tested so that the bullet fired from it can be indexed and used later, possibly for identifying another bullet which has been fired illegally.

Rev. Ian Paisey

The gun is also tested to see when it was fired. My hon. Friend may not know this, but those who have taken their guns in have been asked to say when they were fired. Then tests have been carried out to see whether the gun was fired on that date. This is happening in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member may try to read me a lesson on this. I am aware of the point he makes. Why are the police so anxious to know when the gun was last fired? These are the questions being asked of those who bring in their weapons. I am trying to establish how far back the tests go. It is an important point, and the Minister must be briefed on it.

Will the Minister state clearly, so that it may be put firmly on the record, how shotguns are issued in Northern Ireland? It seems that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is not aware of the strict regulations covering the issue of shotguns in Northern Ireland. If a person lives in Belfast and wants to take part in sporting activities or if he wants a gun to shoot over someone's land, the first thing that must happen is that he must have a certificate from the farmer. The land must be of a certain acreage. If he cannot get that certificate he cannot even apply for a shotgun.

Mr. Orme

I believe that the hon. Member was a Member of Stormont in December, 1970. This question of shotguns was raised by Mr. John Hume. I have the quotations from the Stormont HANSARD. He raised the issue of the dispersal of the shotguns. We hear a lot of argument about where shotguns are, and it is said they are mainly in the country. The point that has been made is that there are unnecessary concentrations in the city areas.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sometimes I feel that people imagine that shotguns are handed out willy-nilly in districts of the city of Belfast. Many who take part in sporting activities have been refused a shotgun licence. One of the questions asked when a person applies for a licence is whether he is a member of a shooting confraternity. It is not right to say that shotguns are given out in Belfast without inquiry by the police.

In some places in Northern Ireland the only security a person has is a shotgun. Some weeks ago I was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus). I did not seek the hon. Gentleman's permission. After all, he comes to the Glens in my constituency without asking my permission. I was in a home where a young man—a member of the UDR— was gunned down in his own home, at his doorway. The mother had gone to the doorway and had found that her son had been shot. The only protection that home has is a shotgun. That home is not very many yards from the border.

The talk by those in the House who say that all shotguns and licensed arms should be called in gets under the skin of those in Northern Ireland whose only protection is a shotgun under licence. Those people have no intention of going out and shooting anyone. I utterly deplore and condemn anyone who takes out a shotgun and shoots at a Roman Catholic or a Protestant.

Perhaps the Minister will confirm that it is illegal to discharge any firearm within a certain distance of a public road. Therefore, it would be an offence for anyone to discharge a shotgun, even on his own property, unless he were so many yards from the road. Contrary to what the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) said, it would not be possible for a person to get off on a technicality on that issue.

Law-abiding citizens on both sides of the religious and political fences in Northern Ireland are very concerned about the question of licensed guns. Some sections of the community receive no protection from any of the forces of law and order. There are roads which have never seen an Army vehicle and which are no-go areas for the police, as came out clearly in the debate over the last two days. Therefore, the only protection these people have is a licensed gun. They have no objection to tests being made or to the guns being subjected to proper scrutiny. The fear is that this is the thin edge of the wedge and that they will be deprived of their only security.

I should like the Minister to state that it is not the Government's intention to call in all licensed arms and leave these people without any protection. A statement to that effect from the Minister tonight will be helpful to the situation in Northern Ireland and will allay the fears of those who fear sincerely that this is the beginning of the end of their protection.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is not present, because I was not seeking to make any comments on the incident that we were discussing earlier. I wanted merely to point out that even in areas where, according to his statement, the police are able to go freely arms may still be stolen—stolen from people who should be well able to prevent their being stolen.

I have listened to the debate with amazement and wonder. A tremendous defence has been put up for privately held arms to be kept for sporting purposes. I was at a meeting in Hampstead some time ago when somebody said to me "There are Protestant guns killing our people." I said "There are no Protestant guns killing our people, because there is no such thing as a Protestant gun or a Catholic gun unless the guns have been baptised in some queer way in blood." It is guns and bullets that kill people. It is shots that maim and blind people. That is why we should call in all the guns. That is why I can only partially welcome what the Government are doing. They are only partially doing what the Opposition have asked them to do.

I concede that people living in remote areas and in difficult circumstances— —Republicans, Nationalists, Moderates, Protestants, Unionists, Loyalists, Catholics, Christian Scientists, Presbyterians— [Interruption.]—and Free Presbyterians need some sort of a weapon to protect themselves. I see no reason why the Government of a civilised State should not say to these people "We accept that because of the troubled nature of the State at the moment you need to be protected, and we will therefore give you a licence and issue you with a weapon. It will be a weapon which belongs to the State, and which the State controls." It will not be a case of saying "If you can afford a handsome little sidearm you can buy it, but if you are a poor 'Prod' or a poor 'Tague' living in fear of your life and you cannot afford it, you cannot buy one."

I should be happy to see the Government, in certain specific situations, issue arms to people whom they felt needed them, but we seem to have had too many tears shed over the plight of the poor gun dealer and the poor sportsman. I admit that to take away a man's livelihood is a serious thing, but it is far more serious to take away a man's life or the use of one or more of his limbs.

Given the numbers involved, it would seem easy for the Government to give more generous compensation than they have been giving to people who nave handed in their guns or feel that they will have to go out of business because of these regulations. If we give such persons sufficient financial aid, it might not compensate them for the enjoyment they have been getting out of their sporting activities, or for the love they have of their trade or profession or their great expertise, but in material terms there can be adequate compensation. It seems strange to cry so much about these people.

I conclude by asking one rather serious question. Allegations have been made of guns being stolen. I wonder whether the Minister can say whether any situation has arisen in which legally held guns have been stolen; in what circumstances the facts have been able to be checked; in what circumstances the guns so stolen have been used; and, more important, whether the people from whom the weapons have been stolen have had further weapons issued to them—and, if so, what conditions have been applied to them.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)

We have had an interesting debate on this subject, but the case put by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and, in opening, by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) appeared completely to miss the point. The trouble in Northern Ireland which we have been experiencing for the past three years has been caused by arms such as light rifles, Russian rockets—and we were pleased to hear about the interception, off the coast of Eire, of a ship full of guns and arms— Thompson sub-machine guns and other such weapons, none of which are subject to firearms certificates.

In Northern Ireland, as in other parts of the British Isles, many people—farmers, sportsmen and riflemen—use their guns to keep down vermin, for target practice, or for shooting clay pigeons. But there is no evidence that any of these arms are being used for illegal purposes. I welcome the fact that small arms are being called in and ballistically tested, so that those who have to keep them for personal defence cannot be accused of using them for some illegal purpose. But the bulk of the arms in Northern Ireland, the shotguns and 22 rifles, are not the weapons which are being used by the terrorists, whose actions have led to the heavy casualties to which reference has been made in the debates of the last two days.

The casualty list is 760 people killed since October 1968. Of these, 202 were killed in explosions, which leaves 558 killed by firearms. This figure can be further broken down into 235 members of the security forces—soldiers, police and reserve police—some of whom have been assassinated, like the three soldiers on leave or when clearly undefended, or shot by high-powered rifles and submachine guns—weapons which are not the subject of firearms certificates.

Every time a soldier is shot in Northern Ireland the Provisional IRA puts out a statement claiming responsibility—for 235 deaths in the past three years. Attacks have been made on the resident magistrate, Mr. Staunton, and on politicians like Senator Barnhill, Senator Mrs. Taggart, John Taylor, Ivan Neill, Senator McGladdary, Mrs. Christie, the wife of the Mayor of Belfast, William Craig and others. It is because of murderous attacks on people like these that ordinary civilians are obliged to get weapons for their own protection.

I deplore the fact that people in public life feel that they should keep a firearm. After all, often when an assassination is made, the victim is not able to use the weapon. But in a few instances people have been attacked in cars and have not been killed with the first shot; they have been able to fire back and chase the terrorists off. So in some cases the firearm has had a good effect, and has prevented the person attacked from being killed.

In my constituency some months ago, two police inspectors, Inspectors Moore and McMaster, a namesake of mine, were attacked on their way from their barracks. If another policeman had not been following and fired a couple of shots at the assassins, those two men, instead of being seriously wounded, would have been killed. It is because of incidents like this that there has been concern about the use of firearms in Northern Ireland. But this order adequately covers the use of licensed firearms, those held under a certificate or a permit.

What we want to see is greater activity by the Army in searching out illegal arms, which are used day after day. Another soldier was shot dead today, I regret to inform the House. At the weekend, not only were the three soldiers shot dead and one seriously wounded, but a policeman was shot dead. In spite of the Government's effort's and the plebiscite, this terrible toll continues. We see reports in the papers every morning of such incidents in areas like the Falls and the Ardoyne. The Army should go on the offensive and search out the illegal arms which must be in those areas since they are continually used there.

That is the action I call for from my hon. Friend and the Army; not the type of restrictions suggested by some hon. Members of the Opposition, restrictions on people who hold firearms for personal protection or on farmers and others who keep air rifles and the like.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills

I shall try to reply to some of the points which have been raised. A whole mass of things have been asked of me. I shall have to rush through them. If I do not complete them, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.

We have had an interesting debate. It has been a little heated at times. I welcome what was said by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). Although he has reservations, he has welcomed the order. I was pleased to hear that.

I take up the point raised particularly by the hon. Member for Salford, West and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that there are far too many guns in Northern Ireland and that the order does not go far enough. They said that there should be a widespread policy of calling in firearms certificates.

I should like to make the following important points. Article 3(4) gives the police authority very extensive powers to revoke certificates and permits. There will be no general revocation but the certificates and permits of persons who do not satisfy the conditions of that article may be revoked.

Concerning bullet-firing weapons— hand pistols and so on—it would be rather silly to call in these guns if the police had assessed that the holders needed them for self-protection—or for approved farming purposes. That is probably a better phrase than the one I used. This is an important point. It would be foolish to call in these guns when people's lives are in danger. Naturally we should like to have a position—we hope that it will soon come—when this will not be necessary. There is no evidence to justify the widespread calling in of shotguns and air weapons.

Members of the Ulster Defence Regiment have been targets for murder. Thirty-five have been killed, of whom all except five were off duty. It would be wrong to deny members of the regiment the means of protecting themselves.

The hon. Member for Salford, West was concerned specifically about the thorny question of shotguns in Belfast. I regret that I am unable to give him the breakdown of the figures. I hope, however, that it will please the House when I say that a new statistical unit is being set up and that within a short time it will be possible to supply that type of information quickly.

I am a farmer. I have a shotgun. I enjoy shooting and so on. Many people enjoy it. We have no evidence that shotguns are the real problem. It is the other types of illegally held weapon which are the problem. Probably not all hon. Members will agree with me, but even in Belfast many people enjoy shooting on surrounding farms, wildfowling and clay pigeon shooting. Belfast is very near most of the countryside. That is one reason why there seems to be a fair number of shotguns in Belfast.

I turn to the question of the offences that were committed with legally held weapons and the particular cases. I must be very careful about this matter, particularly those cases which are before the courts. Seven firearms certificates have been revoked in the last six months because the holders have committed an offence using a legal firearm. Some of the offences were so minor that the offenders were not prosecuted. Only in one case was the crime committed because of the present political unrest. I shall not go into that case because it is sub judice. Of the other cases, only one person has been sentenced to imprisonment. The man concerned used his shotgun to resist arrest when police went to his home with a warrant in connection with a small debt. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

Therefore, one cannot say that the legally held weapons and the offences are very serious. There have been only seven offences, only one of which was serious.

What we are doing about firearms dealers' businesses is quite legal. We are not taking away a man's livelihood; the dealer may still trade. The provision concerns only new licences and registrations. The number of raids on dealers' premises have been very few. I welcome what was said by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) about selling from a catalogue. I am not happy about the suggestion that dealers should be able to sell from stock. I will check up but I understand that they are reasonably happy about what we are doing. I do not think that in present circumstances it would be wise to leave even one gun in a shop.

There were 77,000 licences on issue on 3rd March and 1,994 permits, a total of just over 79,000. These certificates were for 73,679 shotguns, 11,792 air weapons, 13,310 .22 rifles, 737 other rifles and 7,812 handguns, a final total of 107,330.

In reply to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), I have checked the legal position and I believe I am correct except for a slight mistake. I said that the guns of the Army would not be tested, but the reserve security forces will be tested and that means the UDC and the RUC.

Miss Devlin

I am very glad to hear that. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Ulster Defence Regiment-again, I say this not out of any attempt to denigrate the regiment but merely because of the security position and the greater proportion of them have of necessity to carry a gun—will be included?

Mr. Mills

I will check on this, but I think I made the position clear.

The third point the hon. Lady made was whether we could consider those who had been in prison for three months. Section 19(5) of the 1969 Act gives the Minister power to remove the prohibition against holding arms from those who have been in prison.

Mr. McManus

I understand that if a group of soldiers go out while off duty, at least one of them is entitled to carry a handgun. If a civilian has a licensed gun and takes it with him when he goes out for the night, why should the law differentiate between him and the armed soldier? The soldier is just as likely as the civilian to discharge his gun, and he is probably more expert in the use of firearms. Why should not the soldier's gun be subject to a ballistic test?

Mr. Mills

I do not want to mislead the House. I shall check on this and write to the hon. Gentleman, but I am fairly sure that off-duty Army personnel wearing civilian clothes are not allowed to carry guns.

My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised the question of firearms dealers. There are 255 dealers. There used to be 500 in 1970. Of those 255, only 189 are authorised to deal in firearms. The others sell ammunition and so on. A person must be registered as a firearms dealer before he can trade in air weapon bullets or shotgun cartridges, and the police require a high standard of security at dealers' premises.

My hon. Friend is right in what he said about shotguns. They are subject to stringent rules and regulations. The applicant will have to satisfy the police about the purpose for which a gun is intended and comply with security and other requirements.

The testing period will remain three years, but guns may be retested before that period expires if circumstances warrant it.

I have given the House the assurance that there will be no general revoking of licences. We shall look at the situation. The whole business of introducing photographs is an important step forward, because if we can save one life it is important to do so.

I have probably not dealt adequately with all the issues that have been raised. I seem to have been asked a tremendous number of questions. I shall read HANSARD with care, and if I have failed to answer any questions I shall write to the hon. Members who asked them. What we are proposing will go a long way towards making certain that certificates are warranted and are right. I believe that the order is a step forward and I commend it to the House. Our aim is to save lives, and that is important.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th March, be approved.