HC Deb 20 March 1975 vol 888 cc2033-60

12 midnight

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of the Firearm Certificates and Permits (Variations of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1974 (S.R. & 0. N.I.) 1974, No. 301), dated 29th November 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th December. I am glad to have the opportunity to open this debate on a subject which has generated a good deal of interest, and the Opposition are grateful to the Government for providing the time for our anxieties to be expressed and for the Government's intentions in this matter to be probed.

As the House will be aware, this matter all began because of the notorious Northern Ireland Order No. 301 dated 29th November 1974 which came into effect on 1st January of this year. This order increases under variation of fees the grant or taking out of a licence from £2.10 to £10 ; under 2(b), the renewal which has to be effected every three years from £1.5 to £5 ; and the variation of a firearms certificate under 2(c) from £1.5 to £5.

Hon. Members will note two facts: first, that the new level of fees is about quintuple the previous level, and, second, and of considerable importance, that the old levels of fees of £2.10, £1.5 and £1.5 respectively were themselves established as recently as 1970.

The first question that we have to ask the Government is why the fees have increased by this unacceptably steep amount. After all, the latest figures show that the 1970 pound, when these fees were last altered, today has a purchasing power of 61p, so that recompensing the Revenue authorities for the fall in purchasing power in that period would be more than adequately accomplished by doubling the grant fee from £2.10 to, say, £4, which would still leave a little extra in hand. But to ask for £10—£6 more than the fall in the value of money in the four or five years since 1970—calls for an explanation from the Minister.

It may be that the old levels were pitched too low in 1970 and did not then cover the full cost of collection, hence the quintupling of them now. In any event, the cost of collection will have risen in the intervening period. But what we need an assurance about is that these new levels are not pitched above the cost of collection. If they are, we believe that it will establish a new precedent and a dangerous new principle which will he quite unacceptable and which, in effect, will permit only those who are able to afford to pay a licence fee to be in a position to possess a firearm, regardless of their needs.

In my view, the situation appears to be approaching that today. In Northern Ireland, although in some parts one can still buy quite a good shotgun for £30 or £40 if one knows where to go, at the new level of fees the cost of licensing a gun for a lifetime's shooting will amount, with a variation or two thrown in, to double the cost of the weapon's purchase in the first place.

We recognise that Northern Ireland has its own special problems. But it appears to us that the new level of fee at £10 for the grant of a firearm licence for a shotgun is completely out of line with the rest of Great Britain, for instance, where the fee is still only £1 for the same licence.

I submit that a number of questions should be asked tonight, and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer one or two of them.

First, why are the fees being quintupled, and to what purposes will the revenue be applied? Secondly, why, coupled with this steep increase in fees, have the police in Northern Ireland been instructed—as recently as 15th January—to utilise "more stringent criteria ", to quote the relevant order, when considering applications to possess guns for recreational, sporting and agricultural purposes? Why have these new stringent criteria been ordered now after six years of terrorism?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whose order it is from which he is quoting? Who is being ordered by whom in the document to which he referred?

Mr. Farr

I am quoting from a Press release issued by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, dated 15th January 1975.

There is one particular point that I should like to put to the Minister who is to reply to the debate. We do not expect an answer tonight, but we should like him to consider whether some economies can be made. I think that the hon. Gentleman, being a sensible person, will recognise that the present level of fees will be beyond the reach of many ordinary people in Northern Ireland. Cannot a sensible economy be made by taking steps to see that the necessary firearm licence to possess a shotgun, a rifle, or whatever, is renewable at six-yearly periods instead of the present three-yearly period? That would be an obvious immediate economy. It would halve the cost of collection and make the steep increase of fees contained in this notorious Order No. 301 more acceptable and, consequently, reduce it.

Regardless of the consultations that the Minister may or may not have had about reducing the level of fees because he is able to extend the period for a licence from three years to six years, will he undertake to look at the special position of those engaged in agriculture who need firearms not as toys or sporting requisites, but as tools for cropping and flock protection at certain times of the year?

There is no evidence of legally held sporting firearms being used to any significant or, indeed, any degree in terrorist attacks. The House may be interested to know that in 1973 a total of 281 shotguns, legitimately held, were stolen, the major portion of them from dealers' premises. This total is little greater than the average in normal years and represents a little more than one-third of 1 per cent. of the total of shotguns in private hands.

In recent years the Northern Ireland sportsman has commanded our sympathy and our admiration for the public-spirited and responsible way in which he has conducted himself in the face of great provocation. We trust that after all the fire and brimstone that they have been through the Secretary of State will not adopt a churlish attitude towards this restrained and law-abiding section of the population who possess firearms for recreational, agricultural and sporting purposes.

12.10 a.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle)

I am glad despite the lateness of the hour, to have this opportunity of explaining in more detail, and giving some of the background to, the current policy on firearms in Northern Ireland. There has been a good deal of controversy about it recently and the policy may not be fully understood in all quarters. In doing so, I shall say something about the question of firearm certificate fees, out of which this debate, strictly speaking, arises.

Let me make one thing clear at the outset. Most of the crime in Northern Ireland involving firearms is committed with weapons held illegally. I do not suggest otherwise. But there can be no doubt that the number of legally held firearms in private hands is in some degree a potential threat to public safety. Of 1,403 legally held weapons stolen between 1971 and 1974, some three-quarters were stolen from people who held them for private reasons. We must therefore exercise realistic controls over legally held weapons.

There have been some extraordinary statements made in recent weeks and I am glad of the opportunity to explain to the House what the position is. Under the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, the responsibility for the grant and renewal of firearm certificates rests solely with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. He grants a certificate only if the applicant can show good reason for having a particular weapon. He also needs to be satisfied that the applicant is not prohibited under the Act from possessing a firearm, that he is not intemperate or of unsound mind, and that he can be permitted to possess a firearm without danger to the public safety or to the peace.

A person who is refused a certificate may appeal to the Secretary of State.

Applicants for renewal certificates have to satisfy similar tests. All certificates have to bear the applicant's photograph. There is a further provision of some importance. The holders of hand weapons are required to have them ballistically tested and a photograph in profile taken of the barrel as a means of checking the origin of bullets discovered at the scenes of incidents. Over 7,000 firearms have been so tested since the system started in 1973.

The law in Northern Ireland is different from that in Great Britain because the size of the problem in Northern Ireland requires a different approach. There are about 97,000 legally-held weapons in private hands in Northern Ireland. This excludes about 5,000 weapons held by members of the RUC Reserve and UDR. Excluding also about 12.000 air weapons which in Great Britain are not classed as firearms and about 3.000 firearms which have been voluntarily surrendered by their owners to the police for safe-keeping, there are some 82,000 firearms in private hands in Northern Ireland.

The decision whether or not to issue a firearm certificate rests statutorily with the chief constable who has to bear in mind the considerations I mentioned earlier. Naturally he has regard to the security situation on which he keeps the Secretary of State regularly informed, and he is, of course, aware of the decisions taken by the Secretary of State on appeals.

During 1975 some 50,000 firearm certificates—a substantial number—fall due for renewal. In general, people already holding certificates will have them renewed. But special attention will be paid by the police to applications for new certificates, particularly in urban areas. If a man wants a gun for sporting purposes, a genuine reason must be shown. A new certificate for rough shooting will normally only be granted when there is written permission from the owner of the land where the gun is to be used. New certificates for 22 rifles will generally be confined to farmers to deal with such problems as sheep worrying and things of that sort. New applications for hand weapons for personal protection will continue to be authorised only where the Chief Constable is satisfied that the applicant's life is at risk.

With regard to weapons already held for sentimental reasons, security is just as important as in the case of all other legally held weapons. The Chief Con- stable is considering how best to achieve this by means other than drilling and plugging. But in general people will not be granted certificates to acquire weapons for sentimental reasons. This will not prevent sentimental weapons being handed down within a family.

I should like to pay a tribute to the public-spirited people who in the interests of security have handed in their weapons to the police for safe-keeping—about 3,165 in all. I hope that more people will follow their excellent example.

I said earlier that some 50,000 firearm certificates would fall due for renewal in 1975 and that in general people already holding certificates will have them renewed. Where a person has his certificate revoked it is open to him to appeal or to make a fresh application. The number of certificates falling due for renewal this year will mean a major administrative task for the police and civil service. Here we come to the point the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) was interested in. Extra staff have had to be provided. The Firearms Certificates and Permits (Variation of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) increased fees for a new certificate to £10 and for renewal to £5. These increases are substantially required to cover the administrative costs which have risen steeply because of inflation and because of the greater commitment of police time in the investigation of applications which is now necessary.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

How many of the 50,000 firearm certificates which have been renewed are for shotguns?

Mr. Moyle

I cannot say off-hand. I shall see if the information is available but I doubt it at present. I will see what I can do to deal with the matter.

In assessing the rates which the order imposes, hon. Members should bear in mind that certificates need to be renewed only once every three years. The continuing cost of a certificate is thus only £1.67 per annum which is not exactly a crippling sum.

I will bear in mind the idea of six-yearly renewal but the governing principle is not necessarily that of economy rather than the need for security.

The House will be aware that there have been many rumours about forthcoming legislation dealing with firearms in Northern Ireland. Copies of the proposed draft order, with an appropriate explanatory document, will first of all be made available in the House and elsewhere so that there will be opportunity for all interested parties to comment. But I thought it might be helpful if I mentioned the main provisions now. The order will seek to improve the control of gun clubs. The rifle associations have been consulted about this and I am glad to say they are happy about the proposals. I have it in mind that clubs should be required to keep registers of members which will be open to police inspection ; that they should make annual membership returns to the police ; and that they should submit for police inspection their arrangements for range safety and the security of their arms and ammunition.

The order will also raise the minimum qualifying are for a firearm certificate from 16 to 18 years, thus bringing the law into line with current practice. Further provisions will require firearms dealers to notify transactions within the trade.

Professor A. J. P. Taylor once wrote a book of essays entitled "Wars and Rumours of Wars ". Those of us currently concerned with the government of Northern Ireland might well entitle our memoirs" Policies and Rumours of Policies ", because there has recently been a spate of rumours in the Province about many aspects of policy there—not least the policy for firearms.

We have received at Stormont Castle a large number of representations, from all sections of the community, about the steps being taken to control legally-held firearms and the alleged reasons for those steps. I can remember some particularly striking examples of this. On 18th February. Professor Kennedy Lindsay was reported as having solemnly warned my right hon. Friend against the new policy of withdrawing a large proportion of legally held guns which he alleged was part of a deal that had been made with the Provisional IRA. On 24th February, Assemblyman Mr. Frank Millar was reported as saying the Government's determination to withdraw legally held guns was a carefully planned exercise aimed at weakening still further the Protestant population ". It is against this background of rumour and innuendo that I have sought tonight to set the records straight by spelling out the facts of the policy of firearms.

12.21 a.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross (Londonderry)

The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) expressed thanks to the Government for making this time available. I cannot follow what the hon. Gentleman said, because he and I separately put down Prayers asking for the annulment of this order. I did that on 12th December last, but time was not allowed for us to discuss the possibility of annulling the order. I therefore do not see any reason to give thanks where no thanks are due.

The increase in fees is a matter of deep concern to those who shoot in Northern Ireland, and I think that it would be wise to take a look at the history of this matter in rather greater depth than has been done so far.

Under the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, which took effect on 16th October 1969, the issued of a new certificate cost 50p, a variation of that certificate cost 12½p, and a renewal cost 37½p. At the same time, for a firearm permit the sums were 22½p, 5p and 15p. This did not last very long. The Firearm Certificates and Permits (Variation of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1970, which took effect from 1st August 1970 raised the cost of a new certificate to £2.10p, a permit to £1.5p, a variation to £1.5p, a renewal to £1.5p. and a duplicate to £1.5p. The same levels applied for a permit. I ask the House to note that this means that the previous very low level of fees lasted for less than a year. I also ask the Minister whether it was at that time that the 10s. gun licence which a person used to need to use a shotgun for wildfowling disappeared. I think that it was around about then, but I have not managed to check that.

The present order, which dates from 1st January of this year, raises the cost of a new certificate to f10, a variation to £5, a renewal to £5 and a duplicate to £5. The strange thing is that the replacement of a certificate and a renewal at the same time goes up to £10, and anyone who is unfortunate enough to need to replace the low quality booklet which is the firearm permit will have to pay £5 for it, which is rather a high price. I have had one for less than a year, and I need a new one because I have been carrying it about all the time, as we have to do now. On top of all the other things, one has to produce two photographs which have to be certified by a police officer.

All these things have to be taken into account. Not least of the things that have to be taken into account is the fact that many poor people in Northern Ireland shoot for the pot. Shooting is relatively easy to come by. There is not all that much game, but there is quite a bit of wildfowl, rabbits, and so on, and people like to chase, kill and eat them. It is a much more healthy sport than chasing a ball, and I indulge in it myself.

Next, I turn to firearm permits. This method of permitting a person to keep a firearm in their house is a hangover from the old C-Specials. That was a police force that was used during the troubles of the 1920s. It was finally disbanded in 1926. When it was formed its members were issued only with a cap and an armband. They had to buy their own weapons. When the force was disbanded the weapons were allowed to be held by the former members under firearm permits, not certificates. It is necessary to have a firearm certificate to cover all other kinds of weapons and firearms in Northern Ireland.

Some concern has already been expressed about the reason for the vast increase in fees. Since 1969 we have seen for certificates a rate of inflation of 2,000 per cent. There has been a 400 per cent. increase since 1970. They would seem to be rather ridiculous increases. I can see no justification for them, and neither can my many friends who also shoot in Northern Ireland.

We have heard about the police time that is taken up by investigating new applicants and, presumably, old applicants. That argument is the most arrant nonsense I have heard. It can be described as nothing else. The plain truth is that under the old system the investigation was done by a local police sergeant and his men. It is plainly true that it is still done by the local police sergeant and his men in many country areas and in some towns. I understand that under the old system one person was kept continually at the job at county inspector level. That person is no longer employed. Sometimes he was a police constable but, generally speaking, I understand that he was a civil servant.

The whole system has now been centralised. We are told that the amount of work is such that extra staff have to be engaged. But can the Minister tell us what staff is normally engaged? Is it more than eight or nine civil servants? What precise function is carried out by the superintendent who is in charge of the centralised system? What precise function does he fulfil that is not still being fulfilled by the local police sergeant or by the local inspector? Is it not also a fact that on its way from the local policeman the investigation passes through divisional headquarters? Where is the justification for saying that extra time and extra staff is needed?

Northern Ireland is a small place. The community is well known to the police. In nine cases out of 10 the police can tell, without carrying out an investigation. whether a person is capable of handling a firearm safely and will not be a danger to himself or to the general public. It may well be that the cost of permits and certificates was subsidised in the past, but can the Minister tell me how the amount of the subsidy was determined? To my knowledge investigations have very often been carried out by the police as part of normal police duty. Certainly there is not a specialised body of detectives trotting round the country making detailed inquiries into the characters of the people concerned. The work is simply done locally as has always been the position. There is no greater amount of police time required in the majority of cases to arrive at a conclusion.

Another red herring that has been dragged across our path is the security situation. It appears that many people, and especially those in positions of political power in Northern Ireland, have a bee in their bonnets about legal guns. If the responsibility is not that of the political figures in Northern Ireland, is it the Army's? Let us remember the Army's record in protecting its firearms. Between 1969 and 1974 it lost 259 weapons. They represented a fire-power hundreds of times in excess of the weapons lost by civilians in view of the lethality of the weapons the Army contrived to lose. In roughly the same period the police lost 75 hand guns, one of which was later identified as having been used in a murder and 10 others in acts of terror.

The civilian losses of guns from 1971 to 1974 were 1,403. But since legally held weapons include weapons held by the security forces and in view of the Minister's remark that three-quarters of the weapons stolen were held for private reasons, do those 1,403 losses include weapons lost by the Army and the police?

Mr. John Carson (Belfast, North)

Can my hon. Friend discover from the Minister whether some of these 1,403 missing guns were not stolen, especially in Republican areas? Whenever licences come up for renewal, the police find that many guns arc missing from those districts and that the licence holders cannot account for them.

Mr. Ross

I am grateful to my hon. Friend: that had not come to my attention. I hope that the Minister has noted that point.

Between 1971 and 1974 there were 14,392 shooting incidents involving the security forces. On only 16 occasions were stolen legally held weapons identified as having been used against the security forces. That is such a small number that it is not worth thinking about.

There are irksome restrictions on the holders of legal firearms. I am the owner of a 22 rifle. The last time that my firearms certificate was renewed, I was told that I could use the rifle only on my own land. That is ridiculous. The Minister is no doubt aware, as all shooting men are, that if farmers have to use their rifles for the protection of their flocks, they like to be able to use them outside the boundaries of their own farms.

The police have been, to say the least, extremely careful and wise about the granting of firearms certificates. The clearest proof is that, in the last five years, legally held weapons have been used only in eight serious cases, which are listed in the appendix to the letter that the Minister sent me on 7th March. Do those eight cases include weapons held by the security forces, part time and full time? We are aware of the problems even in those circumstances in the use of weapons. When there are 101,000 legally held weapons in Northern Ireland, a total of only eight serious cases in five years is the clearest proof of the wisdom of the police.

A licence to drive a vehicle is granted without any serious investigation of the mental or physical health of the applicant. A criminal or, a mentally unstable or reckless person can get one. Considering the numbers of accidents, deaths or serious injuries caused by each, there is no doubt which is the more dangerous weapon since, without investigation, it can be in the hands of someone who is mentally unstable or reckless—a vehicle or a firearm. About the only thing which will disqualify one for both is drunkenness.

Furthermore, police powers are much greater in Northern Ireland than they are in Great Britain. For instance, a firearm certificate in Northern Ireland can be revoked during its life. I understand that it cannot be revoked in Britain unless a criminal act has been committed. In Britain an applicant has a mandatory right to a firearm certificate, but not in Northern Ireland, where the police can, if they wish, refuse it.

The police in Northern Ireland are quite confident of their judgment, and the record proves that their judgment is to be relied upon. The Minister should leave the matter in their hands, without any political pressure being applied. The Minister and his colleagues in Northern Ireland should forget the political catch cries that are constantly being aimed at those who hold legal weapons, and they should consider the quarters from which those cries come with great care, and the records of many of those who make them.

The Minister and his colleagues should remember the needs of the sportsmen of Northern Ireland, who form a most responsible body who have not been out shooting at their neighbours. The Minister should remember the needs of those who indulge in target shooting with rifles and, in clay pigeon shooting, those who need several shotguns. Above all, he should remember the needs of the farming community.

It is only because a 22 rifle is the largest calibre weapon for which a certificate is normally granted in Northern. Ireland that so many of them are in the country. People who have had to shoot marauding dogs or to fire at foxes realise that a 22 rifle is not really the best weapon for the job. Farmers in Northern Ireland would prefer something with rather more punch and a flatter trajectory.

In the past the situation has been well and wisely handled. The present legislation seems, in the minds of most sportsmen in Northern Ireland, to be aimed straight at the legal sportsmen and seems designed to reduce very drastically the number of legally held firearms in Northern Ireland. The amounts of money involved are quite unnecessary. We have heard only excuses for the increase in fees. The Minister and his colleagues should look at this matter again very closely, and try to find some economies in the whole matter. They should bring back the fees to a more reasonable and realistic level.

12.38 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

I should like to follow the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). First, the representatives at the Assembly are not irresponsible, as the Minister would try to make out tonight from his quotations. I challenge the Minister to deny that a certain directive, which hon. Members have seen, was sent out from the Chief Constable's office to all police stations at the beginning of this year in which there was a clear indication that a new directive was being given in regard to firearms. In a reply to a Question which I tabled, it was admitted that many firearm certificates had been cancelled.

It is also true that when a deputation of Assembly men met the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the hon. Gentleman's colleague, his fellow-Minister of State, when we were discussing this matter the Minister of State interjected and said that it was the Prime Minister's view that there were far too many licensed guns in Northern Ireland and that it was the Prime Minister's policy that the number was to be reduced. Therefore, we can only assume that when the Minister of State, in the presence of the Secretary of State, makes such a statement, it is a political decision.

It is very unfair of the hon. Gentleman tonight to say that these are merely rumours. Are the Secretary of State and the hon. Gentleman's fellow-Minister of State, when they talk to us, speaking the truth or speaking only of rumours? That is what we want to know now. Let us get away from the play acting and down to the reality of the situation. We were told this in a deputation at Stormont Castle. I can only go by what was said by the hon. Gentleman's colleague. If I am told that the Prime Minister's policy is to reduce the number of licensed guns in Northern Ireland, I take that to be Government policy, and I take it that the directive put out by the Chief Constable was in line with that policy.

I was glad to hear the Minister say that the Government will not cut down the number of licensed arms, that the same regulations will apply as before. The community concerned will be pleased to hear that, but that was not the story which we heard when we investigated the matter. The Chief Constable told my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast. North (Mr. Carson) and me that he had never been consulted on the subject or told that there was to be new legislation on guns in Northern Ireland. He told us that the only intimation he had of that fact was from an Answer to a Question asked in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry. We find it very strange that the Chief Constable, the man who uses his discretion in the granting of certificates, should tell us that he knows nothing about the change, that we know as much about it as he does, and that he had not been consulted.

Let there be no misunderstanding of our attitude on this issue. We believe that in the present circumstances there should be a strict law on the granting of new gun licences. People who have not held a licence before should be strictly vetted. But those who have held gun licences, often for as long as 30 years, who have nothing against them and who the police recommend should continue to hold a licence should not have their licences cancelled. Yet in instance after instance those licences have been cancelled.

Mr. Moyle

I think that the hon. Member has misunderstood the situation completely. If the police agree that someone shall have his certificate renewed there is no way in which that decision can be reviewed by anyone else. An appeal takes place only where someone is refused a certificate renewal by the police. That person then has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

Rev Ian Paisley

I must correct the Minister because he evidently does not understand the situation in Northern Ireland. In many cases the local police have recommended that these certificates should not be cancelled. When they have gone to the central authority that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry at the headquarters in Knock Road the recommendation of the local police has been rejected and the discretion of the Chief Constable exercised to cancel that certificate. The man in charge is actually Mr. Williamson, who is Deputy Chief Constable. He knows nothing about the person whose certificate is being cancelled. The only people who know the applicants are the men on the ground, the local chief superintendents. They have recommended that the certificates should be renewed ; yet the certificates are cancelled. Those are the incontrovertible facts. They have been confirmed to me by my local commander. It is wrong for the Minister to say, so to speak, that these are wars and rumours of wars ". The Assistant Chief Constable who is responsible for this matter is a high ranking officer and is of great integrity. He informed my hon. Friend, when we visited headquarters and when he was called into consultation by the Chief Constable, that he had to employ extra staff because there would be a reduction in the number of people who held gun licences. We have been told that only in exceptional circumstances would the Minister overrule what was done by the Chief Constable.

How many appeals have been upheld? The man in the street believes that the appeals system is a farce. All appeals are turned down. Nobody seems to win on appeal.

There is a serious situation in Northern Ireland. Those of us who live with it, who know what is happening there, and who have been in the front line know that there is a serious situation. The Minister of State has confirmed again tonight, and the Secretary of State has con- firmed over and over again, that licensed guns are not the problem. The ordinary licensed gun holder who has held a weapon for years and has never had any difficulty with the police or any other authority is asking "Why am I being hounded when those who are committing atrocities and those who hold unlicensed weapons are not pursued by the police? Why do not the police spend their time trying to get those with unlicensed arms?" These people are law-abiding. They have not been in collision with the authorities.

It is well known in the Province that the elected representatives of the United Ulster Unionist coalition visited the local commanders and discussed this matter with them. It afterwards transpired that the local commanders were unanimous in the view that those who at present hold licences have always co-operated with the police.

Why should someone who has held a weapon for 20, 25 or 30 years now be told that he cannot hold a weapon any longer? Some of these people are farmers. Even they have been told that they cannot any longer hold a weapon that they have held for many years.

I can well understand the attitude of the two Assembly men who have been mentioned. For years the Provisional IRA has conducted a propaganda campaign to the effect that there are too many licensed guns in the Province. The IRA propagandists have proclaimed that they must have arms, otherwise the Roman Catholic population would be a prey to the licensed gun holders. That is its propaganda.

The SDLP has called continually for the taking away of all licences. Its policy is that there should be no licensed guns in Northern Ireland. Now that we have a truce or a cease-fire with the IRA, is it the Government's policy that all licensed gun holders should lose their licences? I wish that the Minister would more sympathetically consider the facts and realities of the situation. It is a matter of great seriousness to the people concerned, for they are law-abiding citizens.

The Minister mentioned the guns that the police hold. The reserve constables' weapons are on firearms certificates. These men have been granted the use of a firearm for their own protection when they are not on duty. Their guns are also on certificates, and must be taken into the total number of weapons considered tonight.

How many airguns are there in a comparable rural area in England? I am told that on this side of the water there are far more airguns per head of the population than there are in Northern Ireland. We must remember that everyone with an airgun in Northern Ireland must have a firearms certificate.

I agree with one point that the Minister mentioned. I should be happy if the age limit were raised to 18. There would be no objection to that from the representatives of Northern Ireland. We are happy that the hon. Gentleman has had consultations with rifle clubs. We also agree with him that the clubs should be under strict supervision. Nobody objects to that.

There is no objection from the representatives of Northern Ireland to having the matter dealt with properly. What we object to is that it seems that the public representatives were told a different story at Stormont Castle from that which had been told to us by the police on the ground. Then when we asked the Chief Constable where the real direction came from we could not get a satisfactory answer. We could only conclude that it was the Prime Minister's policy, the policy of the present administration.

I come to the raising of the fees. In all fairness to the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland, it is ridiculous that the licence fee should be increased by such a vast amount. I shall not enter into an argument about the social contract at this hour, but where does this tie in with the social contract? There is no threshold agreement here. Licence fees that were 50p a few years ago are now to be raised to £10. That is unfair, because it means that shooting fraternity will be limited to people with means. That is wrong. There should not be a fee that brings a class distinction into the shooting fraternity. Fees should be reasonable. I agree that one method might be for the £10 to cover a longer period, but the people of Northern Ireland resent this vast jump in the fee.

12.55 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

There should be much instruction tonight for the Minister in what has been said, and I hope that the conclusions will be drawn in areas much wider than the ones to which the immediate debate refers.

The Minister spoke of wars and rumours of wars, and, indeed, in Northern Ireland it is perfectly true that the air is full of rumour, some of it totally unfounded, some of it well-founded and most of it with very little, but some, foundation. It is not surprising that a population which has lived under the conditions which have been experienced in Northern Ireland in these last six years should be the prey to rumour. This prevalence of rumour is no advantage to the maintenance of law and order and is no advantage to that relationship which ought to subsist between the Government and the people. The Minister can learn from this debate how the Government can help in minimising or avoiding rumour.

The statutory Prayer against the order was put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) in December. If the Government in their management of business had found the time when it ought properly to have been found during the currency of the 40 days for the debate to have taken place three months ago, the Minister would have had his opportunity—which he expressed himself so delighted to find within his hands tonight—three months ago to forestall many of the rumours and misunderstandings and to scotch at a much earlier stage those which have arisen.

I am glad that the Deputy Chief Whip is also on the Front Bench. I know that he is very alive to these matters, and helpful. I put a more general proposition to the Minister and through him to the Secretary of State that the sooner matters relating to Northern Ireland can be debated in the much more dispassionate atmosphere of this House, and with the authority of the Minister at the Dispatch Box to deal instantly with points that are raised, the less rumour there will be, the more good will there will be towards the Government and the easier both he and we shall find it to discharge our functions.

In his opening speech—and I hope he will seek the permission of the House to speak again—the Minister made a number of statements which were helpful and clarifying, but I hope that before the end of the one-and-a-half hours he will be able to go further. If he does so he will lay to rest and place upon a factual basis so much of what has hitherto been, and still is, a matter of conjecture and exaggerated alarm.

First, I ask the Minister to refer to what the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) spoke of as an order—the document that has been so many times quoted in the public Press in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister please explain exactly what is the status of that document, from whence it emanates, by whose authority it is backed and how far, if at all, it originates from any instructions given by Her Majesty's Government through the Secretary of State? I hope that he will clear that up once for all.

Secondly, the Minister can help with some simple statistics. If he cannot give them tonight—and it will be understandable if he cannot—there will be no difficulty in arranging for a Written Question, which would ensure that they were available to the public in Northern Ireland before Easter.

As has been said, at one stage the impression was given that almost as a matter of course firearms licences were not to be renewed when they fell for renewal and that quite drastic reductions in the numbers held were deliberately and ruthlessly being carried out. The Minister can deal with this perfectly simply by giving a series of statistics. He can state first of all and these figures should be available, or easily obtainable—the number of applications for renewal which have been accepted and those which have been refused. In each of these cases it would be helpful if there were comparable figures for previous years for purposes of comparison. That may not be entirely practicable. I throw it out as a suggestion.

The Minister can next tell us what are the facts as to the applications for new licences accepted and refused. Third, will the Minister give figures, for the appropriate period, for the number of appeals against refusal and the number of those appeals which have been allowed or turned down by the Secretary of State? There are three, and only three, simple statistics—renewals, new applications and appeals. I have not the slightest doubt that they will bear out what he has said, and there is nothing like the facts for bearing out a general assertion.

These are the facts which will lay to rest once and for all this tiresome matter which has caused much more anxiety than is generally realised during the past three months and given the Government and the police much more trouble than necessary. Let the Minister give those figures, or, if he cannot give them now, let him undertake, and he is punctilious in fulfilling these undertakings, to supply them so that they can be published before Easter.

Finally, let us all learn the lesson to be gained from this experience, namely, that the Government should contrive to give time for the discussion of Northern Ireland problems at the earliest, and not at the latest, moment. That will save time, misunderstanding and trouble all round.

1.3 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

I am sure that the Minister of State will take to heart the closing words in particular of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The whole House would wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for tabling their Prayer and for their persistence in obtaining this debate, which has been extremely helpful in that it has given the Government the opportunity of dealing with rumours which have arisen, as rumours so easily do in Northern Ireland, on the question of the possession and use of firearms.

We on the Conservative benches certainly favour a tight control on the issue and renewal of certificates and proper provision for the safe keeping of firearms. We are glad that the issue of certificates is now centralised at the headquarters of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This has been the case since last summer. It is worth remarking that the Chief Constable of the RUC has discretion in the refusal of licences, something which, I think, is not possessed by chief officers in Great Britain.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), to whom we listened with particular respect after his courageous statement about thugs and terrorists whom he described as neither Protestant nor Loyalist, referred to certain circulars, which are not the subject of this debate, as indicating a desire on the part of the Government considerably to reduce the number of firearms in circulation in Northern Ireland. It does not require a very suspicious person to imagine that it is perhaps in the mind of Ministers that one way of reducing the number is by making the possession and use of firearms more expensive.

It is not always realised on this side of the water that—as I discovered in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Down, South before he became its Member of Parliament—sportsmen in Northern Ireland may be ordinary working-class people who may even be employed in the Belfast shipyards. It is not a rich man's sport with which we are concerned.

I was glad to hear the Minister say that when we consider measures to defeat terrorism, licensed weapons are not at issue—it is the unlicensed weapons that cause concern.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw), when he was Secretary of State, said, on 8th February 1973: Illegally held firearms are the main problem. Shot-guns in rural areas and weapons for personal protection for members of the security forces and others in particular positions are necessary•• There is no evidence that licensed weapons have been used in these acts of terrorism."—[Official Report, 8th February, 1973 ; Vol. 850, c. 631.] I do not think that the position has changed substantially since then.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough spoke of crop and flock protection. The hon. Member for Londonderry made the point that a farmer needs his weapon to protect his flocks beyond his own narrow boundaries.

While I was looking up what the former Secretary of State had to say about this matter, my mind went back to September 1972 when I was on the border between County Fermanagh and the Irish Republic. I have no compunction in referring to the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone since both the present and the previous Republican Members returned from that constituency are as persistent parliamentary truants as the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse). I hope that the good Nationalist as well as the good Unionist people who have been so effectively disenfranchised since the unseating of the right hon. Harry West will draw their own conclusions.

From 1972 the names of Darling, Bullock and Crichton, who were the subject of either murder or murderous attacks, were vividly in my mind. I spoke to the families affected, and then switched on the radio only to hear that some members of the Labour Party, who are not present, and others belonging to the SDLP, who are not present, had demanded that the shotguns in the possession of such farmers should be called in since they were a danger to the peace of Northern Ireland. This is a regular Republican red herring, as is the question of the rifle and gun clubs.

The impression has been given on this side of the water that the rifle clubs in Northern Ireland are some sort of John Birch society. I understand that the total membership of these clubs has decreased of late and now totals about 3,000. However, in the main they consist of airgun, Territorial Army, Cadet Force, Royal Ulster Constabulary and Boys' Brigade clubs. All the rifle clubs, even those which do not possess weapons, are registered. This is not the case on our side of the water.

The Northern Ireland regulations governing the opening of rifle clubs, the obtaining of premises and the commencement of shooting are much stricter than those in England. In accordance with the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Act 1969, gun and rifle clubs must obtain a declaration of approval, which must be renewed annually. Moreover, club firearms must be held centrally.

These facts are obviously well known to hon. Members from Northern Ireland but perhaps not so well known to hon. Members representing constituencies in Great Britain. I mention them just to suggest that we are not really likely to strike a great blow for law and order if we try to strike at rifle and gun clubs in any way.

We get the whole situation a little out of proportion if we simply make comparisons with Great Britain. For example, I understand that the total number of licensed firearms in Northern Ireland in February was 102,190. Of that number, 99,019 were in circulation, 3,100 being held by the police for safe keeping. But that number also included 12,128 air weapons which, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North pointed out, are not licensed in Great Britain but are licensed in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the weapons of reserve policemen which are included in the total figure. So I do not think that there is an enormous excess of licensed arms in the Province which could be a danger to the public peace. In any event, the Minister of State will be replying to this as to other questions raised in the debate.

This is a matter about which people in Northern Ireland are, very understandably, sensitive. It is not surprising that rumours have been spreading about ministerial intentions. Therefore, it is well for this House and for the people of Northern Ireland that this debate has been held tonight.

1.12 a.m.

Mr. Moyle

With the permission of the House, I shall do my best to reply to the matters which have been raised in the course of a very interesting debate by hon. Members who obviously have sincere and deep feelings about the situation which they face and about representations which they have received from their constituents. I think that one result of this evening's debate will be a much clearer appreciation of the general situation, and the situation which I described in my opening remarks is the policy which will be followed in Northern Ireland for the issue of licences for shotguns.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) intervened in my opening speech to ask how many of the certificates likely to be renewed in this coming year—the 50,000 which I mentioned—were likely to be shotguns. I am afraid that the precise figure is not available in anticipation of renewals being made. But if the proportion of shotguns to other guns in the general holding of guns in Northern Ireland bears the same relationship to the 50,000, about two-thirds of the 50,000 renewals will he shotguns. But that is only an estimate.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised a number of very interesting topics and asked for specific information on a number of them. As he suspected at the time, I am afraid that I have not the information with me. But I shall collect the relevant information and write to the right hon. Gentleman before Easter.

As for the problems of the House in debating Irish business, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that we have formed an Irish Standing Committee, and we hope that in future that will be used for the rapid prosecution and debate of Northern Ireland business in this House. I strongly advise right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to take advantage of that now. On our side of the House, we are eager to do so.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

The Minister will be aware that we have requested an early sitting of the Northern Ireland Committee to discuss the situation in Northern Ireland, particularly the aftermath of the cease-fire, or whatever it may be.

Mr. Moyle

If that course of action is followed in future, I trust that the complaint made by the right hon. Member for Down, South will not have to be made again. I hope that we shall have debates on Northern Ireland affairs more closely related to the events with which they are supposed to deal.

The right hon. Gentleman asked for some details about the force order of 15th January. It was issued by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and was addressed to the members of the RUC. It did not result from any instruction outside the RUC.

But the fact is that, as I said in my opening speech, the Chief Constable of the RUC meets the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland from time to time, and they discuss the security situation. For all I know, the Chief Constable of the RUC might adjust his thinking as a result of such meetings. However, he was responsible for issuing the force instruction and it was addressed to all members of the RUC. It was not addressed in any way to the public in general.

There are many relationships in the United Kingdom where responsibilities are legally placed on certain people, but they have political masters with whom they sometimes discuss their problems. That is the situation. It is no more precise than that.

A police constable is responsible for the exercise of his functions not to a superior officer but to the law which covers the situation with which he is dealing. In that respect, each constable has to take on his own shoulders the responsibility for doing what he has to do. That indicates to some extent the responsibilities in this sphere.

I admit that local police are still doing a great deal of the control work, as the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said. The point that we are trying to make is that they will have to do more in this coming year with 50,000 renewals to be investigated.

Mr. Wm. Ross

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in 1972 the security situation was even more desperate than it is now and that at that time the police managed to do their work?

Mr. Moyle

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that because we did certain things to meet the security situation in 1972, we should never advance beyond that point. If so, we shall not get very far with the security situation. We shall continually be amending the techniques of approaches to the security situation, and, as time goes by, we hope to have better success in defeating the problem.

The hon. Gentleman used a phrase which I hope he will reconsider, for he indicated that very few legally held guns were used in offences in Northern Ireland. During the period of the emergency, eight guns were used in the commission of murders. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want the relatives of those who were killed, whether soldiers or civilians, to go away with the thought that he considers that number of guns not worth considering. I am sure that from their point of view it was one of the most important events in their lives—that one of their nearest and dearest was killed by one of those eight guns. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will want to reconsider the phrase that he used.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the 1,403 legally held weapons which have been stolen included weapons stolen from the Army, the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment. The answer to that question is "Yes ".

People are not necessarily regarded as socially or criminally inadequate as a result of having the certificate refused. It is a matter of general concern to the Government that a close watch should be kept on the number of legally held guns. I am prepared to concede that it is illegally held guns which are the major problem in Northern Ireland, but the Government must keep a close watch on the question of legally held guns because a number of them have been stolen. That is a reason for the extensive nature of the controls exercised over firearms in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Farr

In order to take some of the friction out of the issue, will the hon. Gentleman consider establishing in Northern Ireland a standing consultative committee consisting of those who use firearms for recreational purposes, the police and representatives of the Government so that before legislation was introduced it could be discussed in such a committee and the objections ironed out, thereby probably making the whole process considerably easier?

Mr. Moyle

That idea has been put to me in Northern Ireland. I cannot hold out hope that the machinery which the hon. Gentleman suggests will be set up in the form he suggests. The matter is under consideration, but there is no obstacle to those interested in a particular activity relating to the legal use of arms seeing my right hon. Friend, myself or any of my ministerial colleagues to discuss the matter. This course has been followed in the control of gun clubs, which is of particular interest to rifle associations in Northern Ireland.

The proposals which we shall put in our draft order on firearms in the near future have been formulated following discussions and consultations with the rifle associations. The order will be laid before the House in draft form so that there can be discussion and consultation on its contents. Members of the public will be able to make representations to the Secretary of State direct or through their elected representatives in Northern Ireland or in this House. There will therefore be a considerable opportunity for discussion before legislation is proceeded with.

The effective control of arms in Northern Ireland is the fact that a good reason or need must be established, but broadly within those terms firearm certificates will be renewed. I do not have any statistics on the appeals which have been upheld, but they will be supplied to the right hon. Member for Down, South in the next few days.

We are making a special attempt to be sympathetic to farmers. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said that farmers used guns as tools, and it will probably be conceded that farmers have a good reason for acquiring and holding shotguns and other firearms to deal with pests and to protect their farms. We shall be as sympathetic as possible to them.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North was less than fair to the security forces when he said that people in his part of the country—perhaps he was just passing on a comment made to him—were asking why the security forces did not collect illegally held guns. Of course they did. I have some statistics in which the hon. Gentleman might be interested.

In the recent emergency, about 5,000 guns have been picked up by the security forces as a result of searches of places where illegally held guns were likely to be found. For example, in each of the last three years about 70,000 rounds of ammunition have been taken from the Irish Republican Army by the security forces, together with numbers of shotguns, rifles, pistols, machine guns and even rocket launchers and mortars. There is a continual drive to make sure that illegally held weapons are kept to the absolute minimum.

I accept, and I said in opening, that the number of legally held guns in Northern Ireland could be reduced in total, if a comparison were made with Great Britain, by the number of air weapons, because I was prepared to concede that they are not controlled here but are in Northern Ireland. For that reason I used a working figure of legally held weapons of about 80,000 and not that of 102,000, which the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) used. Also deducted from the total are about 3,000 guns which have been given to the police for safe keeping.

Mr. Carson

Could the Minister say how the police will implement the control of gun licences in places where law and order has not existed for six years?

Mr. Moyle

Where law and order is not rigorously enforced is where the Army have been carrying out searches for weapons for which I have given figures. That is the way the control of weapons is exercised in some areas of the Province.

I would point out to the hon. Member for Epping Forest that the relationship of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of the home police authorities with the Home Secretary is exactly the same. The great difference is that in Great Britain, if a chief constable does not grant a licence for a firearm, there is a right of appeal to the courts, whereas in Northern Ireland it lies instead to the Secretary of State. The reason is that in Northern Ireland we feel we have to cope with a rapidly changing situation, a consideration which does not apply in Great Britain where the more leisurely procedures of the courts and their more careful sifting is a better way to go about things.

I hope that I have answered the questions raised duing this debate and that hon. Members, if they do not agree, do understand the policy for control of the issue and renewal of firearms certificates in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Does the Minister understand that it is the intention of the Home Secretary to bring fees in Great Britain into line with those in Northern Ireland, because it is one United Kingdom?

Mr. Moyle

It is one United Kingdom, but the question is a matter for the Home Secretary. In general, the hon. Member must bear in mind that we have a different situation and different administrative burdens in Northern Ireland compared with the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of the Firearm Certificates and Permits (Variations of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1974 (S.R. & O (N.I.) 1974, No. 301), dated 29th November 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th December.