HC Deb 06 March 1978 vol 945 cc1168-84
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine)

Motion No. 7. Mr Farr.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn)

With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the order is down in the name of the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at the Order Paper he will see that the list of names does not appear to contain that of any member of the Government.

Mr. Dunn

May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the motion moved at 10 o'clock? You will see that it is in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The 10 o'clock motion gives power for the business set out therein to be dealt with at an hour after 10 o'clock. Motion No. 7 does not contain the name of any Government member.

1.18 a.m.

Mr. John Fan (Harborough)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1977 (S.R. & O. (N.I.) 1977, No. 360), dated 15th December 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th December 1977. Tonight I am moving a take-note motion only which will give hon. Members a chance to ask some questions and the Minister a chance to answer them. I should point out that the original motion urged the withdrawal of this order. The concern felt by hon. Members can be illustrated by the fact that 63 or 64 put their names to that motion. I cannot recall when a recent motion on Northern Ireland attracted as much support as that.

For a moment or two I shall try to voice some of the concern that had been expressed to me. What shocked those people from Northern Ireland who have been in communication with me is the savagery of the increases. That is what takes their breath away. The five variations spelt out in Document No. 360 of 1977 show no increases of less than 40 per cent. The highest increase is 175 per cent and the average of the five increases is 86 per cent.

It is three years since the fees specified in paragraph 2(1)(a), (b) and (c) were last increased. The average increase in these three fees alone is 60 per cent, over the three-year life of the licence or 20 per cent, a year. In 1970, the fee for 2(1)(a), the grant of a licence, was £2.10, for 2(1)(b), a renewal, £1.05 and for 2(1)(c), a variation, £1.05. The new rates are £14, £8.50 and £8.50 respectively and it can be seen that the fee for the grant of a licence has increased by just under 600 per cent, and the fees for renewal and variation have gone up by just over 700 per cent.

With these startling figures in mind, can it be wondered that the legal holders of firearms in Northern Ireland—there are about 106,000 legally held weapons in the Province—are becoming extremely restive? They are urged by the Government to accept a 10 per cent, norm on wage increases yet are expected to tolerate firearm fees increases averaging nearly 100 per cent, a year.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for the series of penetrating Questions that he asked on this subject in recent weeks. It is entirely due to the painstaking nature of his Questions and the illuminating replies that he received that we can see that in every third year in Northern Ireland, twice the normal number of licences fall due for renewal—giving double receipts. The last abnormal year was 1975, when 32,000 licences were renewed, followed by 15,000 in 1976 and 13,000 in 1977. The next abnormal year will be 1978 and, at the old rates, the salaries of the 35 staff employed full time on this work would have been handsomely covered.

My first question is whether account was taken of the fact that the number of renewals falling due this year will be twice the level of a normal year—with a consequent increase in income. If so, why could the order not have been postponed for 12 months?

Secondly, and more important, most of the representations that I have received complain about the lack of consultation on the order. Surely it must be in the interests of good government anywhere, but particularly in Northern Ireland, to establish a liaison between the Government and the law-abiding tens of thousands who legally possess firearms.

Why cannot a standing advisory committee on firearms be established in Northern Ireland to consider such proposals and other matters relating to the not unimportant subject of firearms control? I have made this suggestion before without receiving agreement and I have also suggested, with a view to limiting the size of increases, a certificate life of five or six years. That would halve at a stroke the work involved in the issue, renewal and variation of certificates.

If a standing advisory committee on firearms were introduced in Northern Ireland, one of its first tasks would be to look at the optimum certificate life and to make recommendations. A standing advisory committee would also have represented on it, apart from representatives of the Northern Ireland Office, the police, the judiciary and members from the Joint Shooting Committee of Northern Ireland, which represents all users of firearms in the Province. I should have thought that, apart from its establishment being a useful exercise in good will, its work would be of great value and help to the Secretary of State. For instance, matters relating to the safe custody of legally held firearms in the home and the need to ensure that legal owners appreciate their responsibility could be discussed there.

Finally, from what has been represented to me and from correspondence that I have had, there is a fear that, unless some form of consultation takes place on increases in future and unless a consultative body of some type is established—when we had a debate on this matter three years ago I was given an assurance from the Government Front Bench that this issue would be looked into—and if increases continue to occur and to escalate without prior rather than subsequent discussion, as is the case tonight, the result could be to encourage the holding and use of non-registered illicit weapons, which the Opposition do not wish to see brought about.

1.27 a.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross (Londonderry)

This is not the hour at which I wish to debate a matter which strikes fairly deeply into the roots of our country life. This matter, which is of greater importance than is generally realised, concerns the right or the duty in bygone years of men to have firearms in their homes. It is rooted deep in the common law of this nation. This right has been eroded—in my view wrongly—by Parliament since the early years of this century.

There are varying views on the rights of men and women to have weapons. These views vary greatly from one part of the English speaking world to the other. I trust that the Chair will excuse me if I appear to be drifting from the order, but I am not. Sometimes most extreme views are put forward, especially in the United States of America, on the rights of people to keep and to bear arms. Also in that same land there is direct opposition to the right to have any weapons in the home in private ownership.

I believe that we could with great profit have an in depth debate on this whole subject of firearms control. Indeed, the whole area is one in which measures have been taken in the past without the necessary investigation to determine the real need not only of Ireland but of England. Scotland and Wales. I believe that, under pressures from outside bodies, which perhaps knew nothing about sporting facilities in this country or the wishes of people to own firearms, the Government have taken action on those pressures as a sop to avoid taking action on other matters. That should not be allowed to happen, because this is a fundamental right which has been eroded. Often the supposed inquiry, which was meant to be cured by legislation, continued on its way after the legislation was passed just as blithely as it did before.

There is so much that I could say about this matter, but I shall not go into it now. Tonight I simply seek to show that the increases that are sought are unreasonable and that the argument to support these increases are specious and cannot be maintained in logic. The reason given is the rise in the cost of processing applications and renewals.

I tabled a series of parliamentary Questions and I shall quote from a few of them. The first Question that I asked was about the number of discussions that took place. The Answer was, None, since the fees are levied solely to cover costs. —Gold help us— The Department of Prices and Consumer Protection was consulted and accepted the need for the increase. When I asked how many persons, civilian and police were engaged full time on the applications for, issue of and the renewal of firearms certificates now and five years ago, I was told that 30 civilian staff, one superintendent, one chief inspector, one inspector, one sergeant and one constable were engaged full-time on these duties at RUC headquarters and at divisional level on this, including members of the special intelligence branch, who are also engaged in the work. I was told that the information for 1973 was not available because firearm administration had not then been reorganised.

I asked what was the income from fees in the last five years. I was told: Fees received from firearm certificates and permits in each of the last five financial years were as follows:

£
1972–73 … … … 49,867
1973–74 … … … 27,488
1974–75 … … … 17,227
1975–76 … … … 260,449
1976–77 … … … 122,148"

[Official Report, 20th January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 393–4.]

Perhaps I should tell my hon. Friend that the reason for the one big year and the two small years was that the firearms certificates used to last for five years and the period was reduced to three years. Now figures are levelling out as people change their guns. Eventually, I suppose it will equalise.

Later I asked the Secretary of State how many persons, civilian and police, giving ranks and grades, together with the annual salaries payable to those ranks and grades at each date specified, were engaged full-time on the applications for, issue of, and the renewal of firearms certificates at 1st January 1974, 1st January 1975, 1st January 1976, 1st January 1977 and 1st January 1978."—[Official Report, 3rd February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 342.]

I received some astonishing information. I discovered that in the year 1976 a superintendent and an inspector were employed at salaries of £6,710 and £4,400 and that two clerks disappeared who were employed apparently to do the same work and who were earning just over £2,000. At the same time, between the years 1974 and 1978 the number of clerical assistants rose from 12 to 21—an increase of nine—and the number of typists rose from two to three.

That was bad enough. But then I asked how many firearms certificates had been issued and renewed in each of the last five years. I wish that I had asked for information about more years. However, I was told in a Written Answer of 20th January 1978 that in 1973, 1974 and 1975 the total number of firearms certificates were 76,404 and for 1975, 1976 and 1977 the number was 77,171. In fact, 1975 is used twice, but any three-year cycle will do.

There was this great increase in staff to deal with the same number of certificates. I would like to know why this was so. I would like an explanation of how this came about. What exactly is the staff doing? If members of staff are fully employed during the "big" year, what on earth are they doing in the other two years?

I started asking some more questions about the old system. I discovered that very few people were employed. It was done at what was the old county level. Let no one claim that the RUC did not know how many guns were in the country or who owned them. Certainly whenever mine fell due for relicensing the RUC were round looking for the certificate. They knew what I had. Now, as well as full-time staff at headquarters, there is apparent duplication of the work at divisional level.

I asked another Question. I was told that a breakdown of costings relating to pay and allowances for the financial year 1976–77 was as follows:

—where on earth did they come in?—

"—what were they for?—

—above all things— £2,000."—[Official Report, 2nd February 1978; Vol. 93, c. 329.]

I would like an explanation of those figures.

I asked for costings of the financial years 1974–75 and 1976–77 and was given figures for pay, including overtime and allowances which ranged from £92,000 to £200,000. For superannuation and national insurance I was given figures ranging from £18,000 to £50,000 and for Accommodation and the rest I was given figures of £25,000 and £30,000. There were totals of £135,000 and £300,000. I was told that the increase was so large because the 1974–75 figures were not strictly comparable since overtime and certain allowances were not included in the earlier figures.

There is only one conclusion to be drawn from the numbers of staff and the cost related to the number of certificates. The only conclusion is that someone in police headquarters has been building a nice empire to look after firearms certificates. We are all paying for this, and we do not like it.

I do not question the necessity to maintain strict control over the whereabouts of guns. I do not question the ballistics tests, which I am sure are useful to the RUC when it is investigating firearms crimes, especially crimes involving stolen weapons. We have to take the terrorist factor into account in Northern Ireland. I just want to know why the Government are so anxious to hit the law-abiding citizen just because there are criminals at large. If there are criminals at large, it is the duty of the Government to deal with these evil men, net penalise the law-abiding citizen.

The basic problem is not that guns are dangerous or evil weapons. It is that there are dangerous and evil men. If they want a weapon they will get it. Not many people in Northern Ireland have had Armalite rifles or M60 machine guns stolen. But the IRA does not appear to be short of these. Terrorists always get guns. This has been so in Ireland for some time, since the 1920s and one thing that is clear from terrorist and guerilla activity round the world is that weapons of all descriptions are always available to the terrorist.

Therefore, although guns have been stolen and used by terrorists, the order and present legislation will not stop the terrorists from getting more. It will not stop the poacher from poaching with his legally held gun if he wants to. It will not stop the cowboy from going shooting here, there and everywhere. The only thing that will stop him is the police not granting him a certificate. Heaven knows, we have trouble enough with that, those of us who have dealings with Northern Ireland.

I have nothing but contempt for those who act irresponsibly with weapons, be they sportsmen or others. I appreciate the nature of guns and understand how dangerous they can be, but I do not like the idea of the law-abiding citizen being penalised in this way.

The only people who will be badly hurt by this order are farmers who keep guns for the protection of stock and who perhaps go shooting on Boxing Day. Thousands of farmers in Northern Ireland do this. The gun sits in the cupboard in the corner for the rest of the year, and a box of cartridges last for four or five years. If a farmer shoots a rabbit in a hedge occasionally, he thinks that he is doing well. I am talking not about the serious sportsman but about the man who has possibly inherited a gun, who has it as a work tool or who takes an occasional shot with it.

Despite all that I have said to date, I do not make that the main point of my argument against the order. The point I wish to make against the order is that the argument used to make gun holders pay for the whole apparatus of gun control is founded upon an untruth. The untruth is simply that this apparatus is a service for the gunholder. It is nothing of the sort. The argument that it is a service for the gun holder and not part of normal police work is not true.

I quote in support of this aspect of my argument some other documents. The first is to Major Brownlow, whom the Minister will know, and is signed by a civil servant who was, I believe, in charge of that aspect of Government work. Early in the letter it says: I must make it clear at the outset that fees are levied only to cover administrative costs … The increased costs must be recovered from those persons for whom the service is provided ".

Further down the letter draws attention to the fact that police investigation procedures following application for a shot gun certificate in Great Britain are minimal and that in Northern Ireland they are very much much more detailed.

The importance of this letter is the claim that this a service for the persons concerned. This is an official letter. I feel sure that the Department would wish to stand by it.

In February I asked: what is considered to be the normal range of police duties in regard to firearms legislation affecting firearms dealers and applicants, respectively".

I was told: It is for the Chief Constable to determine the police work necessary to fulfil his responsibilities under the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. I am informed that this includes"—

this is apparently normal police work— the receipt and careful assessment of applications; consideration of the adequacy of the security arrangements for the storage of the firearms; where appropriate the inspection of premises and records; and the preparation and issue of appropriate certificates". [Official Report, 15th February 1978, Vol. 944, c. 284.]

I also asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the provision of firearms certificates is a service to the owners of firearms or to enable the police to keep track of fire arms amongst the general public in Northern Ireland".

I confess that I did not expect this question to be answered, but is was, in these words: The purpose of firearms certificates, issued under the relevant legislation, is to protect the community"— I thought that that was the function of the police— by ensuring that the privilege"— Here we find that since the early days of the century what was then considered to be the right to have a firearm has now been converted by slow degrees into a privilege to have a firearm. I cannot accept that, because I believe that any reasonable man should have a right to a gun. I see no reason to deny that right. I believe it to be foolish and wrong to deny it.

The answer tells us that The privilege of possessing authorised firearms is only extended to persons who have good reason to hold them, and will do so without danger to public safety or to the peace."— [Official Report, 16th January, 1978; Vol. 942, c.82.] We are told that it is the duty of the police to protect the community, and they do this by means of the present firearms legislation.

In short, I believe that firearms control is and always should be a normal part of police work. It cannot reasonably be seen as anything else, and any attempt to tell people that it is anything else is merely a ploy to set firearms holders apart so that they can be got at by their being made a bit different from the rest of the community. If one makes people a wee bit different, they can be attacked. I believe that this is part of an attempt to cut down the number of firearms and the number of firearms owners.

There may have been historical reasons for this system, but one certainly is that it is not a service to help the gun owner. It is to help the police if guns are misused. Gun owners do not mind that, but why on earth should they be crucified?

There are several services outside normal police duties provided by the RUG For example, there are commercial services such as repair of radio sets in police workshops. That is treated as a commercial transaction, paid for by those who use it. There are the reports of road accidents which the police prepare and for which a person pays if he applies for a copy. I refer here to cases in which there will be claims for damages or compensation. If the police themselves prosecute for dangerous or careless driving or something else, no one has to pay for the report of the accident, but that other service of providing reports is a purely commercial service which is available to the public on payment. It is provided because there has to be evidence in a court of law which only the police can supply.

I come next to a curious responsibility which is put upon the police, that is, responsibility for the control of dogs. We talked about dogs in another context earlier, but there is a considerable responsibility laid upon the police in respect of dogs. If I may say so, the police act in a rather curious way, because they do not do anything with dogs. They pay the Ulster secretary for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to look after the dogs for them. In 1974–75 they paid £27,500, in 1975–76 they paid £33,000, and in 1976–77 they paid £40,000.

Thus, we have two commercial transactions which are carried out by the police and for which they are paid, we have a third duty laid upon the police and they pay somebody else to do it for them, and now we have another responsibility laid upon the police—to look after firearms—and what do they do about that? They make the owners of firearms pay for it. I cannot understand how anyone can in logic say that that is fair or reasonable.

I could carry on a long time with this argument, going into the highways and byways, but I hope that I have said enough to make the gun owners' case. It is time that the police authority and the police in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, perhaps more widely—accepted the responsibility which Parliament has laid upon them, which is to keep track of the guns as part of their normal duties to the community, and not to fester on the backs of the law-abiding.

Firearms control has never been thoroughly investigated. It should be investigated impartially, openly and in depth. We should start from the beginning, from a solid foundation and not from the arguments used in 1903, when it all began. We should try to come to reasonable conclusions and not just accept what was decided before.

Our basic thinking—I believe I speak for all hon. Members—is shaped by the circumstances we find on reaching this place. Many hon. Members would benefit from a study of the excellent books on firearms control in the Library. They would then understand the background. They would then want to ensure that the firearms owner is not victimised and that the police do their duty as they should.

1.52 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

There are two ways to take from the general public something that they want—to outlaw it or to make its cost prohibitive. This order is an attempt to take legally held firearms from people in Northern Ireland. There is a saying in the United States—if the legally held guns were taken away, only the outlaws would have weapons.

A study of the subject in Northern Ireland, I believe, will prove that acts of terrorism are not being performed with legal weapons. No one will get a licence for a machine gun or similar weapon.

I represent a rural constituency, so I know that the holding of .22 rifles runs deep among the farming community, who use them to keep down vermin. That benefits rural and urban communities. However, the Government apparently want to make this a costly job for them to do. Instead of being regarded as benefactors, they are looked on as people to be discriminated against.

There is much feeling against this legislation in rural districts. We have heard a great deal about parity of legislation. I do not see why, if I live in Great Britain, I pay £5 for a licence and £4 for a renewal, while in Northern Ireland, under the order, the fees will be £14 and £8.50 respectively. Why is that? What happens when one crosses the Irish Sea?

Incomes in Northern Ireland are much lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. With the cost of living going up and wages remaining practically static in Northern Ireland, people there are much less well-off than in the United Kingdom. The Government should be bringing the price down instead of putting it up if they were acting logically. Instead, there is an attempt to take away guns by putting up the price of the certificates.

I know that there is a general feeling in the Labour Party that the best thing for Northern Ireland would be to have no legal guns. I remember hearing the previous Prime Minister leading off in a great speech, saying that the solution to the whole terrorist problem was to bring in all the guns. The guns that he wanted brought in would not have been brought in, for the terrorists would not do it. It would be the law-abiding citizens who would hand in their weapons, not those engaged in violence.

I remember sitting with the predecessor of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) when we had previous legislation on the matter. He said that he would take every gun from every farmer in Northern Ireland, and I told him "You will not last long in Northern Ireland." When he investigated the subject he found that he was proposing an impossibility.

I also remember going with other Members of this House and of the Convention to various police stations and serving notice on the superintendents that our constituents would not be handing in their guns that they had held legally for years. We said that as citizens of the United Kingdom they were entitled to hold them. Because of that strong resistance the Government gave way.

Now we have this subtle variation of fees order that will put up the fee. Many people in Northern Ireland have guns handed down from generation to generation. Many old-age pensioners have made representations to me. They go out on Boxing Day, a great shooting day in Northern Ireland, and enjoy themselves. Now that little bit of pleasure is being taken away from them because in the eventide of their lives they cannot afford this extraordinary fee.

The Minister should consider the matter humanely. He would need to be as wise as Solomon to answer the many questions put by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr Ross), because there is no answer. A vast increase in personnel will be needed.

From a security point of view the system is not half as effective as that in the old days, when police at every police station knew the people in their area who had guns and the day their certificates would expire. Two days before they expired a police constable called at one's home and said "Your certificate is up and needs to be renewed." I have a firearms certificate. I never looked at it, and it had been expired for months before I found out. That used not to happen.

Why cannot we have parity with the rest of the United Kingdom? Why cannot the citizens and farmers of Northern Ireland be treated in the same way as farmers and citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom? It has been argued that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that therefore we should have laws similar to those of the rest of the United Kingdom. We are not arguing about that. We are happy to accept that in many ways, although we would differ on some matters.

This order is not in the best interests of Northern Ireland, because the people who pay for their gun licences are law-abiding people. They are not terrorists. They are not the people who want to bring down the Government. They are the best supporters of the establishment in the community, and they have an inalienable right to bear arms legally. That right is being eroded in an attempt eventually to take it from the people of Northern Ireland. I agree with those who have spoken before me, who know far more about this subject than I know; but I know the feelings of my constituents in this matter, and I trust that the Minister will take them on board.

2.1 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn)

I have listened to arguments about the right to hold firearms and to criticisms of the Government's control of firearms legislation. I say to those who feel excited about this matter that they should perhaps read the Firearms Act which went through Stormont in 1969. The present Government did not introduce that legislation. We are talking about a variation of fees—that alone and nothing else.

It has for some time been an established practice throughout the United Kingdom that in the issue of firearms certificates the service pays for itself from the licence fees paid by those who hold the guns. It is very unfair to expect the cost to be passed on to the general taxpayer. I understand the feelings of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) because he is an enthusiast in these matters. I have not heard it suggested that the rate should be paid in respect of football grounds.

Mr. Wm. Ross

Will the hon. Gentleman say how much money has been spent in providing football grounds in Northern Ireland in the past five years and how much has been provided for fishing, shooting and other field sports?

Mr. Dunn

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman offhand how much money is being provided for any recreation. That matter does not come within my portfolio. The hon. Gentleman got rather carried away and ascribed responsibility with regard to the right of individuals to hold firearms, and I thought that he would wish me to draw his attention to the question of the control of firearms in the Act which, as he is well aware, had nothing to do with the present Government.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North) rose—

Mr. Dunn

No, not for the moment.

Mr. Kilfedder rose—

Mr. Dunn

I always mean what I say. I do not intend to repeat it. The answer is "No", in case the hon. Gentleman wants it a second time.

I have always taken the view that firearms in the wrong hands can be a source of danger to the community. I generally agree with the controls which have been exercised under the 1969 Act. In Northern Ireland there are even stronger reasons for controlling the circulation of firearms. I do not share the view that legal firearms are never used for illegal purposes. Many firearms have been legally issued and certificates have been held for them, but they have been stolen and have been used in some of the atrocities and foulest of murders and assassinations. We know that to be a fact.

If the hon. Member for Londonderry says that he supports the individual's right to hold a firearm, I am sure that there would be many areas of conflict in his constituency if certain people with whom he might disagree were to apply for firearms certificates.

I want now to deal with the points brought to my notice by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). The estimates we have made cover the three-year cycle, as he indicated. In 1975, the figures were 6,145 new certificates and 32,000 renewals. We are getting to the situation in 1978 when the figures will return to that high level, and we have to try to average the fees over the three-year cycle.

It is not easy to distinguish the complex sums required for the fees. We tried to smooth over the three-year cycle, taking account of the fluctuations which occur. We have to take account of the increases in costs, inclusive of pay. The last figures which I have to defend tonight were for 1975–76. Since then, there has been a cost escalation, and the requirement is now estimated at £300,000. By the variation of fees projected in the order, we believe that it will give a return of £339,000. The surplus of £39,000, if that is a correct projection, will soon be utilised in taking account of and being absorbed by higher costs.

The hon. Gentleman felt strongly about consultation. We consult the organisation hi Northern Ireland except when fees are involved. We do not consult them on fees because we believe that it is a simple matter of arithmetic.

The hon. Member for Londonderry questioned the number of people employed, going as far as to suggest that this order reflected the building up of a department unnecessarily in the light of the circumstances in Northern Ireland for the control and licensing or firearms. I do not completely share his view. I have always taken the view that in Northern Ireland there are so many problems relating to the movement and control of firearms that we need the maximum response on each and every occasion that anyone make application for a certificate.

The fees are to cover costs. It is a matter or simple arithmetic. The figures are there to be seen. We need £300,000-plus this year and next to cover the costs. Not only must wages, superannuation and insurance payments be taken into account but buildings and their upkeep and the rates must also be included. At the end of the day, what we are doing is to reflect the actual costs of the service to those who require certificates.

The other point concerned the number of staff. The hon. Member for Londonderry quoted it as though it was a great surprise and as thought he had learnt something that the House would wish to know. The figure he gave of 34 was correct. The staff consists of five policemen and 29 civilians. The information was given to him in a parliamentary Answer.

In 1935, the staff totalled 32—three policemen and 29 civilians. There has been an increase of two policemen to the establishment controlling firearms, and that is surely a very modest increase. I believe that the department has done a very useful job under great difficulty, serving the needs of the Province and the needs and security of its people.

Mr. Farr

What is the position about the suggested standing advisory committee? I spent some time why I thought that it would be a good idea to have a standing advisory committee. It would help the Secretary of State, and also help the shooting people to understand what was going on.

Mr. Dunn

I will bring that matter to the attention of the Secretary of State. Frankly, I do not believe that a Standing advisory committee would serve any useful purpose. The shooting interests of Northern Ireland have a great degree of interchange of views, consultation and discussion about every aspect other than licensing fees, so that there is very little room for improvement on the present position. But I will bring the matter to the notice of those concerned to see whether there are any advantages in having some sort of regular committee which would meet some of the points to which attention has been drawn. But the structure is the same in any event throughout the United Kingdom, and the same thing has been done in each case.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of the Firearms (Variation of Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1977 (S.R. & O. (N.I.) 1977, No. 360), dated 15th December 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th December 1977.