HL Deb 10 April 1973 vol 341 cc617-25

7.25 p.m.

LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Order standing in my name. This again is a short Order. It also is made under the urgent procedure, but it is one of considerable importance. What it does is to amend the provisions of the Firearms Acts (Northern Ireland) 1969 and 1971. It extends the existing controls over the legal possession of firearms and modifies the conditions under which registered firearms dealers may operate. It was made under the urgent procedure provided for by the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 because the Secretary of State decided that in the interests of public safety the new measures should come into force without delay.

There is no change in the general principles governing the grant of firearms certificates. An applicant must still show good reason for acquiring the firearm; he must not in any way be unfitted to hold it, and he must be able to have it in his possession without danger to the public safety and peace. The Order goes further. In Article 3(2) it gives the police discretion as to whether or not a certificate should be granted, even though the applicant has satisfied the requirements. This is a significant difference from the Act of 1969, and a significant change from the legislation in Britain, under which it is incumbent on the police to grant a certificate once the requirements have been satisfied.

I should like to make it clear at the outset that there is already a stringent system of controls over firearms in Northern Ireland. Certificates for bullet-firing weapons are at present granted in two types of case, and two only. The first is where the police believe that a person's life is in danger and he needs a hand gun for personal protection. The second is where a farmer shows that he needs the use of a 22 rifle in order to protect his stock; for example, from foxes and grey crows. It is not the intention to place further controls on the grant of firearms certificates for shotguns or air weapons, although, of course, applicants wishing to acquire such weapons will have to satisfy the police that they have a good reason for acquiring them and can hold them without danger to the public. A firearm permit differs from a certificate in that it authorises the holder to have a firearm in his house, and only in his house. Formerly the applicant had only to show that he could hold the weapon without danger to the public. The Order requires that the applicant for a permit must satisfy the same conditions as those prescribed for the grant of a certificate. The Order also gives the police additional powers, which they did not have before, to impose conditions where a firearm certificate has been granted or renewed without conditions, and additional powers to revoke certificates and permits. Formerly a certificate or permit could be revoked only if the holder was disqualified for a criminal offence or was in some way unfitted to hold a firearm. Certificates can now be revoked if the possession of a firearm by the holder is likely to endanger the public safety or the peace, or if he no longer has good reason for holding a firearm. The Government do not believe that a general revocation of firearm certificates would be practicable, but, nevertheless, a power of revocation is, we consider, justified in present circumstances. If in future the police decide that a person cannot hold a weapon without danger to the public, for instance, because there is a real danger that it may be stolen and used by terrorists, the certificate can now be revoked. The holder will have the same right of appeal as before.

The Order, as I mentioned in opening, also contains new provisions relating to firearms dealers. The police must be satisfied that there is a need for a firearms dealer's business before they will register a new business or new premises. There is provision also for controls over the number and types of firearms, and the quantities and types of ammunition which an existing dealer may keep on the premises. A direction has already been issued which prohibits the holding of bullet-firing weapons by dealers. Dealers have handed over their stocks of these weapons—that is, bullet-firing weapons—and have been paid for the weapons they have handed over. This will prevent terrorists from acquiring firearms by stealing them from dealers' premises.

The Order also provides that ballistic or other tests may be carried out on certain firearms, and test firing is well under way at 15 test centres. The characteristics of the bullets fired at these tests will be codified, and checks will be made against bullets found at the scenes of crimes. The Order gives a power to make regulations requiring existing holders of certificates to furnish photographs. Applicants for certificates in respect of bullet-firing weapons, and holders of certificates on which such firearms are held, will be required to furnish photographs which will then he attached to their certificates. This will help the security forces and the police when checking legally-held weapons.

As your Lordships will know, the vast majority of shooting incidents in Northern Ireland involve illegal firearms—not the legally-held, certificated weapons that we are concerned with this evening, but illegal arms. I am glad to say that the security forces have had considerable success in recovering firearms illegally held. I checked up on the figures this morning, and as of April 10—that is to-day—414 such firearms have been seized by the security forces since January 1 this year. But there is also a need to tighten up the control of licensed firearms, and to guard against theft from arms dealers. There is very great con-concern, and rightly so, over the holding of firearms in Northern Ireland. The additional powers provided in this Order will ensure that legally-held firearms are even more strictly controlled than before. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, be approved.—(Lord Windleshunt.)

7.33 p.m.

LORD SWANSEA

My Lords, if I may detain your Lordships for just a few minutes, I should like to say a few words with particular reference to paragraph 4 of this Order which refers to the submission of firearms for ballistic test. I hope I shall not bore your Lordships too much with technicalities I must say that I was very doubtful at first just how useful this measure was going to be. It is true that even the most perfectly finished firearm leaves minute markings on a bullet or cartridge case fired from it which are individual to that particular weapon and by which an expert can identify a bullet or a case as having been fired from a particular weapon; or, in certain cases, negative evidence can be equally important.

There is a popular belief that the characteristics of a weapon are permanent and unchangeable, in the same way that human fingerprints are, but I am afraid that that is not the case. The surface of a piece of steel can be subject to change through wear and tear or neglect or deliberate tampering with abrasives. In addition, in the case of a firearm, the replacement of certain components can completely alter the characteristics of that weapon. For these reasons, I had considerable doubt as to whether this part of the Order would have any useful result, and whether it was not simply an attempt to allay public anxiety. After all, if it was really a practical proposition, I cannot help feeling that some provision of this sort would already have been in force and incorporated in the Firearms Act, and tests would have to be carried out on firearms before they left the factory.

My noble friend Lord Windlesham was good enough to pay attention to the points when I brought them to his notice, and I am extremely grateful to him for the assistance he has given me and for the facilities which he has placed at my disposal. As a result of this information, I am glad to say that most of my doubts have been dispelled. I am feeling considerably more confident about the usefulness of this scheme, although I do not depart from my contention that it has its limitations.

Through the kind offices of my noble friend I have seen the result of an experiment which showed that a firearm could withstand a considerable amount of tampering before its characteristics were altered to the point of becoming irreconcilable with previous results. However, I must stress that this was a strictly limited experiment and it would be very foolish to attempt to generalise on the result obtained in a particular case. I still think an operation such as this would hardly be practicable on a national scale, but in the limited geographical fields with which we are concerned here I hope it may produce some worthwhile results. At the very least, it may serve to deter owners of registered firearms from using them for criminal purposes in the knowledge that there are test bullets and cases from their weapons held on file. If through this measure even one conviction is obtained, or one crime is prevented, it will have served some useful purpose.

The testing of registered firearms, of course, only scratches the surface of this problem, as my noble friend says. Nobody knows how many weapons are in illegal circulation. This Order can do little to affect them. The likelihood of anyone using a registered firearm to commit a premeditated crime is extremely remote. It is not impossibly remote. As my noble friend knows, there has been such a case recently. I think it is likely to become even more remote as a result of the publicity given to this Order. I am sure we must all applaud the successes of the security forces in uncovering illegal hoards of arms, and any measure designed to assist the enforcement of law in Northern Ireland must deserve your Lordships' support. I would only ask Her Majesty's Government to bear in mind the limitations of the scheme and the practical difficulties involved in it.

7.38 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, as far as the Opposition is concerned, and not for the first time, we welcome the Government action on this matter. Certainly the Order that is now before us is one which follows closely along lines which the Opposition have been pressing for. If we have a criticism, it is that it might go further. But if the noble Lord were to ask me how much further we should go, I would have the greatest difficulty in answering because, as the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, has made clear, the killing and the shooting are mainly—with what percentage we do not know—done with illegal arms. In this connection, I would welcome the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, to these Northern Irish debates which normally consist solely of Lord Windlesham and myself. His contribution has been interesting and characteristic. I notice that his recreations are given as shooting, fishing and rifle shooting. I like the order in which he gives this. He is, in fact—and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will not mind my getting in first with this—a very distinguished rifle shot, and I believe he got a gold medal although I do not know what kind of a gold medal. It is satisfying that the leaders of what might be called the rifle/firearms community in this country do not go the way that they have gone in the United States. This is a further reinforcement that in this country all men of good will support the Government in these matters.

I have a few questions. There is no doubt that this Order is detailed and, in some respects, difficult to follow. It is only difficult to follow in the sense that it gives additional powers to the police, and one finds that when one power has been given there is yet another power of control. This we welcome. While it is difficult to estimate the need for this Order in statistical terms, it is extremely important in psychological terms. It is particularly important for what I believe is called the finger-printing of weapons. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said about the possibility of altering the basic characteristics of a weapon, but I am encouraged—as, no doubt, the Government are—that the expert advice which they have had was convincing enough even to convince the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, that it will be difficult and that there will be further complications. Of course we are talking about weapons which are already the subject of certification, and a further check which showed that the characteristics had, been altered would in itself indicate suspicious action.

It is rather frightening to know how many weapons are held in the community in Northern Ireland. I noticed the figures which were given in another place by Mr. Stanley Orme, which I imagine were derived from Government statistics and which, for all I know, the Government may have given. For instance, there are no fewer than 13,000 0.22 rifles and nearly 8,000 hand guns involved. I presume that all the hand guns are held by people who are authorised to have them for their personal protection. When we read these stories of people knocking on the door, coming in and shooting down, sometimes a family and not just their immediate target, we must realise that some personal protection is necessary. But it is desirable that this further emphasis is placed upon control and that, even when certain formulæ have been gone through, the police will have to be satisfied that it is all right for an individual to hold a weapon. There has been some controversy over the number of shotguns. My recollection is that even before the war in Northern Ireland one needed a firearms certificate for a shotgun, although it was not necessary in England. I hope that the same rigorous control is applied in this area as is applied to weapons which fire bullets.

I wonder whether the noble Lord has any figures of the number of murders that have been committed by people who were enabled to have weapons. I am told that the appalling number of 35 U.D.R. men have been killed. I do not know how many of them were about their ordinary duties when they would not normally be carrying a weapon, anyway. It is very difficult for us in this country, even though we may have some inkling of it, to understand the fear not just of a man but of his family, and the desire for some sort of protection. But I am sure the noble Lord can assure us that there is the most rigorous control, and I hope that the Government will continue to keep this matter very much under review. I believe that there is a further investigation being made by a new statistical unit into the number of shotguns held in Belfast. I do not find anything very significant in people holding shotguns in Belfast, because many people who shoot live in towns. Particularly in a country as sporting as Northern Ireland, there will obviously be a lot of shotguns. I wonder how far finger-printing is applicable to shotguns. I presume that it is not applicable unless they are firing ball ammunition, which has a rather longer range.

LORD SWANSEA

My Lords, may I help the noble Lord? It is possible to identify a cartridge case fired from a shotgun but not the projectile, because with small shot it is impossible to get a match. But it is possible to identify a cartridge case with a particular weapon.

LORD SHACKLETON

That is very interesting, my Lords, Obviously, it would not be possible to do that with small shot, but I do not know whether identi- fication is possible with box shot or ball ammunition. I used to carry ball ammunition with my shotgun in the Arctic as a protection against polar bears, but perhaps I should not become anecdotal or treat a matter of such seriousness in any way lightly. I certainly think that this Order, which is already in force, will receive the approval of your Lordships, as it has received the approval of another place.

7.47 p.m.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, who speaks with such knowledge on all matters concerning firearms, for taking the trouble to spend a day in Northern Ireland recently, visiting the scientific establishments where ballistic tests are carried out and where the results are classified. I had an opportunity to discuss this subject with the noble Lord, during his visit and I can assure him that the further comments he has made in the House this evening will be carefully noted by the Government.

I think we all agree that no system is perfect, but the police, and those concerned in the Northern Ireland Office at Stormont Castle, believe that these tests are extremely useful and have a disincentive effect. In fact, there have been convictions obtained on evidence about the characteristics of firearms which have been used in crimes. I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for what he said about the sad, but real, need for personal protection in Northern Ireland. In many ways one would like to see even more weapons called in than will result from this Order, but, unhappily, approximately 5.500 weapons, almost all hand guns, have had to be licensed for personal protection. Unless one has been in Northern Ireland for some time it is very difficult to understand the fears which many citizens have that their lives may be in danger.

The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned the U.D.R. It is unfortunately the case that members of the Reserve security forces have been particular targets for terrorist attacks. The figures are that 35 U.D.R. men and 4 reserve policemen have been murdered, and of the 35 U.D.R. men I believe all except five were off duty at the time. The general practice is that if a U.D.R. man or a member of the R.U.C. Reserve requires a hand gun for his personal protection, it will have to be a licensed firearm and he will have to satisfy the same criteria as any other applicant.

We have one further Order to consider tonight and, since the two noble Lords who have spoken are in agreement with the Government's aims in this Order, I do not think I need delay your Lordships any longer.

On Question, Motion agreed to.