HL Deb 02 March 2004 vol 658 cc616-24

7.21 p.m.

Baroness Amos

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February be approved.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order follows a major review of Northern Ireland's firearms legislation, the aim of which was to assess whether the legislation remained relevant, effective and proportionate and whether it struck the right balance between public safety and the reasonable expectations of shooting enthusiasts.

The suspension of the Assembly in October 2002 prevented it from making its views known to government, although a number of Assembly Members responded in a personal capacity. The draft order was, however, scrutinised by the other place as part of its inquiry into Northern Ireland's firearms control. The Government welcomed the inquiry as a useful addition to their own in-depth review and wide-ranging consultation.

The central tenets of the 1981 order—that, with some exceptions, anyone who has a firearm must have a firearm certificate for it and that responsibility for firearms licensing is vested in the Chief Constable—are carried forward in the new order under Article 3.

The licensing system, under Article 4, is strengthened by adopting some of the recommendations contained in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, into the fatal shootings at Dunblane Primary School in 1996. The first is the requirement for firearm certificate applicants to provide two referees. The second is the requirement that the applicant should give his permission to the Chief Constable to approach his GP to obtain factual details of his medical history which the GP considers relevant to the application.

The system is further strengthened by the replacement of the system of firearm certificate renewals with one of ongoing grants. This reflects the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, that certificate renewals were invariably subjected to a lesser degree of rigour than grants of new certificates.

Another notable provision is the extension of the Chief Constable's delegation powers to include police support staff. This is in line with the civilianisation recommendations of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland and will considerably increase the range of functions under the order which can be undertaken by civilians. In some areas, the Government have sought to reduce regulation where they are satisfied that there was no attendant risk to public safety.

There was one significant provision contained in the proposal for a draft order which the Government decided not to bring forward; that appeals against decisions of the Chief Constable and applications for the removal of statutory prohibition on holding firearms should be to county courts rather than to the Secretary of State as at present.

The reason for the original proposal was our concern that the system of appeals and applications to the Secretary of State might not meet the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Right—the right to a fair trial. But a recent decision of the Northern Ireland court was that the existing system, coupled with the opportunity for a judicial review, met those requirements.

The Government concluded that there were strong arguments, including the protection of sensitive security information, for keeping firearms appeals and applications as an executive function. The Government intend to publish for consultation before the summer a guidance document on Northern Ireland's firearms controls. It will set out clearly and openly the policies and procedures which underpin the legislation and is almost as important as the legislation itself.

The provisions of the draft order will maintain the essential elements of the existing system of firearms controls, which generally have served Northern Ireland well, and introduce some much-needed modernisation. There will be some relaxation of controls where there is deemed to be no risk to public safety, but at the same time the procedures for granting firearm certificates will be enhanced. The new order will bring some parts of Northern Ireland's legislation into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, where that is deemed to be appropriate, but in other parts—for example, in relation to shotguns—Northern Ireland will retain its own distinct provisions in the best interests of public safety there.

The proposed controls for firearms represent a reasonable, effective and balanced approach to maintaining public safety and I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 February he approved.—(Baroness Amos.)

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I thank the Minister for so clearly laying out the order. Unlike the previous order, I commend the Government on it in general. I have only a few points of detail on which I would like clarification.

On Article 6, dealing with conditions, the Explanatory Memorandum states that, the Chief Constable may attach a condition requiring him to be supervised by an experienced firearm user when in possession of the loaded firearm and when using it". What constitutes "an experienced firearm user"? Will that person need to be licensed in some way? The problem will arise when the experienced firearm user proves not to have been an experienced firearm user as a result of an accident. There is need for clarification in that detail.

On Article 7, dealing with the grant of a firearm certificate to young persons, the Explanatory Memorandum states: He must be supervised for a period of at least 12 months when in possession of the firearm and any ammunition by someone of 21 years or over"— and this is the passage that concerns me— who has held a certificate for that type of firearm for at least 3 years". It is possible that competent people no longer hold a firearms certificate for a shotgun. For example, if I decided to give up using a shotgun because my balance or eyesight was no longer good, I would still be capable of supervising a grandchild. However, according to the order, I would not be eligible because I would not be the holder. Furthermore, a number of policemen and soldiers must be competent to supervise their children, but do not hold firearms certificates by dint of the fact that the weapons with which they were trained are military ones of one kind or another. Again, I ask for clarification of that provision.

In respect of Article 17, I believe I know the answer but I would like clarification. It deals with firearm certificates and shotgun certificates granted in Great Britain, and the Explanatory Memorandum states: Provides for the holder of a firearm certificate or shotgun certificate granted in Great Britain to possess his firearms in Northern Ireland provided that he has obtained a certificate of approval from the Chief Constable". I assume that that is the Chief Constable for Northern Ireland, but it could be the chief constable of the county in which he lives. Perhaps that, too, needs clarification.

Finally, on Article 62, which deals with trespassing with firearm, the notes state that it, Makes it an offence for a person to trespass in a building or on any land with a firearm or imitation firearm without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. I am delighted about that, but it would appear to make the offence of poaching into one of trespassing with a firearm. I wonder whether that is the Government's intention. It is different that the common poacher wit h his shotgun shooting on someone else's land—which has been a practice throughout the country for hundreds of years—will suddenly be turned into a trespasser with firearm. I would be delighted as a landowner, but wearing my politician's hat, I am not sure that that is what the Government should do. I ask for clarification of those points, but other than that, I support the order.

7.30 p.m.

Lord Shutt of Greetland

My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Baroness for speaking to the order and giving us this information, and to support it. However, I do not find it attractive in any shape or form. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, the idea of being able to supervise my grandchild to cope with weaponry is not a concept that occurs to me in any shape or form. Indeed, I am appalled by this document, although I support it. It is important if we are to have legally held firearms that there is some form of regulation. Clearly, this is perhaps as good as it gets, and there must be proper regulation. The idea that there are 82 clauses and eight schedules on the one hand is appalling, because of all that waste of activity, but it is needed because of the concerns that there would be otherwise.

I am far from clear on the scope of the order. How many certificates are there? How many dealers are there? How many clubs are there? How many visitors will say, as soon as they arrive in Northern Ireland, "I must get a certificate in order to have a firearm"? I would like to have some concept of the scale of this operation. I understand—I speak as a fundamentalist in one sense—that it is about legally held firearms. Each to their own in terms of the legal holding of firearms, and operating that in a proper way. Is this document as proof as it possibly can be on legally held firearms crossing the divide? When we normally talk about Northern Ireland firearms, often we are talking about illegally held firearms, which is the real concern about Northern Ireland. Is this proof, as far as it possibly can be, on legally held firearms crossing the divide and getting into improper hands?

Baroness Park of Monmouth

My Lords, I refer to Article 58, "Possession with intent", and Article 64, "Possession of firearm or ammunition in suspicious circumstances". I innocently suppose, though I recognise that this is largely about legitimate firearms in legitimate hands, that it cannot be wrong to reiterate the position to enable the police to act against individual paramilitaries if they have to. For that reason, I should have thought that it is useful legislation. I point out that there is a misunderstanding in Article 67. It is about the conversion of weapons, and it reads, which, though having the appearance of being a firearm, is incapable … of discharging any missile". I think that the word should be "capable". It is a minor point, but the law is the law.

Lord Rogan

My Lords, it has been 23 years since firearms legislation for Northern Ireland was last changed in any major way, and I welcome the order in as far as it attempts to improve public safety. However, if the order is intended to bring Northern Ireland more closely into line with similar legislation in Great Britain, it does not go far enough. I will address that point later.

I would like to pick up on a few points that were raised by my colleague Lady Hermon when the legislation was debated in another place last week. I repeat her concern—as it is one that I share—about the extent to which police support staff are given increased powers to enter and search premises. Civilian staff will not have undergone any training in police operations, yet, through this order, we are dramatically increasing their powers by allowing them to, enter at any time any premises or place named in the warrant, if necessary by force, and to search the premises". Without any training in police operations, any member of the police support staff finding himself or herself involved in a raid will be at a loss as to what to do and what procedures to follow. Can the noble Baroness more clearly outline why the powers of police support staff have been increased in this manner? If we discover that it is a matter of staff shortages, we are all aware of how best that can be addressed. The solution to such a problem does not involve using civilian staff, but would be resolved by halting the discriminatory 50:50 recruitment policy.

There is also some concern that not enough is being done to ensure that those applying for and those in possession of a firearms certificate are of sound psychological and physical health. If, as my colleague Lady Hermon pointed out, it is entirely possible for someone suffering from dementia to be re-issued with a firearms certificate, it is also possible that someone in possession of a certificate could, in the course of the five-year period for which it is granted, suffer periods of depression, or psychological ill health.

Can the noble Baroness tell us whether any research is currently being carried out into how GPs, for example, can feed information on individual cases to the Firearms Licensing Branch, so that decisions to grant and to withdraw certificates are more informed and up-to-date? There must also be clear, good lines of communication from other departments in the PSNI to alert the Firearms Licensing Branch to any incidents that could suggest that the holder of a firearm certificate may no longer be fit to do so. I am particularly thinking of incidents of domestic violence or other such reported disturbances.

The current minimum age for shooting in Northern Ireland is 18. In Britain there is no minimum age, and this has never presented any public safety concerns. If we are attempting to level Northern Ireland's legislation with provisions in Great Britain, why not remove the minimum age? While many regard our experiences with terrorism as a reason for imposing strict regulations—I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, feels this—I am unaware that any legally held guns—those used in shooting competitions, in clay pigeon shooting and in other outdoor sports—are the terrorist weapons of first choice. Surely we are denying our young people the opportunity to learn a sport in a safe and responsible environment. The Northern Ireland Office promised to look at this issue. Perhaps the noble Baroness will indicate why that has been reneged on.

On a more positive note, I wish to welcome several aspects of the order, in particular that it will make it easier for estates and other businesses to offer shooting as a recreational activity to visitors to the Province. I am particularly referring to the provision to borrow shotguns and estate rifles under supervision and the introduction of controls on airguns to allow paintballing in Northern Ireland. Such provisions are excellent news for our tourist industry.

These are important points, and I trust that the Government will consider them seriously so that I, and everyone in Northern Ireland, may be reassured that what we have before us today will ensure greater public safety. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Lord Hylton

My Lords, there seems to be a strange theory in the Northern Ireland Office—and perhaps in some other government departments—that the way to deal with problems is to legislate on them. Immense amounts of thought and energy must have gone into producing this order, with its 82 articles and seven schedules, yet the problem is not with weapons legally held—except when they are stolen—but, rather, with illegal guns and explosives.

The closest co-operation is clearly needed between police, Customs and Excise and, sometimes, the Inland Revenue to prevent illegal weapons entering Northern Ireland. There are no doubt linkages with all sorts of other forms of organised crime, including smuggling and drug trading. I know that co-operation between departments has been improved in recent years. However, given the small population of Northern Ireland, it should be possible to do still better. Can the Minister report on some successes?

Illegal weapons are still regularly used for so-called punishment shootings, leading to serious injuries and, occasionally, death. Can the Minister tell us whether weapons used in such shootings have lately been recovered and what prosecutions have been brought against those responsible? Can she further inform the House about what consultations are under way with the local community leaders in so-called ghetto areas with a view to improving policing, especially during the hours of darkness, when most shootings occur?

Would the Government view favourably the extension of local restorative justice schemes, especially in urban areas? I suggest that such schemes, which already exist in Belfast, are capable of reducing the demands made by some local residents for continued punishment beatings and shootings. They also have the potential for assisting the resumption of normal peacetime policing in certain neighbourhoods.

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville

My Lords, I rise to raise a highly technical point. I was reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, when he described the complications relating to dealers that occur under the order, of an episode once in County Down, where I saw a snake in an outhouse. I asked the owner of the house, if it were true that there were no snakes in Ireland, how there was one in an outhouse in County Down. He replied, "I got it from a dealer", as if that explained why the snake was on the island in the first place. Of course, that is against a background of the famous case of arbitration about whether Rathlin Island was in Ireland or Scotland, which was resolved in favour of Ireland on the grounds that there were no snakes on Rathlin Island.

I apologise to your Lordships' House. Because I have been involved in debate on the draft gambling Bill this morning and the Horserace Betting and Olympic Lottery Bill this afternoon, I have been unable to look up the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (NI 12), from which my technical point arises. I hasten to say that I shall be entirely content if the Lord President wishes to write to me, rather than to answer me today. That order appears in Schedule 7, where amendments are made to other schedules, on page 61 at paragraph 12. It states: In Schedule 5, in Part II, after paragraph 15 add the following", and three paragraphs from the order are then transcribed into the 1989 order.

Articles 58 and 69 both contain more than one paragraph, but only paragraph (1) is designated for transfer, whereas Article 60, which contains three paragraphs, is transferred in its entirety. I follow how Article 60 hangs together, where paragraphs (2) and (3) clearly extend paragraph (1) with further definitions. I suppose that I understand Articles 58 and 59 and why only one paragraph needs to be transferred if either paragraph (2) of Article 58 and paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 59 are already in the 1989 order, or if Article 58(2) and Article 59(2) and (3) are unnecessary. But if they are unnecessary, why is that, compared with the necessity to transcribe paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 60?

In the light of those inquiries, the Lord President will understand that reply in writing may be much easier. However, if there is anything wrong, we may be at a mild disadvantage if we have already passed the order this evening.

7.45 p.m.

Baroness Amos

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and shall try to address the points that have been made. I think that I followed the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, but I shall seek to obtain an answer and, if I do not obtain one, I shall of course write to him. I shall return to his point in a moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked me several questions to clarify some of the issues raised by the order. On the issue of the new firearms certificate holders, the Chief Constable's statutory responsibility to assure public safety demands that the issue of the new and experienced shooters be addressed. Article 6(4) and (5) gives the Chief Constable the specific discretion to impose a condition that an experienced person or person who is acquiring a different type of firearm should undergo a period of supervision by a person aged at least 21 who has held a firearms certificate for that type of firearm for at least three years before he or she may possess a loaded firearm. Turning the noble Lord's question about experience round the other way, we are saying that experience means being over 21 and having held a firearms certificate for at least three years.

Lord Glentoran

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. So is that someone not necessarily currently holding a firearms certificate but who has held one for three years?

Baroness Amos

My Lords, I shall obtain clarification on that, but my sense is that we want those who are in a supervisory position to hold a current certificate. I shall obtain clarification from my officials on that and return to that point, but that was my reading of the provision. If someone does not currently hold a certificate, it could be some time since he has held one.

On the point about the Armed Forces, the provision is intended to address the public safety concerns associated with new or inexperienced shooters. The Chief Constable's power to impose a supervisory condition is discretionary and the Government would expect him to exercise that discretion in considering an application from a former member of the Armed Forces.

I think that my next point will address the question about people who do not have current certificates. We believe that a person must be a current firearms holder to have the up-to-date experience to supervise another person. I think that that addresses the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran.

On the issue of trespassing and poaching, in which the noble Lord was especially interested, poaching is a separate offence; mere trespass is not poaching. That is currently the law in Northern Ireland and we have not changed it in any way.

On the question of whether Article 17 refers to the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, indeed it does.

The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, asked me a number of questions and, in particular, wanted some statistics. I hope I can answer his questions. There are 78,887 firearm certificates covering 143,721 firearms ranging from shotguns, airguns and rifles to target handguns and handguns for personal protection. I can write to the noble Lord with specific numbers of each of those if that would be helpful. There are approximately 150 dealers.

The noble Lord also asked about the ways that these firearms applications will be considered by the Chief Constable. They will be considered against the legislative criteria irrespective of the community background of the applicant. There have been no appeals to the Secretary of State from persons who feel aggrieved for that reason.

The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, asked whether there was a case for removing the firearms licensing function from the police. We are convinced that for the foreseeable future firearms licensing functions should remain with the police. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, said in his 1996 report into the Dunblane tragedy, the police are in the best position to collect and assess information bearing on the suitability of applicants for or holders of firearms certificates.

The noble Lord also raised the role of civilian staff. The powers of entry and inspection in Article 51 and the power to search with warrant in Article 52 mirror those in the legislation for the rest of the UK. The extension of these powers to members of the police support staff was recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, and should not cause any additional concern.

On the role of GPs and the information which they can divulge, the applicant must give permission for the GP to give factual details of their medical history relevant to the application. The Chief Constable will approach a GP only when he or she has a valid reason for so doing and the GP will release only information relevant to the applicant's fitness to hold firearms. It is very much in the interests of public safety for the Chief Constable to be made aware of any medical condition which may adversely affect a person's fitness to hold and use a firearm safely.

The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, also raised the issue of age. We listened very carefully to the representations from shooting organisations that the minimum age limit for supervised shooting by young people—currently 16—should be reduced or even removed to mirror the position in Great Britain. The Home Office has indicated that it will be conducting a review of the firearms law in the rest of the UK in the near future. Harmonisation of the law relating to young people will be revisited at that time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, raised the issue of the conversion of weapons. I hope that I can address her concerns. Paragraph 3 is correct in that it refers to something that looks like a firearm but is not because it cannot fire a shot. That is then converted to a firearm by, say, boring out the barrel so a shot can be fired from it. I hope that clarifies the position.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pressed me on the issue of illegal firearms and punishment shootings. Of course we want all paramilitary groups to give up their illegal firearms and to stop so-called punishment shootings. Today we are discussing the possession of legal firearms in Northern Ireland. I should like to make particular mention of the good record of safety and responsibility among those who hold firearms for sporting or other legitimate purposes.

In relation to local policing strategy after hours of darkness, the Government have set in place district policing partnerships whose members work with local district commanders to agree policing plans to combat crime and reduce the fear of crime. I shall ensure that the concerns of noble Lords about local restorative justice schemes are passed on to the relevant Minister for a response.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, asked me about paragraphs 58, 59 and 60. I can reassure him that his reference to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1989 Schedule 7 Page 61 Paragraph 12, is accurate but it is a little complex to deal with now so, as he suggested, I shall write to the noble Lord.

I hope this addresses the questions raised by noble Lords and I commend the order to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.