---

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

2 Mar 2004 : Column 618

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 with 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

2 Mar 2004 : Column 619

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.

2 Mar 2004 : Column 620

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.

---