The Countryside Alliance is pleased to submit additional written evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's during its inquiry into "firearms controls in Northern Ireland and the draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, following the recent publication of the draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order2002, for public consultation.

  The Countryside Alliance in Northern Ireland is an expert and informed rural campaigning organisation, with responsibility for over 20,000 people through a series of formal agreements with a number of countryside organisations. Our Chief Executive, Ronan Gorman has been the primary point of contact between the shooting community and the Northern Ireland Office during the entire review period.

INTRODUCTION

  The stated aims of the review team were "To assess whether the legislation remained relevant, effective and proportionate and whether it struck the right balance between the level of public safety demanded by society and the reasonable expectations of the shooting community and firearms trade"

  The shooting community's initial reaction to the document is one of considerable disappointment. It appears that although the NIO conceded the principle that there is a need to reform Northern Ireland's firearm's laws, as they are widely regarded as arbitrarily restrictive they have failed to adequately address the concerns and legitimate aspirations of firearms users. The draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 promises further unnecessary restriction which will make no significant difference to public safety and therefore despite six painstaking years of review, the new draft legislation must be regarded as having failed to achieved its aims.

  Current firearms legislation in Northern Ireland is amongst the toughest in the world, which is one reasons why legally held firearms are almost never used for criminal purposes, making any further legislative restrictions quite unnecessary. Northern Ireland's firearms laws are also widely regarded as being overtly bureaucratic, requiring a disproportionate amount of police resources and causing considerable and unacceptable delays in the licensing process. Rather than addressing this important issue, the draft legislation promises further unnecessary bureaucracy; this in inconsistent with the stated aims of the review and must be prevented.

REFEREES

  The draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) 2002 requires an applicant for a firearms certificate to provide the names and addresses of two appropriate persons who have agreed to act as referees. It goes on to say that a person is an appropriate person if he has known the applicant for two years and is of good character. The Chief Constable will require the referee to provide;

(i)  verification of any information provided by the applicant.

(ii)  verification of the likeness to the applicant of the photographs submitted with the application.

(iii)  a statement that he knows of no reason why the applicant should not be permitted to possess a firearm; and

(iv)  such other statements or information in connection with the application as the Chief Constable may require.

  A referee system has been in place in Britain for a number of years and the Countryside Alliance believes that the process has not yet been proven to add any significant benefit to the licensing process. Furthermore, Northern Ireland's firearms laws have been satisfactorily separated from those in Britain for over twenty years, and one wonders why the Secretary of State has decided to introduce this requirement when its absence from the process has not created any potential danger to public safety. The Countryside Alliance is therefore of the opinion that the introduction of such a requirement is unnecessary on the grounds that it is unlikely to make any significant improvement to the safety of the general public, whilst it does create additional administrative burden for the licensing authorities and inconvenience for the applicant.

ACCESS TO MEDICAL REPORTS

  The draft Order also requires an applicant to grant permission to the Chief Constable to approach his General Practitioner to obtain factual details of his medical history, which the General Practitioner considers relevant to the application.

  This proposal is likely to cause considerable concern amongst Northern Ireland's shooting community.

  On the current application form for a firearms certificate (30/1) it is already mandatory for an applicant to disclose whether or not he has ever suffered from any mental illness, and if so, he must declare which particular mental illness he suffered from. In these circumstances where there are doubts regarding the applicant's medical suitability to possess firearms, then the PSNI should be entitled to ask the applicant to given them permission to approach his GP, or indeed any other medical professional to obtain the relevant factual information. However, such authority should only be required if the applicant answers the question asking whether he has ever suffered from any mental illness in the affirmative, or if the PSNI have any other information which would appear to indicate that the applicant has a medical condition which may make him a danger to the safety of the public. In any case the applicants medical records and any other medical reports should only be made available to a PSNI doctor, and copies of any reports sent to the Chief Constable must also be made available to the applicant.

COMPETENCE

  Article 5 (c) says that the Chief Constable must not grant a firearms certificate unless he is satisfied that the applicant is competent in the use of such a firearm or ammunition.

  Following a great deal of debate with the Countryside Alliance and a number of other shooting organisations, the Northern Ireland Office scrapped plans for mandatory firearms safety tests, which it had previously proposed during an earlier consultation on firearms legislation reforms in 1998. NIO plans to introduce compulsory firearms testing were dropped because consensus was reached that; there is very little instance of accidental injury caused by legally held firearms in Northern Ireland; that evidence from other countries indicates that the introduction of formal testing procedures will not lead to a decline in these accidents and that the resources are currently not available to deliver formal testing. It is also widely acknowledged that a great deal of voluntary training currently takes place within the shooting community, and this is a more effective and efficient means of continuing to deliver high standards of competence.

  Again as with many of the proposals contained within the draft Order, this proposal would lead to increased bureaucracy in the licensing process, which could be detrimental to the sport, without any tangible public safety benefits.

  During discussions with the NIO regarding compulsory testing, and as an alternative to it, both representatives for the shooting community and the Gun Trade Association of NI had agreed, in principle with the proposal to provide first time applicants with a firearms safety manual, or code of practice, so that they could become familiar with the key competencies required to operate a sporting firearm safely. However, the NIO have taken this proposal further and attempted to formalise it.

  In an explanatory note accompanying the draft legislation the NIO say that the training would be carried out by registered firearms dealers and shooting organisations; neither the gun trade nor any of the major shooting organisations are prepared to, or indeed able to deliver such training, making the introduction of mandatory training an impossibility.

MINIMUM AGE

  Articles seven sets out the conditions whereby the Chief Constable may grant firearms certificate to a person 16 years to 18 years. The NIO, in its public consultation in 1998 proposed to reduce the minimum age at which an "on loan" certificates could be issued to 14 years. Clearly shooting interests welcomed this proposal, and are now bitterly disappointed that the NIO have reneged upon it.

  In our response to the NIO consultation in 1998, the Countryside Alliance recommended that no arbitrarily determined minimum age limit should be put in the way of a young person who wishes to use a firearm—in a safe and responsible manner. We believe that it is not necessary to impose a minimum age limit on young people, provided that an adult certificate holder properly supervises them. In the Countryside Alliance's opinion the young person's age is not important, as the responsibility devolves to the certificate holder and the young person would be under his immediate and direct supervision.

  In its response to the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into firearms controls in Britain, the government rejected the imposition of a minimum age for shooting on the grounds that it would not improve public safety. In this response the government also said that it wished to "encourage the responsible attitude of responsible parents and shooting organisations in teaching young people a safe and responsible attitude towards firearms handling". That young people are educated in the safe and responsible use of sporting firearms is no less important in Northern Ireland than in Britain.

  The Countryside Alliance proposes recommendations, similar to those contained within the eleventh Annual Report of the British Firearms Consultative Committee. These should be:

  18 years or over—full firearms certificate available.

  14 years or over—"on loan" certificate for the supervised use of any firearm.

  Less than 14 years—supervised use of shotguns and airguns only.

APPEALS TO THE COUNTY COURT

  Under previous firearms legislation a person who was aggrieved by any decision of the Chief Constable could make an appeal to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State normally relied heavily on information provided by the Chief Constable when deciding upon an appeal and the process was widely regarded as unfair, and certainly not very transparent. The Countryside Alliance, therefore warmly welcomes the provision in the draft Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 which provides an applicant with the opportunity to make an appeal to a county court, should he be aggrieved with any decision made by the Chief Constable under Schedule 5.

  However, we are also concerned that the cost of taking a case to the county courts may be prohibitive for many people or that the courts could be inundated with cases. We believe that there may be considerable merit in establishing an independent tribunal, which could hear, and potentially resolve many cases without the incurring the costs involved in the county courts or wasting the court's time. Such a provision would be available in addition to, rather than in place of the county courts.

AIRGUNS

  In 1998 the NIO proposed to deregulate airguns that were incapable of discharging a projectile that developed a kinetic energy of more than three to four joules. During its consultation on the matter the NIO said that lethality could reasonably be assessed at this level and that it seemed sensible to exempt from the certification process those guns that are designed to operate below these energy levels, as they present little or no threat to public safety.

  However, the NIO now propose to deregulate those airguns that project a missile at less than one joule (approx 0.75fl LBS). One wonders what material changes there have been since 1998, that has led to the NIO setting such unnecessarily low limits as one joule, which would widely be considered to be an unreasonable measurement of lethality.

  There are many "soft air-weapons", which generate approximately three to four joules of kinetic energy that have been purchased over the counter, without the need for a firearms certificate in the past. The great majority of these have no serial number or any readily identifiable marks. If these, previously unlicensed guns became subject to licensing requirements how would the police license them and how would they trace all those already in circulation.

  The Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969, which apply to Great Britain, provides that air rifles that develop less than 12ft lbs energy (approx 16-17 joules) can be held without a firearms certificate. The Countryside Alliance considers this to be a more reasonable "benchmark", and up to four million airguns are held, without the need for a firearm certificate in Britain and without presenting any significant public safety concerns. However we recognise that the security situation is different in Northern Ireland, and would be concerned that should similar legislation be introduced here, as to that in place in Britain, then we may see a higher level of misuse of airguns particularly in street disturbances in urban areas.

  The Countryside Alliance is therefore of a mind to recommend that the NIO assess lethality as previously published levels of three to four joules, and that above these levels a firearms certificate would be required. However these limits should be kept under review, and similar provisions to those in place in Britain introduced, as street violence subsides, in the meantime consideration should be given to introducing a lesser form of licensing for airguns, such as that which is already in place for possessing black powder.

BORROWING SHOTGUNS

  Schedule 1 (10), (1) permits a person, without holding a firearm certificate, to borrow a shotgun from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the occupiers presence and (2) to use a shotgun at a time and place approved by the Chief Constable for shooting at artificial targets. However, it goes on to say that both exemptions do not apply to persons less than 18 years. The Countryside Alliance obviously welcomes the first exemption, which permits a person to borrow a shotgun from the occupier of lands and use it under their instruction, as this will improve shooting organisation's ability to expand training provision and better accommodate tourist shooters. The definition of occupier should also include the "occupier" of shooting rights and we clearly see no reason why the exemption should not apply to those people under the age of 18 years. The case for young people being able to shoot under supervision has been made elsewhere in this document.

  Additionally exemption (10) (2) which allows a person, without holding a firearm certificate to use a shotgun at a time and place approved by the Chief Constable for shooting artificial targets, contains a number of unnecessarily and arbitrary restrictions. The Chief Constable does not need to approve the time or place where this occurs as there is absolutely no public safety benefit but there would be additional administration requirements. There is no history of accidents taking place at clay shooting grounds nor of any evidence abuse of current legislation. Again there is absolutely no public safety argument against this exemption applying to under 18's also.

  Finally, Schedule 1 (12) permits a person, without holding a firearms certificate to have in his possession a firearm and ammunition while undergoing instruction in the use of firearms from a registered firearms dealer, his employee or a person authorised by the Chief Constable. This provision is welcome, but does not completely do what it is intended to do, which was to make provision for training, as it does not specifically include those people likely to deliver most of the training. This provision should include; employees of bone fide shooting representative bodies and coaches awarded qualification to deliver training on behalf of such bodies.

FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE FORUM

  In its initial consultation in 1998 the NIO proposed to establish a consultative body (to be known as the Firearms Consultative Forum) which would bring together representatives from the local shooting organisations, firearms dealers, firearms clubs and the PSNI and NIO. This should be enshrined in legislation also.

October 2002