As Chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Administration of Firearms and Explosives Licensing Sub-Committee, I submit to you the following matters for consideration. I am also a full time member of the Firearms Consultative Committee.

  I understand that the terms of reference of for the inquiry are contained under four sub headings and it would appear appropriate for me to respond to the first point, "firearms legislation in Northern Ireland, with particular reference to differences from equivalent legislation in Great Britain".

  The response I provide are purely observations on administration matters, which have been assimilated through comments from members of the ACPO Committee.

  I recognise the need for specific differences, which already exist, between legislation in Northern Ireland and the Mainland. These are designed to cater for the very different nature of policing between the provinces and the mainland. The need for personal protection weapons is, in particular one such difference and also that individuals are permitted to possess handguns, for lawful target practice.

  In making the following comments, it is only right that I ought to inform you that ACPO would like to see, a redraft of the existing legislation in England and Wales, to amalgamate the six Acts, other regulations and orders, by which firearms licensing legislation is dictated in England and Wales. Therefore, in outlining the following matters to the Affairs Committee, I will be bringing to your attention some of the anomalies and practical difficulties faced by licensing managers.

  I understand one of the proposals you will be considering is an increase in the life of a firearms certificate from three years to five years.

  The current position on the mainland is that firearms certificates have a duration of five years, which is proving troublesome to administer. I recently raised my concerns with both the Home Office and the Parliamentary All Party Group on Shooting and Conservation.

  In 1995 the Home Office altered the life of a firearms certificate from three years to five years. In effect, this means that two of the five years will leave firearms departments with relatively few renewals to manage. On the mainland the effective management of police resources to deal with other more pressing issues of public concern, has meant that firearms trained staff have been lost during the lean years. This results in enormous problems for firearms managers when the bulge cycle begins. On the mainland this has lead to delays in the issue of new certificates, in some cases causing severe disruption to the process and quite rightly, this problem has been a cause of complaint from the shooting organisations for some time. Despite repeated attempts of my Committee to find ways of resolving this issue, we have been unsuccessful. The retention of properly trained staff to deal with firearms renewals is essential and a factor recognised by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.

  Furthermore, a five year certificate enables the holder to possess firearms for that period, relatively unchecked by the police, unless they are subject to a visit or inform the police of a change in circumstances. Those who do not inform us of, for instance, a change of address, in some instances are lost to the system. This, in some police areas, has lead to an increase, of up to 40 per cent, in the number of individuals who cannot be traced when their certificate renewal is due. This is a worrying trend on the mainland and although the actual figures are not a large proportion of the actual number of certificate holders, any loss of a certificate holder to firearms licensing process is cause for concern.

  I would imagine that given the current political environment in Northern Ireland, this may be even more problematic. It is for this reason that I would favour a return to the three year certificate. I would, therefore, urge you to give careful consideration before implementing such a proposal.

  It is for these reasons I have asked the Home Office to consider two options for change,

  1.  To allow for the introduction of a Statutory Instrument, which I understand is catered for under the Firearms Act, for a variation in certificate life, thus enabling firearms managers to "iron out" the bulge, by moving the validity dates for some certificate holders, currently in the bulge period into the lean period.

  2.  To return to a three year certificate.

  There are other matters which I would like to draw to your attention.

  Members of my Sub-Committee are currently devising an administrative document, currently referred to as the "Procedural Good Practice Guide", which will provide firearms licensing managers with a Human Rights Audited administrative guide to firearms licensing. This is based on a similar document originally used by Scottish Police Forces. This is distinct from the Home Office Guidance, which is an interpretation of the law, whereas the Procedural Good Practice Guide details the best way of processing day to day administrative tasks, to the benefit of the customer. This will help the police service to deliver, a seamless and standardised administrative process across the country. I would, therefore, promote this as a worthy document, which although not legislatively based, is capable of enhancing customer relations.

  The Home Office Guidance to the police, was published earlier this year and is also available on the world wide web. This document has been warmly recognised by all players in the firearms licensing area as a successful publication. It will enable practitioners and licensing staff to work to a common set of interpretations. I am aware that this document does not apply in Northern Ireland, however, I would recommend it's purpose and content to you as a basis for practical interpretation of the law.

  I list below other practical difficulties for your consideration. They do not appear in any sort of order. These are, however, matters I would like to see addressed on the mainland by way of legislative change.

—  The introduction of prohibition on the possession of a firearm for suspended sentences. This does not apply at present, as it is only effective from the date of release from prison.

—  The firearm certificate fee should be payable upon the application, not the grant, because if the application is refused and the certificate is not issued, the fee has to be returned. I would argue that the fee should pay for the administrative process, not just the grant of the certificate.

—  Registered Firearms Dealers certificates of registration do not hold a photograph of the bearer, whilst firearms and shotgun certificates do. This is an anomaly.

—  Fitness to possess a firearm should apply equally to a firearm and a shotgun, this is not the case at present. However, this matter has been discussed at the Firearms Consultative Committee and in principle, it has been accepted that this would be a desirable position.

—  An authority to suspend a holders certificate would also be desirable, for say a period of 28 days, in order that a complaint, some of which are anonymous, could be investigated. This matter also has some support from shooting groups.

  I do hope I have been able to provide you with a considered "snap shot" of current licensing issues and that it will assist the Affairs Committee to complete their review.

13 May 2002