WEDNESDAY 20 NOVEMBER 2002

MR HUGH ORDE AND MR DUNCAN MCCAUSLAND

  280. Dealers have stressed to us that where a dealer provides instruction to a non certificate holder, which is always very limited, they would have liability concerns if they were asked to certify the person as competent. You have just said that you would be asking dealers to do exactly that. If the dealers refuse because of their concerns over liability, where does that leave us in respect of the new draft Order?
  (Mr Orde) Before we licensed a dealer part of the condition would be that they undertook the course in acquiring those skills which they could then transfer. My colleague may have some other observation on that, but that is how I would see it.

  281. They took on the liability implication.
  (Mr Orde) Yes. What we are talking about is basic handling skills. If one looks to America, the number of people who are killed through simple accident, because they do not know how to handle a weapon, basic issues of loading, unloading, how you strip a weapon, the sort of things which would be well within the competence of a half-decent firearms dealer, I am fairly comfortable that would work.

  282. May I keep you on Article 5 for a moment. I note that discretion is given to the Chief Constable in terms of whether or not to grant a firearms certificate if the various criteria are satisfied. How important is it to you to hold onto that discretion?
  (Mr Orde) I think it is very important. As a general principle the closer I am to routine legislation in England and Wales the happier I am and I know the distinction between what I may do and what perhaps other officers shall do. Where I am different is the environment in which I operate. I would need to be absolutely satisfied before I issued a certificate that a person was competent in every way, shape or form. In terms of the current security situation, that plays into that and at the moment I would want to have a greater discretion around that decision-making process.

  283. When you said "competent" did you mean suitable as well, which is quite different?
  (Mr Orde) Yes; absolutely. A fit person to be entrusted with a firearm as a definition in the Order. "Good reason" I can understand and "competent in the use", but I also think Northern Ireland is a difficult place to police at the best of times and I would want that wide discretion in the current environment.

  284. Article 5 does say that you have to be satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to have in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace, so you will already have dealt with the issue you raised before you come to whether you exercise discretion or not.
  (Mr Orde) I see it in slightly wider terms. There may be issues which for potential national security reasons I do not want to disclose in any way shape or form; I do not think a person is suitable but I would not want to declare exactly why it was.

  285. Even if that was "shall" rather than "may" would you have to declare why you determined somebody was not being issued with a firearms certificate?
  (Mr Orde) I am more comfortable with "may" quite frankly. I think it gives me wider discretion. I recognise that should somebody be unhappy then there is a safeguard in the Order which gives them the opportunity to challenge that decision and that is where I should like to see it challenged. Because we have a fairly effective and strict regime and this Order gives me a better set of rules under which to operate is why currently, despite the environment I am in, the number of legally held weapons illegally used is very small. That is how I intend to keep it and this helps me in that pursuit.

  286. On those figures, do you have the figures as a comparator with England and Wales?
  (Mr Orde) Which figures?

  287. Illegal use of legally held weapons.
  (Mr Orde) That is so small.
  (Mr McCausland) They are very small.

  288. Could you give us any figure at all?
  (Mr McCausland) I could not give you figures off the top of my head but I could certainly write to you with them.

  Chairman: If you would let us have a note of those, I think it would be very helpful so we can make a proper comparison.

  289. It would also be useful—I do not ask for it now—if perhaps you might like to reflect and advise the Committee on any set of circumstances which you feel may not fall into the category which would have to be picked up under the discretion which is being given. May I also ask you to consider the human rights legislation in Northern Ireland and how, in the exercise of your discretion, you might actually be in breach of the human rights legislation if someone meets the criteria set down, but you do not issue them with a firearms certificate?
  (Mr Orde) On a point of clarity, in terms of the human rights legislation, which particular article were you thinking of?

  290. You are required under the human rights legislation to treat everyone the same. If they meet the criteria which is set down as someone else would have met that criteria, but to stop them getting a firearms certificate you exercise your discretion, would you not therefore be treating that person differently? One other issue in relation to your power, again it is an issue which has been raised by the Gun Trade Association, is that the Chief Constable should be given the power to delegate his authority to the gun dealer to record one-on/one-off variations of a firearms certificate where obviously you are using a particular type and calibre of firearm and exchanging it for another weapon of the same type and calibre.
  (Mr Orde) I have no objections to that. Are you saying that they do? Are the dealers concerned about that one?

  291. No, they think it would cut out quite a bit of the bureaucracy and probably cut away some of the unnecessary work you are going to have to do.
  (Mr Orde) I am happy with that.

  292. They would obviously have to notify you within a stipulated period about such exchanges.
  (Mr Orde) Within seven days. I have no difficulty with that at all. It makes absolute sense and provided they let us know within seven days then we can maintain our records, yes, that is fine.
  (Mr McCausland) The only point we would be negotiating on would be in terms of any fee for that aspect which would be captured by us, for them to send on to us, but that is the only negotiation we would have concerning that.

  293. You have expressed concerns about the workings of Article 28 of the 1981 Order on the grounds that it is difficult to reach a fully informed conclusion about the fitness of someone to hold a certificate who is resident outside the island of Ireland. Do you have the same concerns about the proposed draft Order?
  (Mr McCausland) In relation to our written submission back in May at that time it was concerning the then draft proposals. Since then another draft has been prepared and is before the Committee today. We are content with the alterations which have been made. We feel it gives more scope and also section 28(4) of the previous legislation has now been given its own standing part in the new legislation, that is visitors applying for permits therefore the problem has been clarified and dealt with.

  294. You are now content with that.
  (Mr McCausland) We are content.

  295. Do you welcome the proposal to extend the life of a firearms certificate to five years?
  (Mr Orde) I know my colleagues had some concerns about that. I do not have the same concerns. I am happy for that to take place. There are transitional arrangements which will allow us to facilitate that through the issue of three-, four- or five-year certificates to begin with. We have embarked on a substantial modernisation programme within our own organisation to provide far better and up to date information technology to manage this process. With the numbers I have five years will not cause me a difficulty.

  296. Would it have any resource implications?
  (Mr Orde) There are substantial resource implications and this is an activity which is a bit of a loss leader for us. We are investing some £4 million over the next five years in IT, the resources are helped substantially by the Order which allows me to use civilian colleagues to enforce and carry out some of these duties. On balance, whilst there are resourcing issues, we have actually budgeted for them and we will deliver on them.

  297. Commissioner Hart suggested that there were problems within England and Wales because there were quiet years and then there were heavy years in certification and also that people seemed to disappear a great deal; I believe the numbers of re-certifications had fallen by about 40 per cent.
  (Mr McCausland) Article 75(3) of the new legislation allows the Secretary of State to introduce arrangements to address that. What we would see happening when we introduced the new five-year certificate, though not right away, would be a graded approach in that some certificates would be introduced for three, four and five years in the initial part; that would allow us to bottom out the difficulty of having a large number of people coming one particular year then a fallow year then that repeating itself. By using that article which is in the legislation we would in effect level out the approach and therefore we hope we would not have the problems which have been experienced in the rest of the United Kingdom.

  298. Before we go on, may I go back to this question of those who are capable of becoming referees? We have had evidence that the requirement for two referees, which is not in question at all, specifies that you are not qualified to be a referee if you are resident outside Northern Ireland. Do you think it right that that should be there?
  (Mr Orde) From a pragmatic and practical point of view yes, in terms of carrying out the necessary checks and enquiries on those individuals to see whether we think they are people we should take seriously. To widen it would cause a number of difficulties which we experience, for example, carrying out checks on individuals who apply to join the Police Service who have a history outside Northern Ireland. It takes an awful lot of time which would feed the delay process. That is my concern, which is why we are supportive of the way it stands, which is within Northern Ireland.

  299. I live in the extreme south of England and I can put down the name of a referee who lives in Northern Ireland or in the north of Scotland because we have a United Kingdom police force which can join up these requests and sort them out. Is there anything special about a referee not being resident in Northern Ireland? If somebody, let us say, is serving in the British Army, his referees might be much better known and have a much better assessment of his character while he was in Northern Ireland and wanted a firearms certificate from you than anybody who was resident in Northern Ireland. As this is part of the United Kingdom, is there a real difficulty about that?
  (Mr Orde) It is manageable. It will impact to some extent on efficiency, because I shall have to go elsewhere; it adds to the administrative chain. It can be done.