Personal Protection Weapons
Private Members’ Business
Northern Ireland Assembly debates, 19 October 2009, 1:45 pm
William Hay (Speaker)
The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. One amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List. The proposer of the amendment will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes for the winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the dissident threat to serving and retired military personnel and police officers; and calls on the Chief Constable to review urgently the policy on personal protection weapons.
I propose the motion against a backdrop that is both serious and severe and one that requires our immediate attention. The recent events in east Belfast, coupled with other activity in Londonderry, Newtownbutler and other border areas indicate that the circumstances we now live in are not the same as those originally envisaged when the policy was reviewed by the Chief Constable.
The PSNI policy directive states:
“The Chief Constable acknowledges the positive obligation to take all reasonable measures to obviate the risk to an individual’s life where the police know, or ought to know, that there is a real and immediate risk.”
It goes on to state:
“In light of the more stable political and security environment the Chief Constable is committed to reviewing the grant of firearms certificates … and moving towards the situation where these will only be authorised where there is a ‘verifiable specific risk’ to the life of an individual”.
When that document was written, we were living in different times.
The policy was enacted, and in 2005, only 25 personal protection weapons (PPWs) were revoked. By 2008, 100 had been revoked, and by 2009, 151 had been revoked. Clearly, the policy has been brought to bear. Of course, people have complained about it, but there has been no response worth talking about from the PSNI. The changed circumstances were raised in the twenty-first report of the Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC), which states:
“the overview of dissident republican activity over the six months”
is more serious than:
“any time since … April 2004”.
It goes on to state:
“Dissidents have turned their efforts more directly to trying to kill PSNI officers, using a variety of tactics and methods.”
Paragraph 2.6 of the report states:
“Our comments below … indicate that there has been a continuing high level of serious violent activity, often with the express intention of killing, or making possible the killing, of members of the PSNI and other security personnel, and often doing so by imperilling the lives of members of the general public.”
The Independent Monitoring Commission is telling us that there is a very real and a very severe threat, and that these are not the halcyon days that we had envisaged way back when. We now face a very real threat, and no amount of wishful thinking or NIO spin that tells us that there is no real threat and that everything is OK will change the reality that our officers are at risk day and daily, our previous officers are at risk, and, most shamefully of all, friends, family and relatives of officers are at risk.
Against that background, it seems bizarre that a Chief Constable would continue to advocate the removal of PPWs from those who have served this community and our country so well for so long. I could understand if there was a particular problem with PPWs and if they resulted in killings at home or were shown to be part of a problem. However, in all the cases that I reviewed, there has never been a security issue. They have been used responsibility and they give people the reassurance that they need. I cannot see why we should follow a route of sheer political correctness and take away a source of comfort to those who have served us so well.
I know that this issue has been raised by a number of party leaders in discussions with the Prime Minister, and Shaun Woodward has certainly been made aware of it. However, they do not seem to understand that it is not just a matter for the negotiations about the devolution of policing and justice. This issue is not just some trinket to be moved around, and given in exchange for agreement on something else. There is a very real and serious threat to people, and we must overturn the current policy.
I looked at the amendment that has been tabled by Members on the opposite Benches. I wonder why they bothered to table it, because it merely states the status quo. What they are calling for is what the policy already is, so the amendment is entirely redundant. I look forward to hearing the arguments of Members who support the amendment. They will try to say that personal protection weapons should be made available only when there is a clear and identifiable threat. However, all our history tells us that atrocities happen only when intelligence fails — that is when there is a problem. Despite all the good efforts of our men and women, occasionally things happen. At such times, all our people must have the opportunity to defend themselves.
The policy on personal protection weapons has a knock-on effect on morale. What signal does it send to serving police officers and those who have served in the past if we take away the very weapons that they possess to defend themselves?
I had occasion recently to speak to the most recent group of graduates from the PSNI college at Garnerville. They were fine men and women. I had to speak to them on a serious note, although it was a day for celebration. All of them were proud to wear the uniform of the PSNI. Their mothers and fathers were there, beaming with pride at what their children had achieved and what they were going to achieve. I shared in that pride, but I also had to give them the message that, when they left that place, they were going to go into harm’s way. I had to tell them that they were going to go to areas and be asked to carry out neighbourhood and community policing, because only through a hearts-and-minds strategy will we win the long-term battle, but in doing so, they would be placed in areas of extreme risk.
The challenge for all of us is to ensure that we continue to win the support and confidence of all sections of the community, while also being able to keep police officers, those brave men and women, alive. I know that that is a stark thing to say. Some might accuse people of trying to heighten tensions, but nothing could be further from the truth. That is the situation that we face. There have been issues in Londonderry, Newtownbutler, Meigh, and east Belfast. The challenge for the Chief Constable is to find a way of resolving two issues: first, winning hearts and minds through community policing; and secondly, making sure that our officers are necessarily protected.
Few things that I can think of would reassure all our men and women as much as a decision by the new Chief Constable, who is not bound by the decisions of the past, to review the policy, to look at it in a new light and to state that, although we cannot be sure about intelligence on threats against any specific individual, we are quite sure that there is a very severe threat.
Every time that I attend a meeting of the Policing Board at which we receive a report from the Chief Constable, we ask about the current level of threat.
We are told that it is severe, absolutely severe. No one can minimise this, and those who do — I point the finger at the NIO and its lackeys — are doing us a disservice.
If we are serious about moving forward on policing and justice on whatever timescale can gain everyone’s commitment, we need to start showing that we will address these very real issues properly. Therefore, I urge the House to reject the amendment, which adds nothing to the status quo, to back the main motion and to send a message of positive goodwill to all our men and women in the PSNI.
Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin)
I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after “this Assembly” and insert
“calls on the Chief Constable to ensure that any application for a personal protection weapon is considered only on the basis of the level of threat against the applicant”.
Tá mé ag labhairt ar son an leasaithe. I begin by pointing out that, like Basil McCrea, I am a member of the Policing Board. I think that, like me, Basil McCrea will have heard the then Chief Constable, Hugh Orde, outline the rationale behind the new regulations governing the issue of personal firearms. Hugh Orde made it quite clear that it was now PSNI policy that anyone who holds a personal protection weapon (PPW) can be considered for a further licence only if it can be shown that there is a threat to the life of the applicant. That is why we are seeing some of the licences being removed; no threat has been identified. That is a good thing.
(Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker [Mr Molloy] in the Chair)
It is a good thing that some of these weapons are being taken out of circulation. It is good that, in the vast majority of cases, there is no specific threat to individuals. I recognise that there are many responsible gun users, but the issue of weapons is not something to be taken lightly. Basil McCrea should know that; after all, the human rights and professional standards committee of the Policing Board — we are both members, and Basil actually chairs it — led the board’s inquiry into domestic abuse. It recommended that an application for a firearms certificate should be judged against the applicant’s past behaviour, including criminal convictions and breaches of non-molestation orders. The report stated that access to a firearm was a significant factor in any risk assessment, but, rather than heed such warnings, the proposers of the motion seem to want to hand out weapons to all former RUC officers and UDR/RIR soldiers, regardless of background. If they do not, maybe they could say so and clarify the situation when they address the Chamber later.
Basil McCrea was at the meeting when Hugh Orde set out the stall. He heard the evidence, and he heard how, from now on, the PSNI would issue weapons only when there was a verifiable and justifiable threat. Maybe he did not hear that; maybe, like so many of the former RUC personnel whom he wants to arm, he is suffering from a touch of hearing loss. Whatever the reason, it is disappointing, extremely disappointing—
Basil McCrea (UUP)
I was just checking that the Member herself had not had a touch of hearing loss and would take the intervention.
I have listened to the points that the Member has made, and I agree with many of them, including those about domestic violence and suchlike. However, the point of this motion is that there are many officers who have held PPWs for a long time with no ill effects and no unstable backgrounds, nothing like that. All that we are saying is that this is not the right time to revoke this policy.
Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin)
I suppose that the Member will recognise that, out of all the PPWs that were withdrawn in 2009, only two cases were appealed. It does not seem to be an issue for the people who were actually refused. They could have gone through an application process and appealed the decision, but they did not. Only two people appealed their decisions. Those people were probably quite satisfied with the judgement.
Whatever the reason, it is disappointing that the proposers of the motion would rather ignore the reality of the situation and instead seek to prey on people’s fears. Basil touched on that in his opening address. It is preying on people’s fears to paint a worst case scenario and reduce the issue to its lowest common denominator. How will we ever move to a shared and better future when political representatives are stoking up fears and tensions, insisting that a weapon under the pillow or by one’s side is someone’s right?
I do not deny that some of those micro-groups — those pseudo-republicans — pose a threat. Indeed, in all likelihood, as many Members know, they pose more of a threat to members of my community than they will ever pose to any former member of the security forces. The way to defeat those people is not to create another armed militia but to show that the political process is working and will continue to work. It is to demonstrate that we can work together despite our different aspirations and all the political differences between us and that we can work together to pursue our political objectives peacefully in a system that is founded on partnership and equality.
Society has moved on, and people want us to work together. Nevertheless, I recognise that there may be cases in which the issuing of a personal protection weapon is justified because of a verifiable and specific threat. However, as the amendment states, all applications should be considered individually, and a decision should be taken once the level of threat against an applicant has been assessed. Operational decisions should be made on the facts; political decisions on the matter should not be taken in this Chamber, and carte blanche should not be given for weapons to be handed out without a justifiable reason.
I ask Members to reflect on the Sinn Féin amendment and to support it based on the arguments that I and many others have made. It is simply not good enough for certificates to be issued to everyone who applies. When we consider the evidence on the number of applications for PPWs that have been refused against the number of people who have appealed against the loss of those weapons, many people are satisfied with the decision that was taken.
Some 3,224 certificates are out to issue, 953 of which have been issued to former RUC and PSNI personnel and 1,184 of which have been issued to former UDR and RIR personnel. It is not clear who the remaining certificates have been issued to, but many weapons are in circulation. It must be ensured that the policy is robust and that each case is considered on its merits. Certificates must not be given and reissued to everyone who has secured a PPW. I ask Members to support the amendment. Go raibh míle maith agat.
Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP)
Like the previous two Members to speak, I declare my membership of the Policing Board.
I welcome this timely debate, for, as the proposer of the motion, Basil McCrea, acknowledged, we have been overtaken by events. I refer first to the disgusting events that took place last week in our city; and, secondly, to the attacks and threats of which other people, including Members of this House, have faced or been warned. I speak as one of those people. We know that, slowly but surely, events are taking over as the security situation deteriorates. Rather than putting our heads in the sand about the security situation, we must face it appropriately.
The other event to overtake the motion is the fact that the new Chief Constable has made the DUP and other parties aware that a new review is under way. That is welcome, and, along with many realists in the House, the DUP will await with interest the outcome of that review. Let us hope that the flawed nature and ideas of the previous review will be set aside and that a new review will result in a much better policy to address the issues that, quite rightly, have been brought to the attention of the House.
At the outset of the debate, it is important to put matters into perspective. I have heard words spoken today that suggest that certain Members want to create an armed militia, give out gun licences like confetti and ensure that whoever applies for a gun licence gets one. However, I have not heard that kind of carte blanche attitude being taken in any debate on, or public reaction to, the issue of personal protection weapons. Indeed, a much more serious attitude prevails among those who already have, or those who require, personal protection weapons.
Again, it is important to put into perspective that in 1991, there were 10,500 licences for personal protection weapons in Northern Ireland. In 2009, 3,100 such licences are available. Therefore, the very suggestion that the country is awash with those weapons is, quite frankly, nonsense. If the Assembly were to take the view that weapons should be handed out to every current and former member of the police and military — which has never been suggested by the proposer of the motion, nor, indeed, by any Member on this side of the House — over 33,000 licences for personal protection weapons would be issued in Northern Ireland.
The Assembly must put matters into perspective and recognise that the number of licences that are currently available is small. More importantly, by and large, licences are issued to people who have a military or police background and who are, quite clearly, likely to be under attack. They have also been issued to individual businesspeople who have been threatened or, indeed, have been victims of attempted kidnap. Licences have also been issued to other people who are under attack.
Fewer than one dozen of those personal protection weapons have been stolen during the past five years. During that time, no such weapon has been used in serious or organised crime in the community. I understand that two weapons were used in two separate suicides. Again, those facts should put the matter into perspective. The fear that has been generated that personal protection weapons will cause a serious problem in society is, quite frankly, wrong.
I believe that there is a resource issue. The firearms branch must be properly resourced in order to process applications quickly and expeditiously. The Assembly must reject the amendment because it is, frankly, out of date. It has already been demonstrated that the old review does not work and that a new review must be put in place. Thank goodness that that new review is now in place.
William McCrea (DUP)
I thank my honourable friend for giving way. The Assembly has been assured that if a specific threat exists, a licence will be granted. Perhaps, the honourable Member could tell the House what specific threat was known against the soldiers in Massereene Barracks, where two of my constituents were brutally murdered?
Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP)
Fortunately, the solemnity of the point that the Member has made will not be lost in the House. Indeed, what specific and active threat was known against the dog handler who was targeted last week? He was probably one of the most relaxed police officers in Northern Ireland. He was not considered to be under any threat at all. Yet, there was an attempt not only to murder him, but to murder his partner.
Some Members who sit in the House have used personal protection weapons, such as my colleague who used one in the 1980s. There was no specific threat against him. There was a general threat in the area where he lived. People came to murder him. Only the mercy of God and the straight shot of bullet from his personal protection weapon saved his life and his family’s lives.
People must recognise the seriousness of the situation that is faced. They must also recognise that the motion is not a demand for a new militia and for weapons to be handed out carte blanche. It is a demand to protect the lives of people who are clearly and actively under threat. I support the motion and recognise that the Assembly must address the issue expeditiously.
I am mindful that the debate is taking place after the attempted murder of a serving police officer. I offer my best wishes to the officer’s family. I hope that all other officers gain heart from the resounding condemnation of that attack from across the community.
However, today’s debate is about personal protection weapons. Some Members outlined that more than 2,000 of those weapons have been issued to former members of the security services, who are either ex-Army personnel or ex-police officers.
The review of policy on personal protection weapons and any subsequent decisions about the issue are operational matters for the Chief Constable. I am, therefore, thankful that politics and political interference have been taken out of those decisions. The test for the new Chief Constable will be whether he bends his knee to Unionist demands or whether he makes his decisions purely on the information and the intelligence that he has at his disposal.
It has become clear that it would not have made any difference had the police officer who was targeted on Friday had a personal protection weapon. As Mr Paisley Jnr outlined, personal protection weapons have been more likely to attract domestic burglaries in more recent years, given that a number of them have been stolen. They have also been used in domestic violence incidents and in suicide attempts.
Ian Paisley Jnr (DUP)
I read out the stats on personal protection weapons to the House. The Member cannot show any evidence that personal protection weapons have been stolen and used in serious and organised crime. We should get away from that and have a serious debate. If the Member disagrees with us and the Member who moved the motion, so be it. However, the statistics are clear, and as the Member said, there is no history of personal protection weapons being used in serious crime or armed robberies in the past five years. The only instance that has been recorded was suicide, which was a tragic situation but nothing whatsoever to do with crime.
Mr Paisley Jnr clearly defined that the weapons that had been stolen were not used in serious and organised crime. Nonetheless, a number of them have been stolen from homes. That is also a fact. As a former member of the Policing Board, I recall a private meeting during which the former Chief Constable informed members that the number of retiring PSNI officers taking personal protection weapons was declining. Therefore, there has been a change of culture and ethos.
Whether or not Members like to admit it, in the past, members of the police were perceived to be primarily from the Protestant community, and we all know the historic context and reasons for that. Today and in the past, we have seen Catholic officers in particular being targeted by dissidents for reasons that are clear to them. It is unfortunate that dissidents will fill a political vacuum where one exists.
Martina Anderson said earlier that partnership and equality make politics work, and that is right. However, it is quite clear that the majority of people in the community understand the reality of the mutual veto and see the paralysis that exists at the heart of Government. If we were really to get on with the jobs that we have been elected to do in serving the community instead of playing games, people across the community would have much more confidence in all areas of Government.
People do not want guns in circulation. The recent decisions by the INLA and others to decommission are to be welcomed. However, the principle of taking guns out of society applies across the community. Maybe a Member can correct me, but I am not aware of any former or serving police officers or RIR officers who have had to discharge their personal protection weapon to protect themselves, their family or their property. Therefore, one wonders whether some people use them as a comfort blanket.
Basil McCrea (UUP)
The Member used the term “comfort blanket”. Does she agree that if someone tells a retired officer to give back the PPW that he or she has held for some time even though he or she has done nothing wrong and is of sound mind and stable, it is likely to have a negative effect on that person? Does the Member think that that is helpful, given the current debate in which she said that we want to hear all sides of the discussion?
We want a more normal society in which guns are taken out of the community.
Nobody is entitled to hold a firearm: it is a decision for the Chief Constable, and he is very clear about what must be taken into account. The current policy states that the Chief Constable:
“must take account of the unique and individual circumstances surrounding each application and that protecting the life of the applicant is a concern that must be balanced against that of the safety of the public and the peace and the general undesirability to have handguns for personal protection.”
If the Chief Constable continues to apply that principle when individual cases are reviewed, we can all live with it.
Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)
I have to inform the House that the issue of personal protection weapons is not one that I have much knowledge on; however, I am the only one here to put forward the Alliance Party’s views.
Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)
That is possible.
As far as I am aware, the Chief Constable will be reviewing the arrangements for PPWs shortly. It is unfortunate that we are in such a position; we should have moved away from it long ago. I imagine that the people to whom the motion refers would prefer not to have to ask for PPWs. If there were no threat to any of our security personnel, there would be no need for PPWs.
I add my name to those who expressed sympathy for the lady in East Belfast, my neighbouring constituency, and her police partner. It was a horrible experience and something that should never have happened. There was absolutely no reason for it. I do not know whether, as Mrs Kelly said, a PPW would have made a button of difference to the situation on Friday morning. Nevertheless, my party and I look forward to the day when PPWs are not required at all. As such, I support the motion.
George Robinson (DUP)
As the motion states, there has been a considerable threat from dissident republican terrorists in Northern Ireland, which has been all too evident in the last few days and weeks. In conjunction with that, there is the policy of refusing PPWs to the people who are, due to present or past service, deemed to be at risk from terrorists. That is a dangerous road to go down when people’s lives are at risk.
Many individuals involved are serving, or have served, the people of Northern Ireland as full-time or part-time members of the security forces. It could be interpreted that their reward is to be left exposed and defenceless at a time of heightened threat from a lunatic and dangerous fringe group in our society. Perhaps the powers that be think that those under threat should defend themselves with a brush shaft or cower behind the sofa. Unfortunately, that is just not the case when the threat is so high.
Recently, a constituent of mine applied for a PPW and was refused, despite having received official notification from the police that he was under threat. That is a ridiculous and unjustifiable situation, especially as there is a verified threat against him. In such a case, there should be no question about issuing a PPW to serving or retired members of the security forces so that they can protect themselves and their families. It is a matter of life and death. None of us wants to see our graveyards once again being filled with the victims of republican terrorists, especially when those under threat have been refused a weapon for their personal protection and that may save their lives or the lives of their families.
I fully appreciate that the Chief Constable has not had long to warm to his new chair. However, he must address the issue of PPWs for serving and retired members of the security forces as a matter of urgency. I have no doubt that those individuals deserve support and protection at this time of heightened risk.
I call on the Chief Constable to use his personal authority and common sense to realise that he can successfully address this life-or-death issue.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
I do not know whether it has been made clear, but my colleagues and I will be supporting the motion and not the amendment. It is unfortunate that the amendment has been tabled, because it attempts to cloud the real issue and not look at it from the proper perspective.
It is worth repeating that events have caught up with the motion. The Chief Constable has commissioned another review. The former Chief Constable conducted a review, but the new Chief Constable, who obviously wants to have a hands-on approach, has ordered another one to take place. We welcome that and await its outcome with bated breath.
The issue of PPWs is very serious and should be debated in the House. It is something that many MLAs have had to grapple with in their own constituencies. For example, just last Friday, I was visited by a constituent who is in trouble because there is a threat to take away his PPW. It is people such as him, who live in isolated rural areas, who need our support and, unfortunately, PPWs. Kieran McCarthy said that it is unfortunate that PPWs are needed in our society. We have to ask ourselves why that is the case.
People need to face reality, and I challenge Martina Anderson and her colleagues to do so. People are being murdered, and we only have to look to last Friday to see another attempt to murder. As was said, two soldiers at Massereene barracks and one constable in Craigavon were murdered. There was no specific threat to any of those individuals, yet, sadly, they are in their graves. The community is looking to the Assembly and its Members for moral support.
We have come through 35 years of unmitigated terror, and anyone who looks through rose-tinted glasses and thinks that all is well is not facing the facts. We have a long way to go. We have taken one step: we have another million still to take, and anyone who thinks that there is a quick and easy solution to the problem is not living in the real world.
Dolores Kelly tries to sectarianise everything by conducting a Protestant and Catholic headcount — I do not know why she always insists on going down that road. She said that most PPWs are held by members of the Protestant community. If she insists on making such statements, will she ask herself about the reason for that?
If the Member had listened to what I said, he would have heard me say that the reasons for that are well known. It is a historical fact that the IRA targeted officers from the Catholic community first to try to put other Catholics off joining the police, in the same way that the dissidents are now targeting Catholic officers.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
It is a long established fact that only a very small number of Roman Catholics were in the RUC. If the Member is saying that that was because Catholics were threatened, she is absolutely right — they were threatened by the Provisional IRA and others to ensure that they would not join the RUC. That resulted in an imbalance in the RUC, but that is not the issue that we are discussing. We are discussing the problem for present or former members of the security forces who feel that they need a PPW to protect themselves.
We all want to hasten the day — most of us do anyway — when former members of the security forces and, indeed, individuals in public life no longer feel threatened and do not need weapons to protect themselves. Therefore, I hope that Mrs Kelly will join the rest of the House today and steer society down a road on which we do not need PPWs.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
At the moment, we do need them. I think that my time to speak is up.
The debate stood suspended.