Danny Kennedy (UUP)

The PSNI policy directive on personal protection weapons, now happily to be reviewed, states:

“It is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government in Northern Ireland to see as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements and a situation where the need for firearms for personal protection firearms is substantially reduced, or no longer necessary.”

That is a desire that the Ulster Unionist Party shares, and it will continue to work for those circumstances to be brought about. However, I am afraid that the current Government and, regrettably some elements in the PSNI, are engaged in wishful thinking over their assessment of the current security position and the level of threat to former police officers and military personnel. There is a very great danger that in order to uphold Government policy, the senior command of the PSNI will ignore the reality on the ground and put the lives of numerous people in Northern Ireland in danger.

There has been a litany of incidents, most recently the deplorable bomb attack in east Belfast on 16 October 2009. That attack, together with the murders in Antrim early this year and the murder of Constable Stephen Carroll in Craigavon, illustrates that while we have moved forward in recent years, the threat from dissident Republicans is a real and growing one.

The Independent Monitoring Commission (IMC) began reporting seven years ago and since then, and particularly with the introduction of the PSNI policy on personal protection weapons, there has been a marked reduction in the granting and renewal of those weapons for ex-service personnel and ex-police officers.

The Ulster Unionist Party is not into scaremongering, and it recognises that an overreaction from the authorities can play into the hands of dissidents and others. However, what we are dealing with is the personal security of thousands of men and women and their families, and the granting of protection to those who have served Northern Ireland through its darkest days, and who often held the line and provided people in the community with the confidence to go about their daily lives.

Along with other Members of the House, I have received substantial correspondence and representation from former members of the security forces who are concerned for their personal safety. Although I recognise the work that has been carried out by the PSNI and the Garda Síochána to prevent dissident attacks, it is clear from recent events that intelligence does not always adequately reflect those threats. Therefore, I do not fully understand why the PSNI has taken such an inflexible attitude on the issue.

In the current climate of dissident threat, the granting of a PPW only when a specific threat is provable in the past six months is an inadequate and clumsy policy. I hope that the new Chief Constable not only reviews the policy but changes it in line and commensurate with the threat that exists.

The people who hold, or wish to hold, personal protection weapons pose no threat to this society. They are law-abiding citizens who have upheld law and order in Northern Ireland through its most difficult history, and those men and women should not be punished for that service. Nobody wants to go back to the past, and we should all do everything in our power to ensure that dissident murderers are not allowed to drag us back there. However, that desire should not cloud our judgement when it comes to the threats and dangers that exist today. I support the motion.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

We all recognise the need for personal protection weapons in certain restricted circumstances. They are, alas, needed in our society. However, applications for personal protection weapons must be based on a considered analysis of people’s personal circumstances and the threat to their personal safety or the safety of their families; it is important to keep that in mind.

The SDLP’s objection to the substantive motion is based on the fact that there cannot be a generalised view of personal protection weapons. There cannot be a policy that says that a class, or classes, of people should be granted those weapons automatically. That is the substance of the motion, and I do not think that I do injury to the motion by saying so. If there were a live threat to an individual, of course a personal protection weapon should be granted.

There is a threat, in particular from so-called dissident republicans. However, that threat should not activate a generalised policy of granting personal protection weapons to a class, or classes, of individuals. The granting of a personal protection weapon (PPW) should be based on an individual assessment, and the Chief Constable and his colleagues had embarked on that policy in an attempt to slow down, or at least limit, the granting of personal protection weapons. If the security situation were to deteriorate to a point where there is a much greater threat to serving or retired police officers, that policy ought to be reviewed. However, we have not reached that point.

Basil McCrea (UUP)

I am interested in the conciliatory tones of the Member. What bases would he use to decide that the threat had changed? Would it be information from the Independent Monitoring Commission, the Chief Constable or the Assembly? How will he know when it is time to issue PPWs to everyone? Will we have to wait until it is too late?

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)

The Member has an extra minute.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

With respect to the Member, the issuing of personal protection weapons to everyone is not a desirable policy, and the Member should think carefully about that statement.

When the security situation reaches such a level that the Chief Constable, his colleagues and other sources come to the conclusion that there is a real threat to a class of people, the Chief Constable will be duty-bound to change his policy on the granting of personal protection weapons. Until that point, it is right and proper for the Chief Constable to say that personal protection weapons will be granted when a real and live threat to an individual has been shown to be extant. In those circumstances a personal protection weapon should be granted.

It is not desirable for legally held weapons to be widespread in society, because that gives rise to problems. We know that, sadly, there have been circumstances in which personal protection weapons have been misused, not to threaten the peace of society, but in other circumstances. That is to be regretted. The more legally held weapons that there are, the greater the risk that those unfortunate situations may develop. Our view is that the granting of personal protection weapons should be based on a personal assessment of an acute threat to the individual. That is the way it should be done, and that is the way that the Chief Constable is carrying out his duty to his officers, and, indeed, to individual citizens in the community. That is the position that my party supports.

Thomas Buchanan (DUP)

First, I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. I support the motion. Although a review is under way, it is important to bring the matter to the attention and focus of the Chief Constable, Mr Matt Baggott, given the widespread concern across Northern Ireland. This is especially the case in isolated rural areas, where serving and ex-members of the security forces are finding it extremely difficult to have their licences for personal protection weapons renewed.

At the outset, I will state that I do not support the amendment, for the simple reason that it calls for what is already in place. Time and again, we have seen how that policy is failing the needs of individual members of the security forces because there is no apparent specific threat on their lives. My office is visited continually by people who have been refused the re-granting of their PPW licence simply because there is deemed to be no specific threat to their lives, yet there are clear examples of people who have been murdered when there has been no specific threat on their lives. Members have mentioned the two soldiers in Massereene army barracks in Antrim and the police officer in Craigavon. There was no specific threat to their lives, yet they were brutally murdered.

The policy recently adopted by the PSNI, that unless there is a specific —

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Will the Member give way?

Thomas Buchanan (DUP)

With all due respect, the Member has had his say. The policy that the renewal of licences for PPWs will not be granted unless there is a specific threat on one’s life — irrespective of the increased dissident republican threat — flies in the face of all logic. At almost every meeting of the Policing Board, we are briefed on the increased dissident republican threat and are told that it is higher than it has been for a number of years. We are seeing the results of that threat across Northern Ireland. No later than last Friday, there was an officer in my office who had received a text message from the PSNI reminding him of the increased security threat and advising him to review his personal security; yet, despite that, he is not deemed to have a specific threat to his life.

In rural areas, people who are having PPWs removed are being placed in vulnerable positions by the current policy. The Assembly must give them its full support. The message must go out from the Chamber that Members are giving them our full support.

I will give the House a prime example. One of my constituents served in the UDR and then the RIR for 23 years. During the last 10 years of his service he served along the border in Fermanagh and Tyrone. He knew the terrorists, and was obviously known to them. Following the abandonment of the RIR, he pursued a career as a specialist joiner, and his work with his employer now takes him back into those same areas, along the border in Fermanagh and Tyrone; areas where the dissident threat is taking place and where lives have almost been taken.

However, his application to have his PPW reissued was refused, because it was deemed that there was no specific threat to his life. The irony is that the PSNI in F district, which covers Omagh and Fermanagh, advised that constituent that he was placing his life in extreme danger by working in those areas.

That is the flaw in the policy, which I ask Matt Baggott to examine and reverse. It is a clear example of a policy that fails individual police members. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the House to give its full support to the people who live and work in isolated rural areas, who feel vulnerable and who are having their PPWs removed and feel that their lives are still at risk. It is disgraceful for the police to simply disregard concern for personal safety, the same concern that led those people to protect the country in the past. That must be addressed urgently, and a clear message must be sent to the Chief Constable that the current policy is wrong. It must be reversed to protect the lives of current and former members of the police and anyone else who holds a PPW.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP)

I support the motion, and I declare my membership of the Northern Ireland Policing Board.

All Members should be aware and take account of the serious threat that exists in the Province. In the past number of weeks and months, serious incidents have taken place at Meigh and Forkhill, and two soldiers and a police officer, Stevie Carroll, were murdered. In those incidents, no specific information was given that something was going to happen. Moreover, the incident that took place at the weekend was particularly sinister, and we should all bear that in mind. The device that was used in that incident was of a type that has not been used in a long time, and, without mentioning the specific detail that I have heard, we should all be concerned. I know that serving members of the Police Service and of the security forces are very concerned about that incident.

Over the past number of months, there has been no indication whatever of any specific threat to individuals. The policy that the previous Chief Constable and Assistant Chief Constable, both of whom have now left the Province, adopted was flawed in that it sent out seriously mixed messages to the community. They said, on the one hand, that there was a severe threat across the board, but on the other hand, they took away personal protection weapons.

On Saturday, yesterday and today, I received calls from former Police Service colleagues who have not carried personal protection weapons for a number of years but who have now returned to doing so. Sadly, they have also returned to checking underneath their vehicles. In an earlier debate today, Sir Reg Empey said that Members should also look at their personal security, and we should all be doing that.

I am sad that SDLP and Sinn Féin Members are trying to pull a smokescreen over the issue. Earlier, Dolores Kelly said that she is not aware of a time when a personal protection weapon has ever been used. The counter-argument is whether we know how many lives have been saved simply because someone was carrying a personal protection weapon. The answer is that we do not. Carrying such a weapon gives folks the reassurance that they need.

Danny Kennedy (UUP)

Does the Member agree that often the most serious threat is a silent one; a threat of which the intelligence services are unaware and of which they are, therefore, unable to inform an individual? Protection by way of a personal protection weapon is, sadly, necessary for an increasing number of former police and military personnel who still live in Northern Ireland.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)

The Member will have another minute in which to speak.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP)

I agree absolutely with the Member. The silent threat was always the problem because, often, it led to people being shot in the back and murdered like dogs in the streets of Northern Ireland. That happened time and time again. I hope that that situation never returns.

With regard to the Member’s point about intelligence, I believe that at present, the intelligence system does not feed back the information that it should. There is a serious deficit in the information that is being obtained by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the security services. We do not know of there having been any feedback about, or warning of, a specific threat against an individual before any of the incidents that have taken place during the past number of months.

The incident that took place on Friday 16 October 2009 was particularly sinister because it was quite obvious that the attackers knew that the police officer normally travelled in the passenger seat of the vehicle. The device was planted under the passenger seat in expectation that the officer would travel in the vehicle. Members will have heard Chief Superintendent Maguire say that in all probability, had the officer been in the passenger seat of the car, he would have lost his life that morning.

My time is almost up. All Members must be aware of those issues. The motion is, certainly, timely. Thankfully, a security review is under way. I would be surprised if the Chief Constable does not have to find a different policy as a result of the ongoing review. I support the motion and reject the amendment.

Peter Weir (DUP)

Like others, I declare an interest as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I support the motion and reject the amendment. At the outset, I must say that where the amendment has come from is no great surprise, and the remarks from the party opposite have been, sadly, predictable. Even more disappointing is the attitude that has been taken by the SDLP in the debate. It has been remarked that personal protection weapons are a comfort blanket. Such blasé remarks are fairly disgraceful.

It has been said that the withdrawal of personal protection weapons is part of the removal of guns from society. As if there were some equivalence, the removal of personal protection weapons has been equated — perhaps, unintentionally, but equated nonetheless — with the disarmament of paramilitary groups. It has also been suggested that dissidents would move in and try to exploit any degree of political impasse. In certain regards, that almost gives cover to their nefarious activities.

A previous Member to speak in the debate said that the situation should be reviewed only when a more widespread threat has been identified against a group of people. At what point would there be acceptance that the threat has moved from a specific threat against individuals to a general threat towards a wider group? Must we wait until one, two, three, four, or any number of former security forces personnel are murdered before the situation is reviewed?

Although, on occasion, it can be due to a pleasant event, more often the House employs its procedure to bring matters of the day to the Floor of the Chamber because a tragedy has taken place, either in a wider Northern Ireland context or on a more specific basis in a constituency. Must we wait until there are matters of the day in which we must, sadly, comment on the death of a former member of the security forces before that situation changes? Must we wait and try to close the door after the horse has bolted? The time is right to take action now. I, therefore, welcome the Chief Constable’s commitment to conduct a review.

Some Members quoted statistics on personal protection weapons, and the SDLP argued for the removal of guns from society. Just over 3,000 of the 62,000 firearm certificates issued in Northern Ireland are for PPWs. The actions that have been taken will not make a significant numerical difference to the overall number of firearms; however, it does make a significant difference to the security of individual officers.

Some Members spoke about the problem of hanging this debate on a specific threat. However, the incidents in the constituencies of South Antrim, Upper Bann and East Belfast send out a message from the dissidents that no area in Northern Ireland is safe. My constituency of North Down is home to a large number of former security force members, and I do not want one of them to tragically lose his or her life before it is accepted that the general threat from dissidents potentially applies to former police officers.

Senior members of the police and the IMC have said that dissidents pose a greater threat to security now than at any stage over the past 10 years. Yet, the way in which the police have applied the policy on PPWs in recent years shows that they are moving in the opposite direction. In 2005, 25 requests for PPWs were refused.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP)

I will give way in a second. In 2006, nine requests were refused, and in the past year, more than 300 requests have been refused. Similarly, in 2007, one weapon was returned; in 2008, one weapon was returned; and in 2009, 28 weapons were returned.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

I thank the Member for giving way. I wish to make two points. First, the SDLP is not suggesting that there is equivalence between the disarmament of people involved in paramilitary activity and the removal of personal protection weapons from members of the security forces. Secondly, if the Chief Constable was not satisfied that there was not a threat to those individuals, he certainly would neither remove certificates nor fail to grant them.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)

The Member has an extra minute in which to speak.

Peter Weir (DUP)

I accept that that suggestion was probably inadvertent. However, members of the SDLP need to make their remarks a lot clearer. What Dolores Kelly said earlier about this issue being part of the removal of guns from society put it on an equivalence with paramilitaries. As regards the former Chief Constable’s opinion, the situation is moving rapidly, and things have changed over the past year. I look forward to seeing whether, if the new Chief Constable reverses the position on PPWs, the SDLP will embrace that.

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

[Interruption.]

Peter Weir (DUP)

The Member is making some remarks from a sedentary position that I cannot quite make out.

The reality is —

Alban Maginness (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir (DUP)

I have only six seconds left, so I do not have any time to give way. It is important that we put down a marker now to take action that saves lives, rather than wait until it is too late.

Francie Molloy (Sinn Féin)

The Member should bring his remarks to a close.

Peter Weir (DUP)

I, therefore, support the motion.

Jim Shannon (DUP)

I support the motion and oppose the amendment. Like other Members, I condemn the car bombing incident in Belfast on Friday. The motion was proposed before that bombing took place, and my colleagues did not imagine that such an incident could happen when they tabled it. However, the incident illustrates the fact that military personnel and police officers are under the same threat and in as much danger as they were 10 years ago.

(Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair)

In 2002, weapons had already been issued to some PSNI recruits due to the increase in dissident threat at that time. Some student officers were issued with personal protection weapons because of an increased terrorist threat and the level of threat against them. Trainees have been targeted in the past. Indeed, a Catholic recruit in Antrim escaped injury in July 2002 after a bomb was discovered beneath his car. It was subsequently determined that personal protection weapons should be issued to those who felt that they needed to be protected from a threat.

At that time, a very specific policy was sent out.

In recent months, the threat against on-duty and off-duty officers has increased greatly. I know that my colleagues on the Policing Board are working extremely hard and have been vocal in their warning that the phasing out of the full-time police Reserve will place even more pressure on front line officers, which could lead to a breach in safety.

In recent weeks, dissident republicans have intensified their activities. Over the past year, 30 police officers have been so concerned about their safety that they have been forced to move house, which is a clear illustration of the threat that those officers are under. Statistics show that the targeting of security personnel, and threats against security personnel, are, unfortunately, not a thing of the past. Some of the figures are worrying: in the past two years, 420 viable devices have been found in 750 security alerts across Northern Ireland. There is a problem.

Concern is growing for former members of the security services as it emerges that, in the past 10 months, the police have removed 172 personal protection weapons from them. I have spoken to former constables and sergeants who have had their weapons taken off them and who feel extremely insecure at this time, as well as to ex-members of the UDR and the RIR who feel that they may not be safe in their homes. Those people feel safer when they are carrying a personal protection weapon.

Growing concern over the safety of officers comes amid revelations that, so far this year, the Police Service has removed personal weapons from 170 former members of the security forces. The ‘Belfast Telegraph’ obtained figures citing that 2,030 former security force members, police and army, have firearm certificates allowing them to carry a personal protection weapon.

Many people who come to my office, and to the offices of other Members, are concerned about losing their PPWs. Those who live and work in republican areas, where the dissident threat is high, need their personal weapons to be returned. Figures obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 show that 172 handguns have been removed from security personnel this year. Let me make it clear: the 172 handguns that have been removed from security personnel must be returned to give those people some security.

The Police Federation chairman, Terry Spence, said that he was deeply concerned about the security situation, and that although the return of military support is not a move that the federation would like to see, he warned that police resources are being stripped to such a level that officers are struggling to deliver an effective Police Service. He said:

“The threat has greatly increased against our officers both on and off-duty. The situation is very serious and we have made it clear that we need the resources. The full-time reserve must be retained. They are very experienced in dealing with this type of activity. If they are going to be phased out this is going to put more pressure on officers on the frontline. It will breach the heath, safety and welfare of those officers on the ground and we would have very serious concerns”.

Resources are an issue.

Taking weapons from former servicemen and women is nothing short of insanity. People must be able to feel safe in their homes. Hailing from the Strangford area, a constituency that houses a large number of ex-service people, I know that the concern shown in my office is phenomenal. It is my belief that that is a warranted concern. I am concerned for the personal safety of a great many people from my area who have had personal weapons removed.

Our police force is on high alert. Although we are constantly assured that it is only a few dissidents carrying out such activities, they have the capacity to do damage. I do not want to see another family lose a loved one, especially one who had the training and the means with which to defend themselves, yet who had that taken away from them. If anything, more of our ex-security forces should have a PPW designated to them as a means of deterrent.

John Dallat (Social Democratic and Labour Party)

The Member should bring his remarks to a close.

Jim Shannon (DUP)

Someone is less likely to prowl around the home of a member of the security forces if they suspect that that person has a weapon that they are trained to use. I support the motion, but certainly not the amendment.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin)

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board.

A number of Members who spoke touched on the attack in east Belfast on Friday, and I join them in condemning that incident. There is no doubt that those responsible for that and similar actions over recent months want to plunge this society back into conflict. We should be mindful that those who carried out that attack want to see a knee-jerk overreaction. We need to be very measured in our response and mindful of that.

As a Member said, there are 61,977 firearm certificates in the North, including 3,334 personal protection weapons. It is clear that this society is awash with legally and illegally held firearms. We do not want our society to have an abundance of legal or illegal firearms. We want that situation to change, and it is changing.

The PSNI’s personal protection weapon policy refers to a number of drivers for change, including the report into the Dunblane tragedy in Scotland. That report placed greater emphasis on firearm controls and on the need to re-examine regularly the suitability of a person and their reason for possessing a firearm, without simply renewing the existing certificate. That is a more sensible approach than handing out certificates carte blanche.

There were number of tragedies in the recent conflict. In one incident, an RUC member used a personal firearm to kill three people in the Sinn Féin office on the Falls Road before turning his gun on himself. Therefore, there are examples in which the issuing of certificates for personal firearms can end in tragedy.

Jimmy Spratt (DUP)

My understanding of the incident that the Member mentioned was that the officer had a service weapon, not a personal protection weapon. No firearms certificate was issued for that firearm; such weapons are still issued automatically to serving members of the PSNI from all sections of the community.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin)

That highlights the point that the more weapons there are in society, even those that are held by serving PSNI members, the more likely it is that something will go wrong. That is the case in every society and every police service. The less need there is for guns in society, the better. That is the situation that we need to work towards. The more guns there are in society, the more access there is to guns, and the more tragedies there will be.

Over the weekend, I attended an event on suicide prevention. Some of the workers in that field pointed out the number of tragedies that occur in American society due to the fact that access to guns is too great. Therefore, we need to be mindful of all the facts and statistics.

Martina Anderson said rightly that a verifiable threat to the applicant has to be identified before he or she is considered for a personal protection weapon. That has been discussed widely at the Policing Board’s human rights committee.

Dolores Kelly mentioned weapons being stolen. Regardless of the statistics, the more weapons there are, the more risk there is that they will be stolen. As Mrs Kelly said, some retired officers are declining weapons, and I have come across a number of serving officers who feel uncomfortable carrying firearms while they conduct community policing.

Basil McCrea (UUP)

Does the Member agree that we are not trying to force weapons on officers who do not feel that they need them? We are trying to ensure that those officers who do think that they need them, or those who have had them in the past and still want them, can still have them.

Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin)

We are talking about former and serving PSNI officers, and we have to leave it to the Chief Constable to decide whether they are entitled to a weapon. We cannot just say that any serving officer is entitled to a weapon, because there is a risk involved in that. We must be cognisant of that risk before we agree motions such as this.

I want to have a situation in which the need for firearms for personal protection is reduced substantially or no longer necessary. There is an onus on us, as politicians, to ensure that the current process continues to work and that we do not give opportunities to those who would like to plunge our society back into conflict. That is why I support the amendment.

Tom Elliott (UUP)

I thank those Members who took part in the debate. A number of Members expressed their condemnation and sympathy for the person who was injured in east Belfast last week. I want to put on record my condemnation of all terrorist attacks, including that in east Belfast last Friday.

The citizens of this Province have undergone almost 40 years of terrorist attacks, all of which must be condemned equally. They have all brought heartache and pain to society in Northern Ireland and further afield.

I will discuss some comments that Members made during the debate. My party colleague Basil McCrea set the scene for the debate and outlined why the Ulster Unionist Party tabled the motion. He outlined some useful assessments that were made by the Independent Monitoring Commission. The most recent Independent Monitoring Commission report, which Mr McCrea did not mention, said that the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA had been especially active, resulting in a more concentrated period of attacks than at any time since its first report in April 2004. That creates a detrimental situation here and highlights the serious effect on the community.

Martina Anderson proposed the amendment and said that, in cases where no threat is identified, a person should not be issued with a personal protection weapon. Numerous Members outlined the many occasions on which there was no specific threat to people, and explained how that did not prevent them from being murdered. That did not stop the brutal terrorist thugs in society targeting them. Ms Anderson said that people — and pointed the finger at us — were playing on people’s worst fears. She should tell that to the families of people who have been murdered in our society and await their reaction.

Ian Paisley Jnr provided a helpful statistical overview of the situation. I thank him and his party colleagues for their support for the motion. He indicated that a review is under way. I sincerely hope that that review is genuine and not just a review for the sake of it, because we have heard during the debate whose policy we are implementing. That is outlined in Sinn Féin’s amendment. That party’s policy is in place, and we are implementing it. I will return to that matter later.

Dolores Kelly of the SDLP spoke next during the debate. Like many others, I was disappointed at the SDLP’s stance and its views on the motion. She said that she was pleased that political interference had been removed from the decision-making process. I contend that the complete opposite is true. We have seen political interference in the existing policy, which the amendment outlines. It is unfortunate that Dolores Kelly attempted, in some way, to link the motion to religious and sectarian affiliation. That is saddening, and I am sorry that she went down that road. However, she made those remarks, and other Members challenged her. I hope that she reflects on her comments and realises that she was wrong.

Kieran McCarthy of the Alliance Party made a helpful contribution.

Kieran McCarthy (Alliance)

It was short.

Tom Elliott (UUP)

It was short but telling. He said that the vast majority of people, if not all of them, who are seeking PPWs at the minute do not want to be in that position. I totally agree. Most of the people who have approached me and others for help say that they do not want a PPW but, given the seriousness of the current situation, feel that they cannot do without them. I await the day when we do not want or need PPWs. At least one of my constituents gave up his PPW in the past, but has now reapplied and received it again.

Ian McCrea (DUP)

Does the Member agree that in parts of my constituency, certainly rural parts such as Pomeroy, people in minority communities feel under serious threat because of the increase in dissident activity?

Tom Elliott (UUP)

That goes to the heart of the motion and the debate. There are people who feel vulnerable, isolated and threatened, and who no longer want to be in that position, but they are at present.

Mr George Robinson mentioned vulnerable people in society who need protection. Lord Morrow spoke about the state of our society and how there was a need to retain personal protection weapons. My party colleague Danny Kennedy said that those who are affected by the current situation and who have asked for PPWs do not pose any threat, and it is they who feel threatened.

Mr Alban Maginness stated clearly that he supported current policy. However, we could not determine what exactly would change his mind about altering the policy.

Mr Thomas Buchanan spoke about vulnerable people in his constituency and highlighted a couple of specific issues in West Tyrone.

Jimmy Spratt talked about the device that was used in east Belfast, and he said that similar devices had been used in the past but had not been used in more recent times. That is a very worrying development. We have heard about the use of that type of device in one or two other recent incidents and the type of materials that have been used. That poses the question of where that material and expertise is coming from.

I say to the people over here who oppose the motion that, if they know of the people who are behind those incidents, give them up. It is time that they told the authorities and helped society in Northern Ireland to move forward.

Mr Peter Weir expressed his concern that it will take a tragedy and a murder before someone will agree to change the policy on PPWs. Jim Shannon quite rightly highlighted the cases of a number of former security force members who have had to move home, which has been on the increase in recent months.

Mr McKay of Sinn Féin made the winding-up speech on the amendment, and he said that he was keen not to provoke an overreaction that would play into the hands of the dissidents. I say to Mr McKay and his party: do not play into the hands of the dissidents, but come out and support the law-abiding citizens of this society. Mr McKay’s party is giving oxygen to the dissidents by opposing the motion. Let us all work together. If Mr McKay wants to cut that type of activity out of society, he should come in behind us and rally behind the motion and other policies that relate to the situation in Northern Ireland.

It is quite clear that people who are now asking for personal protection weapons did not have access to the illegal weaponry that many others took the opportunity to use over the past 40 years. Those people lived by the law of the Province and others did not. Others, unfortunately, went out at night and hid behind trees and in ditches, and murdered the citizens of the Province. They had access to illegal weaponry, and many of them, unfortunately, still do.

In 2003, the decision of the then Minister of State to reject an appeal against the refusal of the then Chief Constable to grant a Mr Hugh Herdman a firearms certificate for a personal protection weapon was the subject of a judicial review. The judge held that the idea of a specific threat was overly inflexible, and he suggested that there should be a much more flexible approach in the policy on personal protection weapons. That is what we are asking for. We want a genuine policy that will not only have an effect on the statistics that we heard about but will have an effect on people’s lives. We want to support the vulnerable, isolated and threatened people in our society.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 32; Noes 47.

AYES

Ms Anderson, Mr Boylan, Mr D Bradley,  Mrs M Bradley, Mr P J Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Brolly, Mr Burns, Mr Butler, Mr W Clarke, Mr Gallagher,  Mrs D Kelly, Mr G Kelly, Mr A Maginness,  Mr P Maskey, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann,  Mr McCartney, Dr McDonnell, Mrs McGill,  Mr McGlone, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McKay,  Mr McLaughlin, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín,  Mr O’Dowd, Mrs O’Neill, Mr P Ramsey, Ms S Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Ms Ruane.

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Brady and Mr F McCann.

NOES

Mr Armstrong, Mr Beggs, Mr Bresland, Lord Browne, Mr Buchanan, Mr Campbell, Mr T Clarke, Mr Cobain, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mr Dodds, Mr Donaldson,  Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Mrs Foster, Mr Hamilton,  Mr Hilditch, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr Kinahan,  Ms Lo, Mr McCallister, Mr McCarthy,  Mr McCausland, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea,  Mr McFarland, Miss McIlveen, Mr McQuillan,  Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mr Newton, Mr Paisley Jnr, Rev Dr Ian Paisley, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson,  Mrs I Robinson, Mr K Robinson, Mr P Robinson,  Mr Ross, Mr Shannon, Mr Simpson, Mr Spratt,  Mr Storey, Mr Weir, Mr B Wilson, Mr S Wilson.

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Elliott and Mr Kennedy.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

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.

Motion made:

That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker.]