David Ford
South Antrim · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“All I can say is that I remember officials coming back into the Department and saying, "You wouldn't have been very pleased with what Trevor or Stewart said at the Committee yesterday, Minister".”
“<BR /> <BR />When I listened to the start of the debate, I welcomed the comments that Mr McGuigan made, but, as Alex Attwood said so forcibly, even when he intervened and asked what had changed, there was an inability on the part of the Sinn Féin representative to explain anything other than to say that there is an election in six weeks'…”
“<BR /> <BR />No doubt, what we saw from in/out Ministers not so long ago and the failure of the outgoing First Minister to accept her role when she was Minister in DETI to deal with the issue has further added to that.”
“There is an inability in all that we face at the moment to recognise the public disgust at the behaviour of certain people in this place and, most particularly, in the Executive.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his question to the Minister on that statement, Mr Paul Girvan suggested that some judges spin out cases inappropriately in their own financial interests.”
“Less than the full truth emerged and facts were eventually slowly dragged out from the bunker, sorry, from Stormont Castle. It is a classic example of why people have lost trust in the way that this place operates; it is a classic example of why the ministerial code needs to be enforced at least as rigorously as we enforce procedures agai…”
The complete record
Every one of 2,469 lines we hold for David Ford, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 50.
“Therefore, I can see no benefit in the amendment. I accept that we would all wish to ensure not just 99% cooperation but 100% cooperation, but, if the 1% do not wish to cooperate, even forcing them to attend would not make them do so. <BR /> <BR />The other key concern raised by those sitting on my right was on national security guidance. I must say again that I really cannot understand how representatives of a party whose Minister acceded to national security direction can have such concerns about national security guidance. Direction means that the Secretary of State says, "You must". There are no ifs and no buts; it is the Secretary of State directing a devolved authority. That is exactly the case with the Reservoirs Act.”
“It is almost the same as the fundamental concept of a criminal investigation and the right to silence, so it is incorrect to suggest that you can compel somebody in this context when you clearly cannot do so in other contexts. You can certainly make somebody attend, but to what point? This was also an issue in regard to the role of the Police Ombudsman, and it arises in criminal investigations by the police every day. We would need to be very assured of how one would do that, as well as of the justification for doing it. At the moment, I do not see anything. There is a measure in the Bill on penalties for those who seek to obstruct the investigation, and that is absolutely right, but that is very different from pretending somehow that you can compel somebody to give useful information if they are unwilling to do so.”
“The arrangements for the terms of office and potential removal are exactly the same as those that apply to other bodies and to other individuals, such as the Police Ombudsman and the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice. The test in the law, as it is drafted and as it stands for them, is that it has to be a reasonable test to ensure that all relevant considerations have been taken into account. I do not see any great benefit in spelling that out, given that it is the same test as applies to others. <BR /> <BR />I think that Mr Kennedy made the point about compulsion. He has just been rude to me, so maybe I should not praise him. His point was that you may compel somebody to attend for interview, but you cannot compel them to assist.”
“Mr Douglas visited Maghaberry recently, and his comments on that experience were a significant reminder of what we all need to do. To aid rehabilitation and reform, we need to ensure that everybody who visits a prison and everybody who is incarcerated in a prison has the best experience possible in the circumstances <BR /> <BR />Let me turn to the less-agreed points in what we have just been discussing. First, I suspect that the relatively easy point is the removal from office. I appreciate the efforts of Mr McCartney to tie down the precise basis on which that would happen, but I do not believe that those details are required.”
“Sammy Douglas made the point that it is vital to ensure that the independence of the Prison Ombudsman is recognised in statute, not just in practice by the Department of Justice and the Prison Service. I can confirm to him that, to the best of my knowledge, given the way that the office functions currently, any additional costs will be minimal. The same team will continue to do the same work in the same way to the same high standards, but they will have a firm basis in law on which to do that work. I am pleased that, even though we are about to have a bit of a discussion and, potentially, a vote or two on factors on which we disagree, at least we have got to this point and there is widespread recognition. The important issue is that the principle is agreed, and, indeed, the principle has been agreed for a significant period.”
“Alban Maginness reminded us that this was part of the Hillsborough Castle Agreement in 2010, and you might say that it has taken rather too long to put it in place. I do not think that there is any difference between what the ombudsman has been doing since and what will be done in the future, but the statutory basis makes it absolutely clear what the function is. There will be no prospect of the future mythical, wicked Minister, who was referred to earlier and is not nearly as nice as me, coming along and getting in the way.”
“<BR /> <BR />I do not know whether Pauline and Tom are glued to 'BBC Democracy Live' watching this at the moment, but they probably ought to be because the input from the two of them has been significant through the work that they have done and what they have done to make the case for what we are doing in the Chamber this afternoon as we progress the issue of a statutory basis.”
“Again, there is significant agreement on the issues covered in this group of amendments. What is particularly welcome is that everybody who spoke welcomed the fact that the Prisoner Ombudsman is now to be put on a statutory basis. The role of the Prisoner Ombudsman to date has not been limited in any respect. I have not had any complaints from the current ombudsman, Tom McGonigle, or his predecessor, Pauline McCabe — the two who have been in post during my time as Minister since devolution — to suggest that limitations were being placed on their role. Pauline made very clear her belief that it was important that, as soon as possible, that should become a statutory role, with a full statutory underpinning of the basis on which the Prisoner Ombudsman would work.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way yet again. I could understand you having the concerns that you have just expressed about clause 38 if there were a specific direction. I really do not understand why it is of such concern to you in the context of merely having regard to guidance. That seems to me to be the fundamental issue: it is a low test. Those of us on this side of the House should be concerned not to get entirely caught up with the problems that arose at Stormont House before last Christmas over other aspects of national security creeping, multilayered, into a proposed Westminster Bill. This is a very different situation at a much lower level than what was being suggested there. That is why I might be tempted to suggest to you that perhaps you are getting just a little neuralgic.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way again. You actually have the two issues the wrong way round. In the context of reservoirs, you said, "Please do not" but that is not the import of the way that the Reservoirs Act is written, which is the specific direction, "you shall not". In this case, we are talking about guidance, and guidance cannot say, "Do not do something". It is guidance. The Bill states specifically that somebody "must have regard to". It does not say that they have to follow it, because if it was the case that they had to follow it, it would say that they must follow it. It says they, "must have regard to", and that means they must consider it carefully and seriously and weigh it up against all the factors, but they do not have to go with the guidance on the basis of their judgement.”
“I appreciate the Member giving way. My understanding of this is quite simple: "must have regard to any guidance" is a long way short of "must follow directions". You have to consider the guidance and weigh up the factors. However, the very fact that it is couched as "have regard to" is a clear statement that it is not a direction that you must follow. If you must follow, it says — as, dare I say it, the Reservoirs Act says — you "must follow".”
“In light of this, I do not believe that the Members’ amendment is necessary and I do not, therefore, support the inclusion of amendment No 80 in the Bill. <BR /> <BR />Other than those amendments that I have highlighted my opposition to, I commend the rest of the amendments in the group to the House.”
“This part of the schedule permits removal rather than requiring it, and in assessing such a situation, relevant factors would be considered, which would have to include a robust risk assessment by the Department. These powers would be exercised proportionately, and only after due consideration of the particular circumstances and factors. We can clearly give examples in our own heads where something would be so minimal as to not make it appropriate to consider removal, and something would be so significant as to effectively require removal. The important issue is that the power exists without a specific direction, so that appropriate consideration can be given to the particular circumstances of the case.”
“I appreciate Mr Maginness's point. The power currently subsists in prison rules on the basis that there is no statutory basis for the Prisoner Ombudsman at present. Since we are putting the Prison Ombudsman into statute, I believe it is appropriate that the powers should be defined in statute, and not rely on prison rules, which are a separate area that are largely about the running of prisons, rather than the role and function of the ombudsman that we are setting up in this Bill. So I believe that there is a specific reason why, in the Bill, we should have the functions and powers defined properly. <BR /> <BR />I turn now to the Members’ last amendment in this group, which concerns powers in schedule 3 of the Bill and state that a person holding office as ombudsman may, and I emphasis the word "may":”
“<BR /> <BR />The Public Services Ombudsman Bill provides that the Secretary of State may give written notice to the Public Services Ombudsman about any document or information saying that, in her opinion, disclosure of that document or information would be prejudicial to the safety of the United Kingdom. The ombudsman, then, cannot disclose that document or information. This is also a much more sweeping power than is proposed in this Justice Bill. The proposal in the Bill is consistent with the current arrangements, which have been in place since devolution and which stand in prison rules. Omitting it from the Bill would result in poor legislation, with no change in significance in working. I therefore strongly support that the clause remains part of the Bill.”
“The issue is not unique to this Bill; it has been reflected in other recent legislation, including the Reservoirs Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 and the Public Services Ombudsman Bill. Indeed, the Reservoirs Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 confers significantly greater powers on the Secretary of State, stating that she may direct the devolved Department not to include information on national security grounds. We can contrast that with the rather more modest provision in this Bill, which states that the Prison Ombudsman has only to "have regard to" the national security guidance. "Have regard to" means exactly that: the ombudsman must "have regard to", but need not comply with, such guidance.”
“Including such a power in legislation would not necessarily ensure that any unwilling witnesses would provide useful evidence, even when faced with the threat of a level 3 fine — currently £1,000 — for their non-compliance. The Prison Ombudsman himself considers that such a power would be cosmetic and, as it is not a power that he seeks, I do not support this amendment. <BR /> <BR />I now wish to speak to the stated intention, again of Mr McCartney and his colleagues, to oppose the Question that clause 38, "Guidance to Ombudsman in relation to matters connected with national security", stand part of the Bill. The Secretary of State has a legitimate interest and role in matters relating to national security in Northern Ireland. This is not a devolved matter and is not, therefore, in the Assembly’s gift to determine.”
“I note that the current provisions will allow the ombudsman to approach the Department with concerns and that those concerns can be addressed by an investigation requested by the Department under clause 34. As the amendment from Mr McCartney and colleagues does not contain the safeguards provided for in my new clauses, I do not support this amendment. <BR /> <BR />Let me now turn to those Members’ amendment to clause 36, which will compel a person to assist in any investigation and make it an offence to refuse to assist an investigation. I understand the Members’ intentions, but I do not believe that their amendment will actually enhance the arrangements.”
“While I am sympathetic to the Members’ thinking, I am concerned that this proposed amendment would expand the role of the ombudsman without providing any necessary safeguards. A future ombudsman could treat this as carte blanche to investigate any aspect of the prison experience, which has never been the role envisaged for this office, either in the past or at present. <BR /> <BR />The amendment I brought forward contains important safeguards by limiting that power to those matters within the ombudsman’s complaints remit, happening within 12 months of commencement of the Bill, which form part of a concerning pattern of events. An own-initiative power was not included in the original proposals, as it is not part of the "as is" arrangements. Indeed, the current office holder has stated that that is not a power he would seek.”
“The clear policy intent is that the Bill and subsequent regulations will require the Minister to request the ombudsman’s assistance in cases of near-death. <BR /> <BR />Finally, on my amendments in this group, I offer two very minor changes to clause 37 and schedule 3 to change references to the Public Services Ombudsperson to Ombudsman. That reflects the change in title agreed on 30 November 2015 during the Consideration Stage of the Public Services Ombudsman Bill. <BR /> <BR />I now wish to speak to the amendments to the Prison Ombudsman provisions that have been tabled by Mr McCartney, Mr Lynch and Ms McGahan, the first being their amendment to clause 29, which is also about own-initiative investigations.”
“I now wish to speak to amendment Nos 42 and 43 to clause 34, which provides for investigations in cases of near-death that meet agreed criteria. Those amendments are in response to Justice Committee deliberations on the clauses that I support. The intention is to place a duty on the Justice Minister to request the ombudsman to conduct an investigation in defined circumstances. Such circumstances will be set out in regulations and will be subject to affirmative resolution in the House. The process of developing the regulations will allow time to reflect on some of the detailed considerations that will be needed, such as the need to clearly define near-death. At present, my officials are working to identify appropriate legal definitions that might assist in this regard.”
“These provisions are intended to reinforce the independence of the ombudsman, who would be empowered to instigate his own investigation in situations where he has concerns. In such circumstances, he would be required first to raise the issue with the Department. This will ensure that no duplicate investigations are planned or under way so as to ensure best use of the available resources.”
“These amendments are in response to a recommendation by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission (NIHRC), which was subsequently supported by the Justice Committee during their helpful scrutiny of the Bill, and which I too am happy to support. <BR /> <BR />The provisions on own-initiative investigations will apply to those matters about which prisoners and/or visitors to prisons may complain. This would, for example, allow the ombudsman to initiate an investigation where he considers that the number or frequency of events of a similar nature requires investigation. However, such investigations would not be limited to cases where an eligible complaint has been made to the ombudsman.”
“This requirement will also apply to investigations requested by the Department of Justice under clause 34. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 49 adjusts clause 37 to add the Attorney General to the list of bodies to which protected information may be disclosed for the purpose of directing inquests. <BR /> <BR />I return now to the aspect that I opened this group with, clause 29, which, together with amendment Nos 45 and 46 to insert new clauses 35A and 35B, and a consequential amendment to clause 40 by amendment No 51, will allow the ombudsman to instigate, on his own initiative, certain investigations in defined circumstances.”
“Accordingly, I intend to introduce a small technical amendment at Further Consideration Stage to change "may" to "shall" so as to require the ombudsman to draw to the attention of the police any matter relevant to any criminal investigation. That was the policy intention in developing these amendments and is entirely consistent with the ombudsman's current practice. <BR /> <BR />While conducting an investigation to which clause 30 applies, the ombudsman will be required to draw to the attention of the police any matter which, in his opinion, is relevant to any criminal investigation. The ombudsman will also be required, during an investigation, to draw to the attention of any body or person any matter which, in the ombudsman's opinion, calls for action to be taken by that body or person.”
“Such grounds for deferral may include an ongoing criminal investigation, a health and safety investigation, where a matter under investigation is the subject of a pending application for judicial review, or for any other reason. <BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 40 and 44 adjust clauses 30 and 34, allowing the ombudsman to inform the police of a suspected criminal offence in relation to any investigation that he is conducting. Members will note the current draft of the amendments stipulates that the ombudsman "may" draw to the attention of police any matter requiring criminal investigation. My policy intention is to standardise this requirement across all the functions of the ombudsman.”
“38-51 and 80-81. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 37 one of a small set of amendments that will allow the Prison Ombudsman to instigate investigations on his own initiative. Before addressing those amendments in more detail, I wish to speak on amendment Nos 39 and 41, which adjust existing clauses 30 and 32. Those clauses deal with investigations into complaints and deaths in custody. <BR /> <BR />The amendments reflect a suggestion by the Attorney General and add a general power to defer investigations where the ombudsman considers it appropriate to do so. Originally, the Bill limited deferral of investigations to when there was a related criminal or health and safety investigation. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that all the grounds on which deferral might reasonably take place are covered.”
“We have reached a reasonable compromise there, as we have done with other aspects. <BR /> <BR />Having mentioned none of the other amendments in the group, I commend them all to the House.”
“However, if people are being careless and weapons are being stolen, it is very easy for people to say that conditions need to be much tighter. <BR /> <BR />Another point in that area that attracted relatively little attention, although it did attract a lot of attention early on, concerns fees. We are obliged to operate on the basis of cost recovery, and I accept that the other side of that is that people who are paying for a service have a right to expect it to be a proper and efficient service. Changes are being made in the PSNI that are improving that service, but it is appropriate that those who hold firearms are the people who should pay for the necessary systems of licensing and who should ensure that that work is done properly and efficiently. The cost should not fall to the general taxpayer.”
“Each case is discussed on its merits, but, as a general rule, I do not believe that there is any excuse for people not adhering to the conditions of the firearms certificate. I urge those who have contacts with those who engage in shooting to put out that message. That is the argument that we need to deploy if we are to follow Mr Frew's argument that we do not need to go as far as, in some respects, the EU directive goes. We need to show that those who hold firearms in Northern Ireland are looking after them properly, are securing them properly, are not misusing them and are living up to aspects of the law. It is then much easier to make the argument that we do not need every aspect of the directive.”
“As far as I am concerned, there are significant issues and obligations on those who hold firearms to show that they will adhere to the conditions of their firearms certificate, that they will secure all their firearms properly when they are in use or not, that they will secure ammunition properly and that they will not, as sometimes happens, leave guns or ammunition accessible to burglars or whoever. I find it amazing the incredibly large number of people who always put their shotgun away in the cabinet, except on the one occasion that their house got burgled. It really is amazing the frequency with which that is the case. <BR /> <BR />I repeat that this is a task that falls to the police, with appeals then falling to the Minister of Justice.”
“<BR /> <BR />We all agreed that the initial proposals from the Commission went somewhat wider than was a reasonable interpretation in the jurisdictions that already have a good regime. However, this is a point I made previously in the Assembly and in press releases: I see far too many appeals in firearms cases in which the PSNI remove a firearms certificate and firearms from holders because of carelessness in the way in which the firearms are being looked after.”
“So, we need to ensure that we support them in that respect. <BR /> <BR />Mr Frew also made a specific point about the current draft EU directive. This issue has been discussed between my officials and the Home Office. Indeed, the Home Secretary has written to me, and I have written back to her. It clearly is an issue. As Mr Frew said, we are all well aware of why there is concern across Europe about tightening up firearms legislation. We need to ensure that we do not obstruct legitimate trade and activity by farmers and sportsmen in the interests of public protection, but we also need to ensure that we get public protection right. That was the tenor of the letter that I wrote to the Home Secretary on the issue, and I wait to see what emerges from her engagement at the Council of Ministers and with the Commission.”
“<BR /> <BR />The Department can make sure that dealers, who are the ones that need to know, are informed of the status, on the presumption that this amendment is likely to go through fairly soon. Although, I must say that there is one particular small firearms dealer who, any time I meet him, tends to have a copy of the legislation with him to ensure that the Minister does not bluff him with anything that is being said. So, I am not sure how many of the dealers will need anything more than a copy of the legislation, but I think it is right that the Department should do its best to ensure that people are well informed, because we are placing some additional duties on dealers, which are of benefit to them in running their business but are also an obligation regarding the duties they have to perform on behalf of the justice system.”
“I do not have a copy of the letter despite the voluminous papers I have in this folder; but, if that is not the case, I will see that it is sent very speedily to the Committee and to the former member of the Committee who has just raised the issue. However, I think it is currently available. <BR /> <BR />The issue of people thinking that the bandings have already been changed is, unfortunately, a result of the way that so much of the business in this place gets reported. An issue is raised at Committee, and somebody makes a suggestion. Departmental officials say they will look into it, and it then gets reported not just as, "This is going to happen", which is perhaps presuming the will of the Assembly, but as, "This has already happened", which is definitely presuming the will.”
“In specific response to one of Mr McGlone's points, those issues will be kept under review, because all our legislation is kept under review; but that is not a commitment that there will be an early and immediate move to change things. It is a commitment that we will keep matters under review in order to protect public safety while recognising the points made by so many stakeholders about young people, in particular, in those controlled and well-supervised atmospheres. <BR /> <BR />On a specific second point, which was made by Mr McGlone, my understanding is that the Committee received a letter stating quite clearly that those who hold the appropriate shotgun certification in GB would be counted as qualifying for supervision in Northern Ireland. That is my understanding.”
“A couple of years ago, I had the pleasure of meeting a young man who had won a competition for people from different areas on these islands when it was held across the water but who was unable to defend his title a year later in Northern Ireland, because, although he was a year older, he was still younger than 16. I accept that that was an issue, and those points were made to me, shall I say, in a very generous and open way but, nonetheless, with reasonable force by representatives of the Ulster Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, and those points were quite understandable. So, I took them on board. <BR /> <BR />I also had to take on board concerns about safety issues and, in particular, concerns raised by the Chief Constable.”
“It accepts the fact that there are different views amongst stakeholders on this issue, including different views amongst those who regard themselves as representing the same shooting interests. After all, the entire issue of how we deal with young shooters, which appears to be where most of the contention came from, started over the issue of young people from Northern Ireland competing in clay pigeon shooting competitions.”
“Unlike the Chair, however, I did not attend every Committee meeting at which they made those points, but I am well aware of the lengthy detail sent on to my officials. I believe that what we have now is a reasonable and workable compromise.”
“Had we not had that Bill coming forward, we would have implemented clause 45-type provisions in Lord Morrow's Act, as, indeed, others occasionally have to do. Even in previous Justice Acts, we have never had to use those provisions for anything that emanated from the Department, but that does not mean that there is not a need for some precaution. Having been suitably blunt at the Committee, I have no doubt they it will find some way of resurrecting that point for the next legislation, wherever that may emanate from. <BR /> <BR />It was noticeable that two of the three key proponents of the views of some with firearms interests spoke in the debate and made their points, as they always do.”
“However, in case there is too much agreement, I have to repeat that clauses like this are not inserted for no good reason. They appear in all kinds of Bills from Departments, including Bills that are much less significant in their consequences on other legislation. I give Members the gentle reminder that, in the lastd Bill, it was necessary to include an amendment to Lord Morrow's private Member's Bill — the human trafficking Bill — to allow national charities to do work in support of trafficked children. Those national charities were not on the Northern Ireland charity register, so, due to the way in which the legislation was originally passed, they would not have been allowed to act.”
“As is frequently the case with some of the complex Bills in the justice system, a lot of detailed work is done and, once the Committee has done its work, nobody, apart from me, as Minister, referencing it at Consideration Stage and the Chair of the Committee responding, wishes to say anything about it. That is a sign of the good work being done through our processes, which differ from other places, and it leaves us with only two issues to be discussed today: clause 45 and firearms. <BR /> <BR />As was the case with clause 86 in the previous Bill, the opposition to clause 45 is not so much firing shots across my bow as the Committee feeling it necessary to give me a good mugging, like a gang bludgeoning me with blunt instruments. As the Chair has acknowledged, in fairness, I have accepted the Committee's view on this.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 69 is a consequential amendment to the regulation- and order-making provisions in clause 46 arising from the new Prison Ombudsman's near-death investigation powers, which are due to be discussed in the debate on the next group of amendments, and two consequential amendments to the commencement provisions in clause 47 so that any order made under amended clause 23 and the animal welfare provisions in new clause 40A can be commenced by order. Amendment Nos 72 and 73 will allow that to happen. <BR /> <BR />Last and somewhat oddly, given that we still have so much business still ahead of us today, I will speak to amendment Nos 83, 84, 85 and 86, which would amend the long title to reflect the new provisions regarding animal welfare, direct committal for trial, firearms and the Court Funds Office.”
“I will, therefore, oppose the Question that clause 45 stand part of the Bill at the appropriate point in proceedings, while amendment No 31 inserts a more tightly drawn power to clause 23 to ensure that the ancillary provision-making powers can only be operated in much more restrictive circumstances and only in relation to the fines and enforcement provisions in Part 1 of the Bill. That amendment, together with additional consequential amendment Nos 71 and 72 to clause 46, follows the model developed with the Committee’s assistance and accepted by the House at the Further Consideration Stage of the 2015 Act. I trust that these adjustments will, therefore, meet with similar support today.”
“Members will remember, some in great detail, the debate about the supplementary, incidental, consequential and transitional provisions in the previous Justice Bill, now the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, and, in particular, the order-making powers in what was clause 86, which the Committee thought were too broadly drafted. Clauses 45 and 46 of this Bill, as drafted at introduction, raised similar issues, and, being fully alert to the Committee’s concerns in that regard, I stated my intent at Second Stage to table amendments at Consideration Stage to reflect the agreed way forward and the revised construction that was secured for the last Bill.”
“. <BR />Given that the clients of the Court Funds Office are among the most vulnerable in society, it is important to ensure that those with a small fund do not contribute a disproportionate amount towards the administration of their fund. In addition, the introduction of a fee regime will result in a sustainable cost-recovery mechanism that is not dependent on external economic factors. Therefore, the amendment to the Justice (No. 2) Bill will enable the Department to introduce a cost-recovery mechanism that is fairer for Court Funds Office clients and is sustainable during periods of low interest rates. <BR /> <BR />I will now speak to amendment No 31, which relates to the ancillary provision-making powers in the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment No 60 will enable my Department, by order, to fix fees to be taken by the accountant general for the recovery of the costs of administering funds in court. Having the authority to fix fees will mean that the Department can satisfy a key recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee, namely that the Court Funds Office establish:”
“Given the sweeping changes being brought in by schedule 4, some old and irrelevant provisions in sections 103, 104 and 105 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 are repealed by new clause 44B in amendment No 59. <BR /> <BR />That is an overview of the changes to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 that my new schedule 4 provides for, but the summary nature of my description should not take away from the work involved in bringing forward those changes. I am grateful to the stakeholders, the Committee and the Members who have a particular interest in shooting for their positive engagement on my proposals and for their continued assistance in developing this agreed suite of changes.”
“The new fees include a new fee for existing arrangements for one-on/one-off exchanges of shotguns and exchanges of firearms of the same type and calibre, for example, and a new fee for the variation of a firearm dealer's certificate. The fee, however, is set at nil until further work has been carried out to cost it. Finally, an amendment is made to reciprocate an arrangement whereby a Great Britain firearm certificate is recognised in Northern Ireland in the same way as a Northern Ireland certificate is recognised when the holder travels to Great Britain to shoot.”
“<BR /> <BR />The amendments introduce a new system to enable a firearm certificate holder to exchange a firearm for another firearm within a band or group of firearms covering air rifles, small quarry rimfire rifles, fox calibre centrefire rifles and larger centrefire calibre deer rifles through a firearms dealer. A licence holder will also be permitted to trade in a firearm without replacing it, which is sometimes referred to as a "one-off transaction", and dealers will be authorised to carry out such transactions, which they cannot currently do. <BR /> <BR />Schedule 4 also includes a new schedule of fees that has been the subject of extensive stakeholder consultation and replaces schedule 6 to the 2004 Order. The new schedule of fees sets out the recent revision of the existing fees as well as some new fees for clarity purposes.”