House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Nov 1990

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : I beg to move

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10074/89 and 8836/90, relating to controls on the acquisition and possession of weapons ; and endorses the Government's view that any Directive must preserve the right of Member States to make those checks that are necessary for public security and public safety and that any additional burden on business should be kept to a minimum. I welcome the opportunity to debate this important draft directive on the Floor of the House. The Commission has proposed the directive as part of the plan to complete the single market. This proposal, advanced in November 1989, was revised in October this year to incorporate those amendments suggested by the European Parliament which the Commission had decided to accept. It is the October 1990 text, document No. 8836/90, on which recent negotiations in the Council have focused.

Firearms issues are nearly always controversial, but there is wide agreement on the two fundamental principles on which our domestic firearms legislation is based. First, and of paramount importance, is the need to ensure public safety. Second there is the need to safeguard the legitimate interests of those who use firearms in pursuit of their work or sport, subject always to the primary consideration of public safety. These two principles have guided our approach to this draft directive.

One of the directive's objectives is to increase security throughout the Community by the partial harmonisation of member states' firearms law. The directive sets a minimum standard of firearms control, to which all member states must adhere. This is intended to improve the safety of the Community's citizens. The admittedly modest degree of levelling up involved in this directive is something to which the Government can give wholehearted support. Under the directive, in article 3, member states are left free to adopt more stringent controls in their domestic legislation. So there is no levelling down in domestic law, and it is important to keep that in mind when looking at the proposal. It guarantees that those standards of control which we consider necessary to protect public safety are unaffected.

The House may agree with me when I say that this has proved a complex and difficult text to understand, but the main aim of the directive is simple : it is to put in place sufficient compensatory measures to enable member states to abstain from controls on the possession of weapons at internal borders after 1992.

Underpinning these compensatory measures is the principle stated explicitly in the directive that the movement of firearms across Community borders is forbidden unless the rules of the directive are met. Perhaps the most important of these rules is that weapons prohibited under domestic legislation by a member state may not be brought into the territory of that member state. So, for example, the prohibition of some categories of weapons introduced by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is unaffected by the directive.

The primary compensatory measure proposed in the directive is the notification and information exchange system--in articles 11 and 13--which requires that member states are notified of every permanent transfer of

Column 1065

firearms to their territory. Under article 11.4, member states can insist that the transfer may not take place without their prior consent. The result for firearms dealers in this country would be a system similar to that currently operated whereby dealers, duly authorised under the Firearms Acts passed between 1968 and 1988, may receive an open general import licence which places no restriction on the quality of firearms imported.

For travel with personal firearms within the Community, the directive introduces a European firearms pass--article 1.4. But in general the pass will not itself convey authorisation to travel with firearms. The pass holder will still have to obtain prior authorisation from the member state to be visited--article 12.1. However, there is an important exception to the status of the European firearms pass in relation to sportsmen and marksmen. Under article 12.2, sportsmen and women would be able to take their personal firearms freely to other member states on the basis of a European firearms pass without prior authorisation from the member state to be visited. This provision causes us particular concern, as it conflicts with our domestic controls on visitors.

The British visitor's permit scheme, set up under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, allows overseas visitors to come and shoot here with the minimum of fuss and bother. But--and this is the fundamental point--the scheme requires visitors to obtain our prior authorisation for their visit.

Our concerns on this issue have been made clear both in official working group discussions and in the Council of Ministers. It has been gratifying that there has been a sympathetic response from our European partners, who have recognised the difficulty that this provision presents for the United Kingdom. The likelihood is that we shall be able to secure either an amendment to article 12.2 on the lines proposed by the European Parliament or a waiver from its provisions. In either case this would allow us to continue to operate the British visitor's permit scheme.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : What is meant by the abolition of controls on weapons at international frontiers? We are grateful for what the Minister said about traders having to register and about new passes and licences, but if these controls are abolished, will that mean that people are not searched? Which controls will be abolished?

Mr. Lloyd : The directive means that at an internal frontier there will be no regular system of inspection for weapons. We retain the right to make searches and checks as we believe them necessary for our national security. I refer my hon. Friend to article 36 of the treaty, with which he will be familiar, as the basis on which we may retain that right. If the directive is adopted there will be no regular inspection of everyone coming in from the Community, but we retain the right to make such checks as we think necessary to maintain our security.

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : Will my hon. Friend confirm that a customs officer will still present to a passenger arriving in this country a list which will state clearly that firearms are not allowed and must be declared?

Mr. Lloyd : A Community traveller crossing an internal boundary will require prior permission and certification,

Column 1066

but it will be perfectly legitimate for him to bring firearms across the border. It will not be legitimate for him to do so without the permit and authorisation. If the directive comes into force, we shall no longer inspect everyone or regard firearms as goods that may not be imported. Anyone crossing the border with a gun, however--or already in the country--is legally required to have the appropriate permit ; and, if any agent of Government believes that a weapon is being carried and that the appropriate permission has not been granted, or is not in the individual's possession, he will of course take appropriate action, as he would have done in the past.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare) : I think that we are making rather heavy weather of this. The fact remains that anyone wishing to import a firearm, whether permanently or temporarily, requires special documentation under the 1988 Act. There is no question of this directive's overriding that Act. That should allay the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)--and I think that I am right in saying that any of our own legislation that is more stringent than the directive will apply.

Mr. Lloyd : Yes : our provisions relating to what can legitimately be possessed in this country will still apply, and it will not be legal to bring in a firearm from another Community country without documented permission.

Mr. Hill : This strikes me as exactly the same old system. It has not been improved at all.

Mr. Wiggin : What about the 1988 Act?

Mr. Hill : Will my hon. Friend kindly not interrupt? I am trying to put my argument together. After all, Southampton--part of which I represent --is a very important port, employing many customs officers who do a tremendous amount of work. I am trying to establish that their vigilance will not be diminished by the availability of a certificate. What about the people who have no certificate, and do not declare what they bring in? I hope that the customs officers will not shelter behind a European directive which may make them think that everything is under control.

Mr. Lloyd : I do not think that our customs officers will want to shelter behind anything. The law--the rules--will provide that no obligation will be placed on someone coming into this country to declare a firearm if that person has the correct permit. Of course, customs officers, police and all agents of Government will have a duty to take the appropriate action if they suspect that a weapon is being brought in without the correct authorisation.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : Am I to take it that a visiting sportsman with a rifle entering the port of Southampton, which is near my constituency, with a firearms certificate from the Community country of which he was a national--if that was required by that nation-- and a European pass enabling him to travel round Europe with his gun would still have to have a visitor's permit? Will he really need three separate documents?

Mr. Lloyd : He may have all three documents, but what we insist on is the British visitor's permit : that is already the case.

Mr. Hill : What about the visiting terrorist?

Column 1067

Mr. Lloyd : The trouble with visiting terrorists who bring in weapons is that they do not declare them to customs officers, even at present.

As currently formulated, the directive suggests that member states must abstain from all checks on the possession of weapons at intra-Community frontiers : that is in article 15, and is what we have been discussing. We accept that other measures in the directive, which I have outlined--the ability to maintain prohibitions, the requirement for notification or prior authority and the information exchange system--provide sufficient safeguards to enable us to refrain from systematic checks on the possession of weapons at internal borders. We believe, however--as I told my hon. Friends a few moments ago--that we must retain the right to make checks that we consider necessary to safeguard public safety and security. We hold strongly to the validity of the general declaration annexed to the Single European Act, which states :

"Nothing in the provisions of the Act shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of combating terrorism, crime and the traffic in drugs." We shall continue to press for recognition that the rights affirmed by that general declaration, and by article 36 of the treaty of Rome--to which I referred earlier-- remain unaffected by this directive. The United Kingdom is not alone in this approach, but has the support of some other member states.

We are, of course, concerned that any new requirements on business should be kept to the minimum consistent with providing for public safety. Careful consideration has been given to the implications of the directive for firearms dealers. We have had useful discussions with representatives of the trade ; they asked for some minor but important alterations to the timing of the notifications on transfers of firearms which they would be required to provide under articles 11 and 13. Following concerns expressed by ourselves and other member states, the necessary changes have now been agreed. Given those modifications, the trade's view is that the directive will impose no new burden on their business.

I now propose to say a few words about some of the important definitions and technical details of the proposals, and how they affect our own domestic controls. I know that the definitional problems, which always arise in connection with firearms legislation, caused widespread concern in the shooting community when the directive was first published. Further concern was caused by some of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament. We have been glad to take full account of the views expressed by the representatives of the British Shooting Sports Council, which is co- ordinating the response of the sporting interests in the shooting community. Their concern, and ours, has been to obtain some major improvements to the original text. I am glad to say that, thanks to the vigorous and expert input from the United Kingdom and other member states, a number of improvements to the classifications and definitions of firearms have been achieved.

For example, in the category of prohibited firearms, the imprecise term

"firearms usually used as military weapons"

is to be replaced by "automatic firearms". Hollow and soft-point ammunition, which is widely used for hunting and target shooting, is not to be prohibited as originally

Column 1068

proposed but will be available to those with the appropriate authorisation. That is in line with our current domestic controls on such ammunition.

Following the firm expression of views by us and by other member states, it is now expected that the proposed minimum age limit of 18 for the possession of certain firearms will not apply to sportsmen and target shooters : that will allow youngsters to continue to participate in shooting sports, and will leave our domestic controls unchanged.

Mr. Peter Griffiths (Portsmouth, North) : Will my hon. Friend add to that a clear statement that no further restrictions will be placed on disabled persons who wish to take part in shooting activities?

Mr. Lloyd : I was coming to that. My hon. Friend is right to raise the point, and we too have been concerned about it.

Similarly, the mental and physical capacity requirements proposed for possession of firearms, which may have been seen as discriminatory--indeed, I think that many of us thought them so--are expected to be dropped as they relate to many people who play an active part in shooting.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries) : It is terribly worrying for hon. Members who have prepared for the debate by reading all the necessary papers to find that all the measures that we have come here to complain about have been overturned. What, in fact, are we discussing?

Mr. Lloyd : I hoped that my hon. Friend might be pleased that we had made some progress since the last formal document was issued. Some of my hon. Friends may wish to make additional points ; if my hon. Friend was indeed hoping for the change that I have announced, I can only say that I am sorry that he has been deprived of the opportunity to make a convincing speech, or, at least, found it unnecessary. I nevertheless hope that he will be gratified that the endeavours that he intended to make have already borne fruit.

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : I am annoyed that we have before us a document dated3 October 1990. It is called a consultative document. I assume that it is the current document. It says explicitly :

"Without prejudice to Article 3, Member States shall allow the acquisition and possession of firearms classified in category B"-- which is what we are talking about--

"only by persons who have good cause and who are 18 years old or more".

It is infuriating that we are debating out-of-date documents. That is not the way to run Parliament. I want an explanation from the Minister.

Mr. Lloyd : Discussions are held continuously. When I know that progress has been made, I report to the House at the first opportunity. I am sorry that the document represents the position as it was some time ago. I understand the hon. Gentleman's irritation if he wished to make a speech about changes that he wanted to be made but that have already been made.

Mr. Randall : The Minister's explanation is not good enough. There is no excuse why the House should be debating a document in respect of which a change has been made, about which the Minister has notice but not the House. That is unacceptable. We ought to have had an

Column 1069

explanation. It could have been given by letter. There are all sorts of ways in which it could have been explained. It is unacceptable that we should have out-of-date documents on policy matters that are important to both sides of the House.

Mr. Lloyd : I understand the hon. Gentleman's ire. We are debating the latest text that has been provided by the Commission. There has been agreement on certain matters, about which I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied. They have not been written up but I am taking the first opportunity that I have to let him know about them. Our obligation is to discuss texts provided by the Commission. The fact that I am able to add to that should be helpful to hon. Members. It is better for me to do that rather than to conceal that there has been further agreement.

Mr. Randall : I accept that the Commission publishes documents at various times. However, the Home Office also publishes documents on European matters. It provides explanatory memoranda. There is no control whatsoever over the Home Office when it comes to publishing explanatory memoranda. Something could have been produced in time for the debate. Although changes have taken place, there is a mechanism that would have allowed that to happen. It has not happened. The Minister and the Home Office have let down the House. I do not see how we can continue the debate, since we are not sure what other changes have been made. It makes the quality of the debate dubious, to say the least.

Mr. Lloyd : I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I understand his exasperation. We are debating a text published by the Commission with which we were not satisfied. I regret, in a way, that we were successful in further negotiations sufficiently early for me to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman verbally here, without having been able to provide that information in writing and without the Commission having been able to provide a new text.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : I dare say that there have been developments since the Home Office document of 25 October which was published by the Minister. Naturally, we are interested in those developments. However, we are debating documents that have been published. The status of the assurances from the Minister is by no means clear. He says that agreements have been reached. Agreements with whom--with all the member states, or with the Commission? What reliance can hon. Members place upon such assurances if we do not know the nature of the agreements that are alleged to have been made? The Minister seems to be trying to pre-empt the discussion by bouncing the House in a wholly unacceptable way.

Mr. Lloyd : The House cannot be bounced at this point. It is making no decision other than to adopt the Government's general stance in the negotiations. The fact that I was able to say that it looks as though on some points we have been more successful in the negotiations than we were when the document was published in no way bounces the House. In fact, it ought to bring some cheer to hon. Members.

Column 1070

Mr. Wiggin : I very much welcome the Minister's announcement. In many respects it deals with our worries. However, having gone to great trouble to change an important international engagement in order to be here tonight, I have to complain to the Minister that the debate need not have been held in its present form. The major points have been dealt with, but there may still be need for further debate. To conduct the debate on the basis of the document that is before us is no longer sensible. I thank my hon. Friend for the negotiations that he has carried out and I congratulate him on his success, but may I suggest that we ought to adjourn the debate and return to it later, if there are outstanding points still to be considered?

Mr. Lloyd : I hear what my hon. Friend says, but the motion before the House is to approve the Government's negotiating stance. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked about the status of the improvements. Agreements are reached in the Council's official working group. They have the general approval of the representatives of the other member states.

I understand the irritation of hon. Members, because we have been more successful, and more quickly successful, than some of us might have hoped. I shall reflect upon the machinery that is available to make sure that the very latest position is communicated to hon. Members before a debate is held. When, however, negotiations are taking place not just at regular and predictable intervals but all the time, there is a problem. I shall reflect upon how the House ought to be informed of these matters, but it is not primarily a Home Office matter. It is for the appropriate Committees of the House to consider the machinery whereby European directives and documents can be debated by hon. Members.

Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland) : We are not just being asked to endorse the Government's stance ; the motion also asks the House to take note of documents that patently are out of date. I understood the Minister to say that the provisions relating to disabled people are expected to be dropped. "Expected to be dropped" is somewhat different from saying that already there is an agreement. That highlights our problem. We are not sure what parts have been agreed, what parts might be agreed and what likelihood there is that they will be agreed. Will the Minister explain what he means by "expected to be dropped" and whether that differs from an agreement?

Mr. Lloyd : That was the tenor of the agreements in the working group. We believe that the wording will be changed in a wholly satisfactory way. The motion before the House is to approve the Government's negotiating stance ; it is not that the House should approve any particular wording. What is useful about the debate, which has not been welcomed as much as I hoped that it would be, is that I have been able to inform the House about agreements that have been reached in the working group. Moreover, it enables me to take on board--because the discussions are continuing--any other points that hon. Members wish to impress upon the Government, since we believe that they ought to form part of our negotiating stance.

Mr. Randall : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like your advice. If we divide the House, will we be voting on the EC document before us or on the

Column 1071

Government's negotiating stance which has been presented orally by the Minister? It is crucial to know that because the motion before the House is a take-note motion and it refers to a document. If we vote on the motion, we have to accept that the words of the EC document are extant on the technicalities. The Minister has just said that if we were to vote we would be voting on the Government's stance in the negotiations that have taken place since the publication of the documents as well as the Home Office internal memorandum.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : I can help the House. We are debating the motion on the Order Paper. There are two key points in the motion. It says that we should, first, take note of certain European documents and, secondly, endorse the Government's view as expressed in the motion. Therefore, were there to be a Division, we would be voting on the motion with those two aspects in mind. Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) rose--

Mr. Lloyd : I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Haynes : I should think that the Minister would give way. That is what we are here for. We are here to discuss the document. I am sick of being kicked around by the Government, and that is what is happening. The Minister is ducking about all over the place. He does not know where he is and nor do we. I had a document dated 2 October. That is what is on the Table.

I do not accept what the Minister has said. He is bringing a verbal report to the House which is not satisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) is right in saying that we should have had a report from the Home Office so that we can consider the matter properly. I have had a going over about these proposals by my constituents in Ashfield. I am here representing the people who have given me a going over and I am not satisfied with the Minister's explanation.

I agree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) that we should adjourn the debate until we have all the information necessary to discuss the matter properly. As I have said, I am sick to death of being kicked around by the Government. They think that they can do what they like because of their large majority, but I am afraid that they cannot. We are all here because we are not satisfied with the way things are going.

Mr. Lloyd : The hon. Gentleman is protesting far too much. Nobody would dream of kicking him around. I always find it illuminating to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but that was one of his less illuminating interventions. If he has points to make on behalf of his constituents, he is welcome to make them if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Haynes : Do your job properly.

Mr. Lloyd : We have done our job so well that I am able to tell the House that we have achieved in negotiations some of the things that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and other hon. Members would be pressing us to achieve in the next few weeks. The hon. Member for Ashfield is sad because the Government have already done some of the things that he was going to ask us to do.

In case the hon. Member for Ashfield did not notice, the document before the House is the latest text provided by the Commission, and it is our duty to bring it before the

Column 1072

House. When I came to the debate I was pleased to bring some good news. Perhaps on future occasions I should suppress such news. However, that would be unfair and unreasonable and I would do no such thing.

I want to touch on two other matters. The first I mention for clarification and the second for its legal significance. The House will have noted that, although the scope of this directive extends not only to firearms but also to weapons such as knives and crossbows, the compensatory measures proposed relate only to firearms. In effect, the domestic law on such weapons is left unchanged by this directive.

Lastly, I draw the House's attention to the question of the legal base of article 100A proposed by the Commission for the directive. We doubt whether that is appropriate, since it seems to us that one of the main aims of the directive is to facilitate the freedom of movement of persons carrying firearms as personal baggage. In our view, article 100 or article 235 may be more appropriate for the legal base. We have put our views to the Council Legal Services which is still considering the matter. Its formal opinion is expected to be delivered shortly. We will need to look carefully at what it says before we can reach a final conclusion on the matter. We shall continue to work constructively within the Council to reach a directive which maintains public safety and which is workable and legally acceptable.

Mr. Teddy Taylor : Is it the case that, unless the Council agrees unanimously to the Government's point that it should not be article 100A, nothing can happen? If the Council does not agree with the Government's point of view, what can they do about it?

Mr. Lloyd : We could determine whether we believed that the base chosen would not stand up in law and whether the European Court would direct that it was wrong. Before we did that, we would have to consider carefully all the arguments and whether we were likely to win them. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is very knowledgeable about these matters. We have said that we believe that the Commission has proposed the wrong case. We are seeking to persuade the Commission and our colleagues in the EC that it should be article 100 or article 235. The Commission is due to provide us with a formal response to our arguments, but we have not had that yet. When we receive it, we can consider more sensibly and effectively what course is open to us, unless, of course, the Commission agrees with us.

Mr. Taylor : I want to clarify this point because none of us knows the answer. If, despite the Minister's splendid points, the Commission says, "We are sorry but we think that it should be article 100A", does its view stand unless there is unanimous disagreement? My understanding is that that is so. There must be a unanimous rejection of the Commission's view and if, for example, Portugal or Greece thinks that it should be article 100A, that is it.

Mr. Lloyd : Luckily, I can tell my hon. Friend that the answer is yes. Unanimity is required to change the legal base.

Mr. Wiggin : The Home Office memorandum says clearly that the Council shall act by a qualified majority. Therefore, there is a difference of opinion.

Column 1073

Mr. Lloyd : On the legal base proposed by the Commission, the operation will be by qualified majority. Under the articles we are suggesting--article 100 or article 235--it will be by unanimous agreement. I was answering my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East about how the base is determined. His fear was correct. As I said earlier, it is theoretically possible for us to challenge that on legal grounds and that would be a matter for the European Court. I would not like to hold out too much hope that that would be an avenue that we would think it wise to go down. If we did, I do not know whether it would be successful. However, it is a possibility. I have taken more time than I intended in bringing good news to the House, so I will now commend the motion. I will listen carefully to any changes, strengthening or alterations that right hon. and hon. Members propose, because discussions on the directive continue. 7.39 pm

Mr. Stuart Randall (Kingston upon Hull, West) : The House has discussed the status of the document before us, and I want to add one further comment about that before beginning the main part of my speech. As the officials in Brussels have already reached agreement on allowing young people aged 14 and above to use firearms, why was there not sufficient time to produce an additional explanatory memorandum to explain that?

Mr. Colvin : Is the age limit really being lowered to only 14? I thought that it was to be lowered to 17 years of age. Perhaps I misheard my hon. Friend the Minister.

Mr. Randall : I shall deal with that point in detail later. However, there is concern that children of 14 who, under current British Law, and under proper supervision, can fire pistols or rifles will not be able to do so under the directive.

The purpose of the measure is to harmonise the acquisition and possession of weapons within the European Community as part of the progress towards a single unified market. However, it will provide only partial harmonisation, because each member state can operate independent firearms legislation, provided that it meets certain minimum standards. In practice, the directive will mean that arms traders, sportsmen and others, will be able to move freely within member states with their own firearms provided that certain limited conditions are met.

I support the development of the so-called single European market, because I believe that Britain's future is firmly linked to the EEC's development. I want to see the Community thrive, for the sake of not only the people of Britain but the people of the other member states.

Despite the need for degrees of harmonisation, we must remember that the commodity covered by this directive is not wine, cheese, or computer technology but firearms, which deserve special consideration, given that public safety is at stake.

The Commission must not full steam ahead in such a way that it could prejudice public safety. If that happened, such innovations by the Commission and the Council of Ministers would be strongly resented by the British public. There is a balance to be struck between harmonisation as part of developing the single market and protecting public safety. Where there is any doubt, public safety must always receive top priority.

The thrust of the directive seems reasonable in attempting to make it easier for responsible sportsmen and

Column 1074

those who trade in shotguns and other weapons to travel with their firearms within the EEC. However, to achieve that objective, the Commission is proposing the abolition of internal border checks. At the same time, it is proposing weak compensatory measures. The net effect will be an unacceptable threat to public safety.

There is at issue a broader question than trade, and it is one for which the EEC is not responsible. I refer to national security. The removal of border checks between the United Kingdom and other member states could be regarded as a charter for terrorism. With the help of a few forged documents, members of all kinds of terrorist organisations would be able to move freely within the EEC with various weapons, to plant bombs, and to cause havoc. It is vital that internal border checks remain, especially for Britain, because of the problems that we have with the IRA. Accordingly, the availability of good intelligence and a policy of targeted checks at internal as well as external borders are crucial ingredients in combating terrorism.

Mr. Wiggin : The legitimate owner of firearms has always made the argument that, while legislation, documents rules and controls are made to apply to honest, straightforward people, the terrorist will never obey any law--however comprehensive it may be.

Mr. Randall : That point is central in my thoughts. The Commission is directing its attention to the legitimate users of firearms to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, but in removing internal border controls, it will also allow terrorist threats to emerge. I am not privy to internal Government security policy, and rightly so, but, as that aspect is part of the directive, it must be raised. I shall refer later to sportsmen, targeters, and others. My point is that Britain's national security is not within the competence of the EEC, and once border checks are done away with, threats would emerge.

Mr. Teddy Taylor : I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman that the directive will create additional security problems and greater dangers for the British public. What does Labour think we should do about that? This measure will probably be passed by a majority vote next week and, whether we like it or not, will become the law of the land. I should love to know what the Opposition think we should do about that. It is a genuine question.

Mr. Randall : The hon. Gentleman is pre-empting my speech, but he asked a reasonable question. The measure is totally flawed and concerns a matter that is outside the competence of the Commission. Certain national considerations are beyond the scope of the document, so I am inclined to vote against it.

Any measure that will help sportsmen and other genuine members of the public to move around Europe with their firearms more easily is entirely laudable and acceptable, provided that it does not imperil public safety. We can let the Commission know in the strongest possible terms that we oppose the basic structure of this document by voting against it--that is all the power we have as parliamentarians. That is why we will suggest that there should be a Division. These are security matters. It is necessary to have intelligence and targeted checks at borders. There will be immense problems in Britain because of the number of people who will go through the channel tunnel, but we must also be vigilant in dealing with terrorism.

Column 1075

In proposing the abolition of internal border checks, the directive advocates the introduction of several compensatory measures. The first is to toughen external border checks. On its own, that seems a reasonable proposal. However, as Britain is on the periphery of the EEC and forms part of the external border, and as we have special problems with the IRA compared with other member states, it is exceedingly unlikely that the proposal in the directive to strengthen external border checks will result in much change--certainly not along the external border of Britain--because our authorities will almost certainly have taken the necessary steps to combat terrorism in that way. The directive's proposal will not add anything in particular. Anything that helps to restrict terrorists' ability to import weapons to the EEC via other external borders is clearly welcome. A second compensatory measure is the proposal that firearms legislation throughout the Community should meet certain minimum standards. Ours goes well beyond what I would envisage to be the minimum standard. If certain member states wish for their own reasons to have firearms legislation that goes beyond those minimum standards, it is a matter for those member states to decide. In practice, this means that there will be disparities between various member states, in terms of not only legislation but the border controls that the firearms legislation determines. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 resulted in the British visitor's permit, which allowed personal firearms to be checked at borders for compliance with the scheme. It should be noted that removal of the controls would result in the British visitor's permit scheme becoming inoperable. It seems, from what the Minister said in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), that the opportunity for spot checks will disappear. Those powers which exist at the moment to carry out such spot checks will cease to exist because of the directive.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : I said that the Customs controls that exist at present will cease under this directive, but a central part of our stance in the negotiations is opposition to controls for internal borders-- certainly ours. We want targeted checks based on intelligence, and I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees. They will remain essential. They are the means by which firearms brought in illegally are found now. We intend to maintain the use of intelligence and checks as our security dictates, although the directive would mean that blanket checks at a normal, old- fashioned international border may not be maintained between Community countries.

Mr. Randall : These are matters of security and I am not an expert on them. I should have thought that, the greater the belt-and-braces approach in security matters, the better. We have seen many examples of the way in which IRA arms stores have been found purely by chance and by spot checks. I should regret any weakening of those powers. A third compensatory measure proposed in the directive for the removal of internal border checks is the establishment of an information system, the purpose of which is to provide data for member states describing which firearms have crossed their internal borders and entered their countries. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House--I am confused about this--whether the Commission proposes that a centralised records system

Column 1076

should be set up for the whole of the EEC. Will he tell the House exactly what the functions of the system will be? How will this system compensate for the loss of border controls? Who will control it? As we have centralised police forces, does it mean that every police authority in Britain will have to interact with this system? If I understand the system properly, it is a bureaucratic nightmare. Instead of that nonsense, I would rather our police were on the streets dealing with crime. That is what this country needs. I should be grateful if the Minister would give detailed answers to those points, because I am sure that the House wants to know the details.

It is important to recognise that the problems of terrorism, particularly the IRA, extend to other member states, rather than being associated only with the United Kingdom. That can best be illustrated by an article in The Times dated 18 June 1990 and entitled "European police forces co-operate in fight against terrorism". It is about the co-operation between the Dutch and Belgian authorities in arresting a suspected IRA terrorist on 16 June 1990--the Donna Maguire affair. I shall quote a little of it because it is enlightening. The article states :

"Interior ministers across the European Community are fully aware that the latest IRA bombing and shooting campaign against British bases and army personnel in West Germany and the Netherlands represents the most serious terrorist threat on the Continent since the wave of anarchist class warfare in the 1970s

The IRA challenge is in some ways greater. As customs and immigration checks in the European Community (EC) becomes more relaxed due to increased economic integration, Irish republican terrorists find it easier to move across borders.

Last April the head of West German's Federal Police, warned that a single Europe would make his country an even more tempting target for the IRA and other terrorist groups. IRA units have exploited this openness, striking at British bases and personnel and escaping in minutes across a border ...

In response, European police forces have increased their co-operation European Community interior ministers agreed to streamline the exchange of information on terrorist groups, including the establishment of a European Common Information System. This will involve setting up a data base."

It seems odd that, with so much going on, the Commission is attempting, through the draft directive, to relax border controls on people and firearms. It does not make much sense.

The directive is based on the Schengen agreement, which has resulted in the lifting of certain border restrictions between the Benelux countries and Germany. What may be desirable or necessary for some EC member states on border controls may not apply to us. It is surprising that the Commission has produced a draft directive that does not seem to take into account the disparity in firearms legislation and border controls between member states. The genuine concern of member states about their national security should have been taken into account in earlier drafts of the directive. National security is not a negotiable matter, so I hope that the draft, which is badly flawed, will be amended to take vital matters into account before it finally goes to the Council of Ministers.

We debated the matter of age earlier. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the present feeling is in Brussels. I presume that the officials are negotiating those matters. Is there movement or is there likely to be movement on relaxing internal borders? Why is the Commission suggesting that the directive be approved by majority voting rather than by unanimity?

Next Section

Home Page