Gail Alexander
A huge red flag! That’s how Independent Senator Paul Richards yesterday described the controversial clause in the Firearms (Amendment) Bill which allows the National Security Minister to extend Firearm User’s Licences (FUL) beyond three years.
“It sends shivers up my spine,” Richards added during the Senate debate on the bill.
The Opposition UNC’s first speaker Senator Jayanti Lutchmedial, who also took strong issue with the clause, put Government on notice that everything will be done by the Opposition to challenge it. Other UNC senators also spoke against the clause.
The bill was piloted by National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds.
Under Section 17 of the parent law is subsection 6 which states, “A licence other than a provisional licence shall be valid for three years from the date of issue and may be renewed, upon payment of the appropriate fee for each renewal, by the Commissioner.” However, the Government took to the Parliament an amendment to introduce subsection 6A, stating that “The Minister may, by Order, extend the date of expiry specified in subsection (6).”
However, Hinds did not explain why it was necessary to give a minister authority to extend the validity of FULs beyond three years when that already lies in the control of the Police Commissioner.
Opposition Senator Wade Mark, left, and Independent Senator speak during the sitting of the Senate yesterday.
NICOLE DRAYTON
Amendment was offered by Richards on the clause. The Opposition sought to have it deleted entirely. Debate was still ongoing after 9.30 pm.
Richards said he generally supported the bill but that one clause stuck out like a sore thumb and he was quite surprised Hinds did not address this in his opening statement.
“If nothing else that stuck out in this bill, was this. Why is the minister who is essentially a political element being inserted in this process?” Richards questioned.
“Is it that we have information that the Police Commissioner’s office is overwhelmed? And she can’t deal with, or her team can’t deal with vetting applications for extensions to the point that the minister has to now be inserted?
“I’d love to know, and I’d have thought that the inclusion of a clause that to me is as potentially controversial as that could and should be addressed concerning the rationale why this is being included. I’ll tell you, it gives me shivers, shivers up my spine,” he added.
“Because what could the possible reason be for the National Security Minister, who sits in Cabinet, being inserted in this process? Astounding! But maybe there’s a good reason. I just haven’t heard it yet. It would have to be a very good reason for me to be comfortable with this. Bordering on almost the impossible, quite frankly.”
Richards said he did not know that the CoP or her office had indicated that ‘we are so overwhelmed that we need help in this regard.’
“Maybe the minister can give me the reason why this is a productive inclusion,” he added.
He asked what would be the process for the minister’s office to vet people who require an extension.
“Is it that all the people who require an extension apply through National Security? It’s not clear to me here. Is it a cadre of the persons? A special cadre? And what are the exigent circumstances under which the National Security Minister is required to do this? That the CoP or the office of the CoP cannot entertain or continue as is presently the case.
“So this is a huge red flag for me and unless a really good reason is given by Minister Hinds in winding up (debate) I cannot and will not support it.”
Richards said while he understood the rationale of the bill’s other clauses, he was befuddled by that particular clause and awaited a plausible explanation why it should be included.
Richards’ amendment proposed allowing the minister to do the FULs’ extension only if a state of emergency exists.
Independent Senator Anthony Vieira also expressed concerns on the clause including Hinds’ lack of explanation on it. Despite the Attorney General’s explanation that the bill does not affect the CoP’s ability to revoke licences, Vieira stressed the point was that the CoP is the one with the power to grant licences.
Direct political interference in CoP's discretion—Jayanti.
No way, no how. UNC Senator Jayanti Lutchmedial said that under no circumstances would right-thinking people feel a politician should have the power to grant FULs which should only be granted by the Police Commissioner.
Dismissing the bill as mere "bandaid and PR action" to buy public goodwill, Lutchmedial asked, "Where does the minister enter this? The act says it's the Police Commissioner (CoP). I haven't heard Minister Hinds give any justification...hoping this clause was glossed over. But this is direct interference in the discretion of the CoP by a politician!"
She said the clause would take away from the CoP the direction of processes. "Why does the minister have to be involved? He needs to say why he will have that discretion to extend the life of a FUL."
She said the CoP can make the determination, "so why remove the CoP?"
"This reeks of political interference in the process to determine who must continue to hold guns and why they should continue to do so. This sounds like a way to protect some category (of applicant) from having the normal process of every three years to ask for a renewal.
"Is it a case where certain people will be given protection by the minister and not answer questions to the CoP? It's direct political interference in a system that has no room for that. No politician or minister should determine the validity of a FUL."
Lutchmedial said the way the issue was "glossed over" told her there was some nefarious motive. "I put you on notice that a power such as this has no place in this law and everything will be done by the Opposition to challenge it."
Lutchmedial asked if everyone else under threat including in the judicial sectors will be allowed guns for safety.