I believe it would be useful, for the information of the House, if I gave some background at this time concerning the need for the Bill, and the reasons urgent, but temporary, measures are necessary to respond to a critical situation.
The High Court found on 12 June this year that the procedures adopted to enable the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to discharge adequately the obligations imposed by the Firearms Act, 1925, in granting firearm certificates to non-resident hunters are ineffective and insufficient. The judgment followed a judicial review sought in March 1996 by the National Association of Regional Game Councils. The High Court found also that the procedures followed by the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands in granting hunting licences to non-residents — which they must first obtain in order to be granted firearm certificates — are also ineffective and insufficient. The effect of the judgment is that both Ministers are precluded from issuing hunting licences, and the consequential firearm certificates to non-residents, and the granting of licences and firearm certificates ceased with effect from the date of the judgment.
In arriving at his judgment, the learned judge made a number of important points which I believe are worth repeating here. The statutory obligations in the Firearms Act, 1925, relevant to the granting of firearm certificates to non-residents, impose certain requirements on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. The Firearms Act, 1925, requires that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform be satisfied that a non-resident seeking a firearm certificate is not a danger to the public safety or to the peace, and is not a person declared to be disentitled. The following are declared to be disentitled: a person under the age of 16; a person of intemperate habits; a person of unsound mind; a person sentenced by the Irish courts in certain circumstances and a person subject to the supervision of the police or bound to the peace in certain circumstances.
While the court found that the obligations could be described as onerous and, in certain instances, difficult to comply with, if not impossible, the fact is that they are statutory, couched in unambiguous terms and, accordingly, there is a legal requirement to comply with them. While evidence was offered of the existing procedures followed to comply with these onerous and rigid obligations, the court found that, having regard to the rigid but unambiguous nature of the statutory obligations, the procedures did not so comply. I should add that the procedures referred in evidence to the High Court included requiring confirmation from an applicant of a European firearms pass, for example, or of a firearm certificate or permit issued in an applicant's country of residence. They also included checks with the Garda authorities in relation to non-residents convicted of crimes and, in addition, evidence of permission to shoot on land within the State.
There are broad and significant implications arising from the judgment, not only for overseas shooting visitors but also for the issue of firearm certificates generally. The advice available to me is that the case for new legislation in this area is compelling. Ideally, any new legislation would address the broad implications of the judgment and effect significant amendments to the Firearms Act, 1925, and to the relevant provisions of the Wildlife Act, 1976. There are also, of course, key public policy considerations to be addressed in any proposals for change to ensure that firearms, and their use, remain under strict control.
I propose to establish immediately a review group comprising representatives of the key agencies in this area with a view to a comprehensive analysis of what is required. The group is to be tasked, as a matter of urgency, with bringing forward proposals in this sensitive but complicated area following a full review, having taken account of the views of the major sectional interests including, I would emphasise, those of the National Association of Regional Game Councils.
In responding to the difficulties which have arisen since the High Court judgment was delivered, I have met representatives of various groups affected, or concerned, by the judgment including representatives of the National Association of Regional Game Councils. There is an appreciation on both sides of the difficulties which each of us face and an acceptance that what is required is a fair and balanced approach which achieves a solution which recognises the interests of all.
However, any detailed consideration of an area as complex and as sensitive as that of firearms controls will obviously require some time before that consideration bears fruit. In the meantime, the Government is acutely aware that an administrative paralysis during which hunting licences and firearm certificates are not issued to non-residents has profound implications for the overseas shooting tourism business.
Overseas shooting visitors are significant contributors to the tourist sector. The sector, I am informed, is exceptionally high yield, attracting visitors in the off-season. A number of prestigious tourism establishments have made substantial investments in building up their businesses, spending money on such matters as game farming and up-grading. While it is difficult to put an exact figure on the numbers employed directly, there is no doubt but that employees in the hotels and shooting estates, as well as "beaters", farmers and animal feed manufacturers, for example, would be affected by any serious downturn in business. Allied to that is the fact that this potential growth area is competing with other countries for this developing business and I am aware that, if the business were to be lost for this year in the months ahead, it is almost certainly lost for years to come, if not forever.
In the light of those important considerations, it was decided that a two stage response is essential to deal with the matters raised by the High Court judgment. First, the establishment of a review group as I have just outlined and, second, the introduction of temporary legislative measures to deal, in the short term, with the urgent and critical issues which arise not only for the tourism sector but also for the whole economy. The non-issue of hunting licences and accompanying firearm certificates is having an immediate effect on the tourist shooting industry, and on persons who make their livelihoods in that area of the economy and, because of that, the Government agreed that urgent temporary measures were necessary.
Turning to the Bill itself, there are some points I wish to emphasise. First, as I have indicated, this is an interim measure to allow hunting licences and firearm certificates to issue to non-residents pending the consideration of more comprehensive proposals from the review group mentioned earlier. The Bill specifically provides that the Act shall expire 12 months after the date of its passing, subject to the possibility of one, and one only, further extension if considered absolutely necessary.
In addition, it should be noted that, in practical terms, the provisions of the Bill do not change the procedures which have been followed for some years, under different Governments, in issuing firearm certificates to non-residents. While the Bill proposes to amend, on an interim basis, the statutory provisions governing the limitations and restrictions for the granting of firearm certificates, in real terms it gives effect to the existing procedures in recognition of the fact that the statutory obligations are, effectively, difficult to meet and, in some instances, impossible.
I have heard it said that the Bill will effectively mean that non-residents will be able to bring firearms into this country with virtually no checks being made. I want to refute that suggestion. The provisions of this Bill do not in any way dilute the existing procedures. In the granting of firearm certificates to non-residents, regard has always been had to the preservation of the public safety and the peace.
It has been said the Bill will effectively mean that non-residents will be able to bring firearms into this country with virtually no checks being made. I refute that suggestion. Its provisions do not dilute the existing procedures. In granting firearm certificates to non-residents, regard has always been had to the preservation of public safety. This was always the overriding consideration. The measures proposed will not change this. In fact, two additional restrictive measures are introduced. These are in section 1(5) which allows the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to attach conditions to a firearm certificate, and in subsection 6 where provision is made to allow the Minister to revoke a firearm certificate where he is of the opinion that the holder of the certificate cannot, without danger to the public safety or to the peace, be permitted to have a firearm in his or her possession.
I also emphasise that the policy, which in the main has been in existence since 1972, of restricting the issuing of firearm certificates to certain categories of firearms is not changed by the Bill. The policy, which is among the most restrictive in Europe, will continue as before and provides that firearm certificates will only be granted for shotguns and rifles in certain limited categories.
Apart from what might be described as new restrictions, the Bill provides in section 1 that, before granting a firearm certificate, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform shall be of the opinion that the application is bona fide and that there is no good reason to refuse to grant the certificate. For the purpose of establishing that there is no good reason for refusing a firearm certificate, the Minister may seek evidence of a European Firearms Pass where the applicant is resident in an EU member state, or any other documents relevant to firearms issued by an appropriate body outside the State. The Minister may make such inquiries as he considers appropriate, such as inquiries from the Garda Síochána or other police services, if it is considered necessary and possible to do so, to determine suitability in any particular case. I emphasise these aspects of the Bill to illustrate that there is no question of non-residents being allowed to bring firearms into this country without proper checks being made on their suitability.
In the wildlife context, the provisions of the Bill which relate to the issue of hunting licences to hunters from outside the State will be reassessed in the light of the forthcoming Wildlife (Amendment) Bill, which is due to be published in the autumn. That draft Bill already contains proposed amendments to the regime which has been operating in the area of hunting licences and I understand the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands will carry out a further review of the area in light of the High Court judgment and of the provisions of this Bill.
This Bill maintains our control over the use and possession of firearms by non-residents, while safeguarding the jobs and incomes of those engaged in our tourism industry and rural economy generally. The Bill does not lessen the measures taken to safeguard the public safety and the peace. All checks previously undertaken will continue in force. In addition, two additional safeguards have been introduced — the power to add conditions to certificates and the power to revoke them.
I emphasis again the temporary nature of the Bill, which will expire 12 months after its passing, and that the broad implications which arise for granting firearm certificates generally from the recent High Court judgment will be addressed as a matter of urgency by an expert review group. This group will consult widely and seek submissions on what needs to be done. There is a technical provision which allows the Government to extend the Bill for a further period not exceeding 12 months which, in light of the implementation of the conclusions and recommendations of the review group, I am optimistic it will not be necessary to invoke. I commend the Bill to the House.
