I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
The objects of the Bill can, I think, most conveniently be considered under two broad heads: first, the prohibition of the use of airguns by children and, secondly, the amendment, in a number of ways, of provisions of the Firearms Act, 1925. As far as the proposed amendments of the 1925 Act are concerned, it can be said that the Bill is very much a Committee Stage Bill, so to speak: the amendments are a miscellaneous group and it is not my intention to refer to them in detail now. I think, however, that the proposal to control the use of airguns is in a different category. It is a matter of importance both in principle and in practice and, on that account, I should like to begin by reading an extract relating to airguns from the explanatory memorandum:
There is no explicit reference to airguns in the Firearms Act, 1925, but in practice smooth-bore airguns of a calibre of .22 or over, and all rifled airguns, have been looked on as firearms and, therefore, capable of being lawfully held or used only on the authority of a firearm certificate granted, as far as residents in the State are concerned, by the local Superintendent of the Garda Síochána. Accordingly, since firearm certificates may not lawfully be granted to persons under the age of 15 years (and in practice would seldom if ever be granted to a person under 16 years), these types of airguns are already forbidden to children and they may be held by older persons only with the consent of the Garda Síochána and on payment of the excise duty that is levied on firearm certificates—generally £1 in these particular cases. There is, however, no control on the sale or possession of smooth-bore airguns of a calibre below .22.
The proposal in the Bill is that all airguns should be classed as firearms, and since the Bill also proposes that the minimum age for holding a firearm certificate (either for an airgun or otherwise) should be raised to 16 years, the effect, as far as airguns are concerned, would be that (except at shooting galleries or the like) no child under the age of 16 years would be allowed to have or use an airgun, and those over that age would be allowed to do so only on the authority of a firearm certificate.
The reason for the proposal is, of course, the number of serious injuries that have been caused by airguns. Members of the medical profession and others with direct experience of these injuries have, for years, been advocating some restriction of this kind. In one Dublin hospital, they have about a dozen patients every year with eye injuries caused by airguns, and about half of them result in the permanent loss of an eye. That is only one hospital—admittedly one that specialises in eye treatment—and only one type of injury. I do not think it is necessary to go beyond these figures: six people, nearly all children, every year losing completely and permanently the sight of an eye, and six others with eyesight impaired.
There are, of course, people who argue, quite reasonably, that airguns are but one cause of accidents. Children can be injured by catapults, or knives, or by falling off bicycles or down the stairs at home. Moreover, only a very small minority of airguns ever lead to a serious accident and the question arises whether everybody is to suffer because of the misdeeds of a few. Finally, the argument has been used that this is a matter for parental control rather than legal sanctions and that it is undesirable that the law should be such as to relieve parents of their obligations.
While it is right that full consideration should be given to these arguments, I think we can dismiss without difficulty the one about parental responsibility because it is, I suggest, clearly invalid and based on an inadequate examination of the facts. It is undoubtedly true that the parents of the boy with an airgun have a very definite responsibility to ensure that he does not misuse it or, if they cannot do that, to take it from him, but that is no answer to another child who is injured by a pellet from the gun or to the injured child's parents. The injured child's parents may have done everything a parent could do to discharge their responsibilities and for anybody to brush aside the question of the State's responsibility on the plea that it is a matter for the parents would surely seem to them to be adding insult to injury.
As regards the other arguments against control, I readily concede that, in my opinion at all events, they are valid as far as they go. It cannot be denied that there are other sources of accidents and that only a small minority of airguns cause accidents. But accidents by airguns are something the community, by its laws, can do something about, and the fact that we cannot solve every problem is no reason for not tackling those we can. Secondly, we have to try to compare the benefits of airguns with their cost in terms of suffering, mental and physical, to so many people—people who, may I stress, are usually innocent victims of the carelessness or recklessness of others. Airguns are not an essential of life. Training in the proper use of an airgun is, no doubt, beneficial, but there are other ways for boys to learn discipline and, as we all know, the great majority of boys have to get along without them, either because their parents cannot afford to indulge them to that extent or because their parents are unwilling to take the risk of injury to others.
The prohibition, in fact, will affect only a small minority. It is well to bear in mind, too, that with the greater variety of toys and amusements that is now available, the loss of this one source of amusement is of even less significance than it might have been twenty years ago. Undoubtedly, there are cases where parents have taken all the necessary steps to ensure that the airguns would not be misused, but obviously distinctions between different children would be quite impossible, and the general interest must take priority.
As regards the method of control, the proposal is, as I have said, that airguns will be classed as firearms. This was not the only possible approach. It would be possible simply to prohibit persons under a specified age from having or using an airgun, but this would present serious practical difficulties of enforcement. It would mean that the airguns at present in the hands of children could be retained in the house and there would be a standing temptation to children to take out an airgun if it were left lying about the house with no particular responsibility on anybody to look after it.
In practice I would expect that, under the proposal in the Bill, the great majority of airguns at present in the hands of children will be destroyed and that only a small fraction will be retained by adults under the authority of firearm certificates. In these cases, the adult to whom the certificate is given will be responsible for the safe custody of the gun and should he fail in this the certificate will, of course, have to be revoked.
As Deputies will have noticed, the prohibition extends to all guns capable of discharging a slug. It is not possible to make any valid distinction between weak guns and strong ones. Most of the accidents are caused at very close range, and a weak gun can be nearly as dangerous as a strong one in these conditions: they can all damage a human eye.
As I said earlier, the other provisions of the Bill can, I think, best be discussed on Committee Stage, but perhaps I may mention briefly some of the more significant proposals.
The Minister for Lands has asked that power be sought to suspend temporarily the use of all firearms either generally or in particular areas as there may be periods when weather conditions are so bad that such action is the only practical method of ensuring that game is not slaughtered indiscriminately. Section 3 of the Bill proposes, accordingly, to empower the Minister for Justice to make orders of this kind at the request of the Minister for Lands. The orders would have a validity of a month and would be capable of being annulled by resolution of either House. A similar provision—section 4—proposes to empower the Minister for Justice, in the interests of the public safety, to order the handing up to the Gardaí of all firearms, or certain classes of firearms, in a particular area for a period not exceeding a month. Again, it is proposed that such an order may be annulled by resolution of either House. I do not envisage that recourse need be had to that particular provision save on the rarest occasion, but I think it is desirable that the power should be there in case a situation calling for its exercise should arise.
Another proposal that may be of interest is contained in section 7. This section is designed to enable the Garda Síochána to dispose of a substantial number of firearms that have accumulated in their stores over the years and the owners of which have been unwilling to take any steps to sell them or otherwise take them off the hands of the Garda Síochána. The proposal is that the Garda may sell the firearms if the owner declines to remove them, but the proceeds are to be given to the owner. Section 8 is a similar provision relating to firearms that may come into the possession of the Garda in future.
Section 9 of the Act proposes that, instead of having new certificates issued each year, the Garda Síochána may renew a certificate from year to year. This proposal would relieve the Garda of a significant amount of clerical work.
Another proposal which I would like to mention is contained in section 12, which is designed to ensure that, where an occupier of land is not able to avail himself of the right to have a "limited" firearm certificate for the shooting of vermin on his land, he may nominate somebody else to get the certificate.
Section 15 of the Bill proposes to add to the categories of persons who are exempt from the requirement to have a firearm certificate as a condition of having or—in some cases—of using a firearm. Under existing law, firearms dealers and persons engaged in the business of warehousing are exempt, but there is no specific exemption for their employees. The Bill proposes to remedy the omission. In addition it is proposed that certain categories of persons will be exempted provided, in each case, the local Superintendent of the Garda Síochána expressly authorities the exemption. For example it is proposed that members of rifle and gun clubs will not need to have certificates in respect of rifles and guns they use at target practice or at competitions, provided the club itself is in possession of an authorisation and the range is authorised. Other proposed exemptions are for operators of rifle ranges in amusement halls and at carnivals and for members of the public using such ranges; for auctioneers; for persons taking part in theatrical performances; for persons starting athletic races; and for persons taking part in ceremonies and using firearms issued under the authority of the Minister for Defence.
Section 23 (1) (a) of the Larceny Act, 1916, makes it a felony to rob a person while armed with an offensive weapon and section 28 of that Act makes it a misdemeanour for a person to be found by night with any dangerous or offensive weapon with intent to break or enter into any building and to commit a felony. Section 25 of the Bill proposes to provide that unloaded firearms and imitation firearms are, for the purposes of those sections of the Larceny Act that have been mentioned, to be deemed to be offensive weapons. It is already clear that a loaded firearm is an offensive weapon for this purpose.
Section 26 of the Bill proposes to make it an indictable offence for a person taking a motor vehicle without the permission of the owner to have a firearm or an imitation firearm in his possession unless he shows that he had the firearm or imitation firearm with him for a lawful purpose at the time. Section 27 has a somewhat similar provision in regard to the offence of resisting arrest or escaping from lawful custody.
These are, I think, the most important provisions, and I do not think I need say any more about them. I would, however, like to mention that, as the amendments are fairly extensive, I considered the question of consolidation but, on balance, decided against it. It will be noticed that practically all the amendments propose additions to what is already in the Firearms Act, 1925, rather than changes in the text of the existing provisions, and, if a consolidating Bill had been drafted instead of this one, it would have been a much more bulky document and its examination by the House would have been made unnecessarily difficult. There would be no commensurate advantage, especially as the subject is not one on which there is any body of common law which needs to be re-stated or clarified, and consolidation can more efficiently be undertaken at a later date.
Accordingly, I recommend the Bill to the House.