I think we agreed that this section is necessary to protect game, especially in weather such as occurred last year when snow lay on the ground for seven or eight weeks and when certain irresponsible owners of guns—they could not be called sportsmen—mowed down pheasants, ducks, wild geese, et cetera. While this is a necessary provision, the use of guns during this period is often required for the destruction of vermin. Is there any provision in the section which would give authority to game clubs or farmers to use guns during this period for the destruction of vermin?
Firearms Bill, 1963—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "The Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Yes. A special certificate for the destruction of vermin may be obtained from the superintendent. This certificate will not permit the shooting of game but will allow the destruction of vermin.
By individual farmers or by clubs?
A certificate may be issued to anybody.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Is this the section which deals with the handing up of airguns? Subsection (a) provides that the person shall deliver the firearm and ammunition to the Garda superintendent. There is nothing in the section which provides that the parents or the guardians of the children are responsible for seeing that the children hand up the firearms. Does the Minister expect the notice to be served on a child of four or six years?
The normal legal parental responsibility will apply.
What does the Minister expect will happen to the guns? In what way can they legally be disposed of inside the State at present?
They can be handed up to a firearms dealer. They might possibly be sold.
He will hardly purchase them.
Unless he has an outlet in Mexico.
Does the Minister think that Castro will use them?
I refer the Senator to the Department of External Affairs with regard to the situation in Cuba.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Subsection (2) provides that: "Where a firearm certificate is renewed under this section, the certificate shall continue in force until the 31st day of July next after the date of such renewal..." What exactly does the Minister mean? Does he intend to change the form of the certificate? Is it intended to have something like a registration book?
Something like a passport with a tough durable cover which will be renewable from year to year. At present the operation involves making out 100,000 original certificates every year. We hope to do away with all this clerical work by issuing certificates in some booklet form which will be renewable from year to year.
When the man pays it will be stamped: "Paid for 1964"?
Something like that. It is a very progressive reform.
I think so.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 1:
Before section 10 to insert a new section as follows:—
"( ) (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Principal Act and in this Act a Superintendent may grant a firearm certificate which shall be called a possession certificate.
(2) A possession certificate shall authorise the person named therein to have in his possession the firearm described therein.
(3) A possession certificate shall not authorise the holder thereof to use or purchase ammunition for the firearm described therein."
I mentioned this point on the Second Stage of the Bill. I should like to see some form of certificate introduced which would allow people to keep a gun in their house without having to pay for it. In the normal course at present people have to pay £2 5s. simply for having a gun in their possession. There are widows and older people who have been left a gun by their deceased parents, and they would like to keep it. In this country, apart from the value of the gun, there is a sentimental value attaching to it, and the owner likes to hand it on to a member of his family. Quite often when a widow has to move from the country to a town, she must either sell the gun or get some friend who has a certificate to keep it for her. That is asking a lot of the friend because it has to be kept clean and oiled. I should like to see a permit issued for one year, or possibly a period of four or five years, so that such a person could keep the gun until she wished to dispose of it in some other way.
There are other cases of men who are growing old and do not want to part with their guns. They want to keep them in their possession but that will cost them quite a considerable sum year after year, knowing they will not use them, and that they cannot be legally used by anyone else. So far as I can ascertain, years ago it was possible in this country to get a permit to keep a gun in the house, although you were not allowed to buy ammunition. I should like the Minister to introduce some amendment that will permit that type of thing. I do not know whether it is peculiar to this country, but we have a great love and respect for old firearms, and I think it a pity that they must be disposed of. At one time it was possible to ask to have them kept in the Garda barracks. I think in this Bill the Minister is trying to get away from that, and also there is no guarantee that these firearms will be kept in good order. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
I would not agree to any relaxing of the restrictions on the keeping of guns. I was not here for the Second Reading of the Bill but I should like to say on this section that anything that restricts the use of firearms of any kind—and especially firearms in the hands of children—is for the good of the country.
In regard to the proposal in this amendment that guns may be kept in houses but that perhaps people would not use them, that they would be kept for sentimental reasons, we all know the dictum that it is the empty gun that shoots the man. Guns are made to hurt and to kill and if they are not kept under rigid control and supervision, they are dangerous things. Therefore, I would be against any alteration of the Bill in this respect.
I wish to support Senator McGuire. I submit that the restrictions should be more rigid, that inspections should be carried out. Since this Bill came before the House on Second Stage, no fewer than three tragedies involving guns have occurred in the country, all the result of mishandling. If guns are kept in a house, there should be a place for them. There is a saying in the country that "the devil loads an empty gun", that he puts a bullet into it. People are inclined to believe that. It has been found that a gun which was examined beforehand has discharged, resulting in the death of an individual.
In Monaghan, for instance, a child going through the gate of an estate was shot by a man who did not realise the gun was loaded. In Longford since Christmas, there has been a similar case. In fact cases of this sort are cropping up every day. Accordingly, when we have a Bill of this sort, it is up to us to take all precautions and to make the most stringent provisions in regard to the use and the keeping of guns. I would urge the Minister to insist on periodic inspections of homes where guns are kept to see that these guns are kept properly.
I do not agree with the reasoning of either Senator McGuire or Senator Mooney and find myself coming down on the side of Senator Cole. The argument is that because there are accidents involving firearms, those accidents take place with guns under licence in the hands of people who use them carelessly. When a licence is granted for a firearm, as far as I know the Garda Síochána make no inquiries into the competence or the carefulness of people applying for licences.
That is wrong; it is nonsense.
It has occurred to me, but I may have a high standard in so far as these matters are concerned. From this point of view, it would be of great benefit if more people had Army training in this country. There would be fewer accidents. As Senator Cole has said, many people have sentimental attachment to guns: they may be shotguns belonging to the father of a family who has died; they may be pistols used by somebody in the War of Independence or revolvers used in the Battle of the Some or elsewhere. There is not the slightest risk of these guns being used because ammunition is not purchasable. I am sure the Minister will realise—he is a practical and realistic person—that a large number of such guns are kept by members of the Dáil and Seanad. I have not got one myself so the Minister will not have the pleasure of raiding my house. Those people have no intention of ever using these guns on anybody. This is no laughing matter at all.
We are reassured.
Therefore, I suggest the Minister should have another look at the idea expressed by Senator Cole. It may not be possible for him to do it now but I feel sure he could devise a better way of achieving what Senator Cole has in mind.
I think there is some confusion here, that some Senators are reading more into the amendment than should be read into it. It has been pointed out that it is not always the unlicensed gun which gives rise to accidents any more than it is the unlicensed driver who always causes accidents on the road or, as in England, the untested driver. The only point I want to make is that though I feel there is something to be said for the amendment, I should like to see further limitation to such an extent that this would apply only to shotguns. This idea of sentimental attachment to weapons which were not designed for the shooting of game does not make sense.
I have not the slightest sympathy with the argument that anybody would have an attachment to a .22 rifle. However, there are shotguns which can have a certain financial value and I can imagine circumstances such as Senator Cole described where there may not be anybody in a family at the moment who can use such a gun, possibly worth £200 or £300. It would be a pity if that gun had to be sold, since later on a member of the family might be able to use it.
Would the Minister therefore examine this further to see if some way could be found whereby permits could be issued for the retention and safe keeping of such guns? People who would wish to keep such guns should be willing to have inspections carried out to ensure that there was no ammunition in the house which could be used in the gun, and of course the permit would not allow them to buy any new ammunition for it. Such people should be willing to put up with a little hardship in order to allow the authorities to see there is not any stray ammunition about. There are many guns which are quite irreplaceable and it does seem a pity the owners must be forced to dispose of them. It may be said that people in possession of such guns, possibly heirlooms, would not be hurt financially by having to dispose of them but I would suggest that the Minister have another look at this, though I do not press the point too seriously.
I have some sympathy with the point of view of Senator Cole. First of all, I should like to explain exactly what the position is with regard to these non-used weapons. If, as I explained on the Second Reading, the gun is an antique, then it is excluded from the scope of the Firearms Act. Again, if it is a gun which somebody wishes to keep for purely sentimental reasons and does not intend to use, it can be taken outside the scope of the Act completely by the simple process of rendering it inoperative by drilling a small hole in the barrel. If it is a weapon usable and serviceable which it is proposed to use again and is merely being kept in the interval, then as the law stands, the person concerned, the owner of this weapon, has a choice as to the manner in which it is kept. He can pay the £2 5s. annual duty, and one would have a great deal more sympathy with the amendment if that £2 5s. were £10, £15 or £20. I think it is a bit unreal to suggest that the payment of £2 5s. at this time would involve serious hardship in most of these cases.
If he dislikes paying the annual duty, then, as Senator Sheldon mentioned, he can make an arrangement with a firearms dealer to store the gun. If it is a very valuable gun, it is certainly desirable that the weapon should be stored under proper conditions on the premises of a firearms dealer. I think dealers would be prepared to make an arrangement at a very nominal charge to store such a weapon.
A further possibility is that the person can arrange to leave the gun with somebody who has an existing licence for which he pays £2 5s. a year. That person may keep the extra weapon for 10/- a year. Thus, as matters stand, the position is not too rigid. A person in the position envisaged has a number of possible courses open to him.
I should be reluctant to make the simple change suggested by Senator Cole because this type of possession-only certificate would certainly be open to abuse. In any case this is really a revenue matter. At present firearms are regarded as something on which the State raises revenue just as the State makes people take out dog licences, even though a licensed dog has no superiority as compared with an unlicensed dog. Senator Cole's amendment would really get us nowhere unless we could persuade the Minister for Finance to fix a nominal duty for this possession-only certificate. I think it is the duty that Senator Cole is concerned about.
The position has always been that we regard these weapons, as revenue-yielding. There is an arguable case that can be put forward that it is not the possession of the gun that should attract the revenue but its use for the shooting of game. We have come a little way towards recognising that principle by the introduction of the limited certificate which attracts a considerably lower rate of duty because the gun is not used for shooting game but only for the destruction of vermin. This is a principle to which they adhere in Britain. They distinguish between mere possession of a gun and its use for shooting game. It is the use for shooting game that attracts the revenue imposition. We have not done that: it would be a matter for the Minister for Lands, who is the authority concerned with the preservation of game, to consider any change to such a system. I know that he is at present carrying out an examination of the whole position, regarding the control and licensing of firearms from the point of view of game preservation.
It is possible in the context of that examination that he may wish to alter the basis along the lines I mentioned, namely, to tax the use of the gun for the shooting of game rather than its simple possession. But that is not something we could do in this Bill, and for that reason I am opposing the amendment and asking the House to reject it. To make an amendment at this stage would mean nothing unless the Minister for Finance would agree to reduce the duty to a minimal amount. That can only be done in a Finance Bill and I think it is better to leave it over until we see what is the outcome of the examination which the Minister for Lands is at present conducting particularly when the people about whom Senator Cole is concerned have a reasonable number of other possible courses open to them.
Senator O'Reilly said something to which I should like to refer, namely that there is no proper supervision on the issue of certificates. The local superintendent of the Garda in each area has a statutory obligation on him, to be satisfied that the person to whom he issues a certificate is a competent and suitable person to have possession of a firearm. That is a very real and definite obligation. I have no reason to believe and no evidence to suggest that the Garda take that obligation lightly. In the Second Reading debate, I think I said the position is the opposite and that the only representations I get in this matter are from people who think the Garda are being too rigid or unnecessarily restrictive in refusing certificates.
I hope the Minister will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister for Lands when there is some future discussion of firearms certificates in regard to shotguns. The Minister mentioned two alternatives but the trouble is that I do not think either of them is any good. With all due respect to firearms dealers, there are very few of them in the country to whom I would like to hand a very valuable gun if I had one, to be kept for me. Apart from putting a drop of oil on any gun they might have, I do not think they would want to take in guns which they are not going to sell. I doubt if they have any place in which to keep them reasonably safely.
They must have a safe place to keep them or they will not be registered.
I do not think it would be as safe as in a private house where a person resides. Very few firearms dealers would accept valuable guns for a number of years.
The other suggestion was that a person would give the gun to some friend to keep in which case he could take out a second or subsequent licence for 10/-. It might be very difficult to get people to agree to keep a valuable gun for a number of years. They might not want the responsibility of keeping and maintaining it. They might not want such a valuable thing in the house. It imposes a certain responsibility on them. I have considered these possibilities and I do not think they are reasonable and I had hoped the Minister would accept this amendment. If he would, perhaps, bring the matter to the notice of the Minister for Lands and the Minister for Finance at some future time I shall withdraw the amendment.
What would be the position if the owner of one of these guns described by Senator Cole lends it to a museum? Would the obligation still remain in relation to the licence?
If it is an antique, no.
Say a souvenir?
A museum is not an exempted body. If it is not an antique, he would have to render it ineffective by drilling a hole through the barrel which is, I think, the recognised way of making it ineffective.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
I think this section will be welcomed by tourists, visitors and sportsmen coming here. Under this provision the certificate will remain in force for a full year irrespective of the date on which it is issued. That will put an end to much frustration and annoyance that arose in the past. If a man came before the 1st July and wanted a licence which would enable him to stay on for two months shooting, he would have to take out two annual certificates. This section does away with that and is something that will be welcomed by everybody.
Except, possibly, by the Minister for Finance.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That Section 12 stand part of the Bill."
This section authorises the use of a shotgun for the destruction of vermin on land occupied by the holder of the certificate. You can get a vermin licence for 10/-. I should like to know what is the position of a widow who has a son or two sons or of a man who has a piece of land in a particular place and has to cross over the land of somebody else to reach it? Will the 10/- licence be sufficient cover or will it be necessary to get another certificate for the second piece of land? If a person has four, five or six pieces of land, how is he covered in this Bill?
This change is specifically designed to accommodate the widow who has a gun and a son. Up to now, only the widow could have the certificate. What we propose means that a widow or a person who is too old to use the gun can nominate somebody. But we are ensuring that there can be only one per holding.
That would be an annoyance to some farmers. I know some farmers who have only 30 or 40 acres, which is considered a small farm in my part of the country, and might have four or five separate holdings. This will mean that he will have to take out five licences, one for each holding?
I am afraid I have misled you.
A farmer could have five acres in one place and ten acres in another.
As long as he occupies it.
As long as he occupies the land, he can have a certificate?
Yes.
That covers the point.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 13 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On the Fifth Stage I want to say that we agree entirely with everything that is in this Bill. The Minister is entitled to everybody's help and co-operation in putting this measure into operation and seeing that it is obeyed by all sections of the community. A call should go forth from the Seanad to priests, parents, teachers, the radio and television authorities and all those interested in the welfare of society to help in seeing to it that everybody will comply with the terms of the Bill. This is a first-class Bill. It is long overdue. It should result in saving a few lives every year and preventing a great deal of destruction.
Question put and agreed to.