The meeting has been convened for the consideration of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009. I welcome the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, and his officials. Correspondence relating to today's meeting was previously circulated to members. Nos. 82, 93, 99, 101 and 104 are relevant to the Bill. Further copies are available for members. A Bill's digest was previously circulated also. A grouping list of amendments has also been circulated.
Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, lines 25 to 29, to delete paragraphs (a) and (b) and substitute the following:
"(a) in subsection (1A) by the substitution in paragraph (e) for “the offence” of “one of the offences to which the European arrest warrant relates”,
(b) in subsection (2) by the substitution of “(1A)” for “(1)” in the second place that it occurs, and
(c) by the substitution for subsection (2A) of the following:
"(2A) If any of the information to which subsection (1A) (inserted by section 72(a) of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005)refers is not specified in the European arrest warrant, it may be specified in a separate document.”.”.
The text of subsection 11(2A) of the European Arrest Warrant Act currently provides that where it is not practicable for any information to which subsection 11(1A) applies, that is, details on the person, the offence, and the issuing judicial authority to be included in the European arrest warrant, it may be specified in a separate document. The effect of the inclusion of the reference to "where it is practicable" means that currently once a warrant has been endorsed, any additional information sought by the Irish authorities and subsequently supplied by the requesting state can only be admitted by an official of the central authority swearing an affidavit.
Additional information is often sought on the circumstances of the offence and the relevant provisions in the penal code of the country concerned or in regard to translation of a document. In some cases officials in the central authority in my Department have had to swear five or six affidavits on one particular case. The swearing of affidavits poses an administrative burden on the central authority without any real benefit. The substituted text removes the reference to "where it is practicable" and in this way permits information not included in the warrant to be specified in a separate document without any further requirement. The amendment will greatly facilitate the processing procedures in the central authority in that it will obviate the need for officials who have the responsibility for administrative processing of European arrest warrants to swear affidavits on the submission of information provided in additional documents and will allow the central authority to directly admit the additional information for the benefit of the court.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, paragraph (b), line 5, to delete “and (6)” and substitute “, (6) and (7)”.
This amendment provides for the deletion of subsection 12(7) and is being made as a consequence of amendments to subsection 12(3) relating to the use of modern means of communication and the transmission of documents.
Section 12(8) sets out the documents that may be admitted without further proof. Section 12(8)(d) allows a true copy of such a document to be admitted but section 12(7) provides that a true copy must have a seal of the issuing judicial authority affixed. This means that, in practice, a copy of the document cannot be accepted unless it is accompanied by a document with the official seal. In effect, a copy cannot be accepted without further proof. This prevents officials in the central authority from accepting a copy faxed, e-mailed or posted without the seal. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to enable the acceptance of true copies of documents within the normal meaning of the words and without further proof.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 7 are related. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are related and are alternatives to amendment No. 7. Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 7 to 9, inclusive, will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 10, lines 11 and 12, to delete "or the Attorney General".
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 amend section 11, which in turn amends section 15 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 by the insertion of a new subsection (3)(a) into the section which, as currently drafted, restricts the grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court against decisions made under the section to cases that are certified by the High Court or the Attorney General as involving a point of law of exceptional public importance. Similarly, amendments Nos. 8 and 9 amend section 12, which in turn amends section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, by restricting the grounds of appeal to the Supreme Court against decisions made under the section to cases certified by the High Court or the Attorney General as involving a point of law of exceptional public importance.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 8, which are identical, remove, in the respective sections, the Attorney General as a certifier. Having reviewed the position, the Attorney General is of the view that it is not an appropriate role for his office in the context of surrender legislation.
Amendments Nos. 4 and 9, which are also identical, provide for the insertion of additional text in the respective sections which brings each section into conformity with the similar legislative provisions on appeals to the Supreme Court. The text is taken from The Courts of Justice Act 1924. The provision in each section will now read that an appeal against an order under this section, or a decision not to make such an order, may be brought in the Supreme Court if, and only if, the High Court certifies that the order or decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it is desirable, in the public interest, that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court. I commend amendments Nos. 3, 4, 8 and 9 to the committee.
The effect of amendment No. 7 would be to delete section 16(12)(f), which amends subsection 16(12) of the 2003 Act. Currently, section 16(12) of the 2003 Act provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court on a point of law only. The Attorney General has advised that appeals are being lodged on frivolous and vexatious grounds for the purpose of delaying surrender. He has advised that the right of appeal should be restricted to a point of law of exceptional public importance, certified as such in accordance with this subsection against a decision under this section. A similar provision, subsection (3A), has been inserted into section 15 of the 2003 Act by section 11 of this Bill. We have dealt with amendments to these subsections to remove the Attorney General as a certifier and provide for the insertion of additional text that brings the subsections into conformity with similar provisions on appeals to the Supreme Court, as evident in The Courts of Justice Act 1924.
Deputies will be aware of the pressure on the resources of the Supreme Court at present. I am advised that appeals in European arrest warrant cases amounted to more than 10% of all matters disposed of by the Supreme Court in 2007. Currently, almost one quarter of the current European arrest warrants are under appeal to the Supreme Court. In almost all cases, it is the requested person who has appealed. The purpose of the European arrest warrant system is to provide a simplified system of surrender between member states that avoids the complexity and delay of extradition procedures it replaces. It would be totally contrary to that intention were we not to act to curtail the use of the appeal system to frustrate that purpose. I therefore ask the Deputy to withdraw his amendment.
As is plain from the progress of the Bill so far, the wish on this side of the House is to facilitate this legislation and expedite it as much as possible. There is a template for what we are doing. I cannot agree with the reasoning I have heard from the Minister in this matter. I accept that his amendment No. 8 excising the reference to "Attorney General" is correct but my amendment seeks to excise the entire section 16(12)(f) in the 2003 Act.
The Minister's amendment No. 9 would seek to make plain that it is desirable, in the public interest, that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court. I cannot really understand why the opportunity should not exist to vindicate one's right in the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court is overburdened, that is a separate issue. As I understand it, there are changes in the superior court system being contemplated to address this. For someone not to have the right to appeal to the Supreme Court or to have the right to appeal to it only where the High Court so allows is excessively restrictive. Incidentally, this could also affect the State. The State could be equally disadvantaged in that it could find itself without the right to appeal to the Supreme Court for the same reasons. I do not have any figures on what the Minister referred to as "frivolous and vexatious" appeals. I do not know whether we have any statistics on these. To shut out the right of appeal to the Supreme Court is wrong.
I wish to emphasise that this is only in regard to cases where consent given to the arrest warrant is subsequently withdrawn. What happened in a substantial number of cases is that people who gave consent lodged an appeal literally on the steps of the plane when being delivered to the other jurisdiction. This, in effect, frustrates the surrender. What we are trying to do is hone in on the right of appeal on a point of law where consent has previously been given. There is an appeal mechanism in all other circumstances and this is taken care of in section 16. The Deputy's concern relates only to a specific circumstance. We are advised by the Attorney General that, given the strict requirements in the existing legislation and proposed legislation on how consent can be given, the judge of the High Court making an order where consent has been given must be satisfied that the consent is being given voluntarily and that the person fully understands the consequences of consenting and has obtained or was given the opportunity to obtain legal advice before deciding to consent. If the court is satisfied as to giving consent, it must then consider whether the surrender of the person is prohibited under the Act or framework decision. In other words, the requested person's consent cannot override the provisions of the Act and require the court to order a surrender where this would be prohibited by the Act. This is a relatively new procedure which has been in place since 2003. There have been circumstances where people have used the appeals mechanism to frustrate the surrender.
Is the Minister referring to section 16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003?
Yes, section 16, committal of person named in European arrest warrant. Section 16(12) states, "An appeal against an order under this section or a decision not to make such an order may be brought in the Supreme Court on a point of law only."
How many frivolous, mischievous or groundless claims have been made in this respect? I would have thought the real issue was delay rather than frustration and the difficulties being experienced by the Supreme Court were by virtue of the workload and the need for a separate court of civil appeal.
I do not have the figures at hand but they are substantial. Appeals in European arrest warrant cases amount to 10% of all matters disposed by the Supreme Court in 2007. This amendment does not prevent someone appealing to the Supreme Court in every other circumstance except a consent situation. Under the existing legislation, a person can appeal on a point of a law, which is the normal circumstance regarding any appeal from the High Court. This amendment provides that where assent has been given, it is on a point of law of exceptional public importance. It is up to the court to decide in that instance.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 10, line 13, after "importance" to insert the following:
"and that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 10, lines 24 to 32, to delete paragraph (f) and substitute the following:
"(f) by the substitution for subsection (7) of the following:
"(7) Where a person (to whom an order for the time being in force under this section applies) is not surrendered to the issuing state within the relevant period specified in subsection (5) and the surrender is not prohibited by reason of subsection (6) the High Court may remand the person in custody or on bail for such further period as is necessary to effect the surrender unless it considers it would be unjust or oppressive to do so.",".
Amendment No. 5 amends section 11, which, in turn, amends section 15 of the 2003 Act which deals with consent to surrender by insertion of a new subsection. Amendment No. 6 amends section 12, which in turn amends section 16 of the 2003 Act which deals with the committal of a person named in a European arrest warrant by the insertion of a new subsection.
The newly substituted subsections provide in each case where surrender is not effected in the period specified in the respective section and that there is no appeal or habeas corpus proceedings pending, as referred to in the section, the High Court may remand the person in custody or on bail for a further period in order to enable surrender to be effected unless it considers it would be unjust or oppressive to do so.
The purpose of these amendments is technical in that it aligns the text of the new section 15(7) with the text of new section 16(7) in the 2003 Act. Both subsections confer statutory authority on the High Court to remand a person beyond periods specified in the sections for the purpose of effecting surrender. It is desirable in the interest of clarity and consistency that the wording in the subsections should be the same as in the case of the 2003 Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 11, lines 21 to 29, to delete paragraph (e) and substitute the following:
"(e) by the substitution for subsection (7) of the following:
"(7) Where a person (to whom an order for the time being in force under this section applies) is not surrendered to the issuing state within the relevant period specified in subsection (5) and the surrender is not prohibited by reason of subsection (6) the High Court may remand the person in custody or on bail for such further period as is necessary to effect the surrender unless it considers it would be unjust or oppressive to do so.",".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 11, paragraph (f), lines 31 and 32, to delete “or the Attorney General”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 11, paragraph (f), line 33, after “importance” to insert the following:
"and that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal should be taken to the Supreme Court".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 12, before section 14, to insert the following new section:
14.—Section 20 of the Act of 2003 is hereby amended in subsection (3) by the insertion after "affidavit" of ", declaration, affirmation, attestation".".
Section 20 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 deals with the provisions of additional documentation and information to the High Court where the documentation provided is not sufficient to enable the court to perform its functions under the Act. The purpose of this amendment is to align provisions of the Act with those of the Extradition Acts regarding evidence in writing which are being revised in line with the recommendations from the Attorney General. The revisions are contained in the surrender and extradition Bill which is with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.
The amendments expand the type of documentation which can be received from requesting states. The inclusion of additional types of documentation addresses the fact that the concept of an affidavit, as it exists in Irish law, is not known in some legal systems in other EU member states.
Under this amendment, section 20(3) of the 2003 Act will read, "In proceedings under this Act, evidence as to any matter to which such proceedings relate may be given by affidavit, declaration, affirmation, attestation or by a statement in writing".
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 13, before section 16, to insert the following new section:
16.—Section 38 of the Act of 2003 is hereby amended in subsection (1)(b) by the deletion of “or is an offence that consists of conduct specified in the paragraph,”.”.
Section 38(1) of the 2003 Act provides that a person shall not be surrendered in respect of an offence unless, as is set out in section 38(1)(a), it corresponds to an offence under Irish law and is punishable by custodial sentence of a minimum of 12 months or, as set out in section 38(1)(b), it is an offence to which paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the framework decision of the European arrest warrant applies. That is the list of offences in respect of which dual criminality is not required or is an offence that consists of conduct specified in paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the framework decision of the European arrest warrant that carries a minimum sentence of three years.
The wording of section 38 of the 2003 Act was considered by the Supreme Court in a case last year. The court found that as there is no conduct specified in Article 2, paragraph 2, it is impossible for a court to decide that an offence in a warrant consists "of conduct specified in that paragraph". Accordingly, it concluded that the provision has no meaningful effect in the operation of law. This amendment, therefore, provides for the deletion of the phrase "or is an offence that consists of conduct specified in paragraph" from section 38(1)(b). The case I referred to is the Supreme Court judgment on 31 July 2008, Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform v. Ferenca.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Amendment No. 12 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos.12 and 13 are cognate and both may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 15, line 10, to delete "this section" and substitute "subsection (4)".
The newly inserted section 45A allows the Garda Síochána to fingerprint, palmprint or photograph persons arrested under the Act in order to establish the identity of the person of the proceedings under the Act. Amendments 12 and 13 amend subsections (7) and (8), respectively, to clarify that it is only where a person fails or refuses to allow his or her fingerprints, palmprints or photographs to be taken and force is used by the Garda Síochána, as provided for in subsection (4), that the provisions of subsections (7) and (8) apply. That is to say, the taking of fingerprints, palmprints and photographs, where force is used, must be taken in the presence of a senior member of An Garda Síochána and must be video recorded. Provisions in line with the existing fingerprint provisions for domestic criminal purposes, as set out in sections 6 and 6A of the Criminal Justice Act 1984, as amended by the 2007 Criminal Justice Act.
There is nothing new in this.
No, it is to extend the requirement that these fingerprints have to be taken in the presence of a senior member of the Garda and must be video recorded. It is to add into this legislation what we added in the 2007 legislation.
It was our good practice.
Yes, that is correct. We have to do it and we are now saying that it is a statutory requirement.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 15, line 15, to delete "this section" and substitute "subsection (4)".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
What type of "other persons" is envisaged here? Is it Civil Service officials, the Minister or who else has access to the data outside of customs officials and the Garda Síochána?
It may be civilians working for the Garda to cover such a circumstance with regard to the passing of information.
Are they technical people?
They could be civilians working within the Garda system. We were discussing the number of new civilians so working and it is to take care of that situation. It would not necessarily be gardaí entering information on to the system, but probably clerical officers.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 21 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 19, before section 24, to insert the following new section:
24.—Section 2 (as amended by the Act of 1964, the Firearms (Proofing) Act 1968, the Firearms Act 1971, the Act of 2006 and the Criminal Justice Act 2007) of the Principal Act is amended—
(a) in subsection (4) by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (g):
"(g) the possession, use or carriage of a firearm, within the meaning of paragraph (h) of section 1, or of ammunition therefor for the purpose of being used as a starting gun or blank firing gun by a person who stands authorised in that behalf under this section,”,
and
(b) in subsection (6) by the deletion of (d),.”.
This amendment substitutes a new section for section 24. The only change with the text in the Bill is an amendment to section 2(6) of the Firearms Act 1925. Section 2(4) of the 1925 Act provides exceptions for the requirement to hold a firearm licence. One of these exceptions provides that a person who is a member of a gun club, which has been authorised by a superintendent, does not require a firearm certificate when using a gun while engaged in a competition which is also authorised by a superintendent.
Section 2(6) is being amended to provide that such an authorisation may only be in respect of an unrestricted firearm. Restricted firearms are so designated because of their high-powered and specialised nature. This amendment is to ensure that restricted firearms cannot be held, under section 2(4)(d) of the Firearms Act, that is, that they need a firearms certificate for the owner specified. The vast majority of firearms are unrestricted.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 24 deleted.
SECTION 25.
Question proposed: "That section 25 stand part of the Bill."
There appears to be some duplication here. Is not much of this just a repetition of SI 362 of 1993? It should also be noted that the EU weapons directive already defines a range of prohibited weapons, in any event. We now have three categories. There is the ministerial declaration, SI 362 of 1993 and the EU weapons directive. Not only is there duplication, but triplication, which will give rise to certain confusion as to authority in this regard. Perhaps the Minister might clarify the position.
The reason we have this is to more or less modernise the legislation and bring it up to date in relation to some of the latest developments in firearms. As in other countries, we have unrestricted, restricted and prohibited firearms and they are all provided for under different items of legislation. The whole idea of this one is to catch new developments in weapons.
It was only when the deadline for tabling amendments had passed that I noticed this. If the Minister looks at the top of page 21, line 7, it says, "on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both, and on conviction...". I should have thought that "and" should read "or". Why should it be "and"? It is not a question of both but rather either-or, on the basis that someone is either tried summarily or on indictment. He or she would not be subject to both sets of penalties.
On the section, based on what the Minister has said with regard to controlling restricted, unrestricted and prohibited firearms, I presume this also refers to the very fine people who visit this country on an annual basis for sporting and hunting purposes. Are they under the same controls, because they make an enormous contribution to the country?
We are not making any changes here to restrict them.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 22, before section 27, to insert the following new section:
27.—Section 3A (inserted by section 31 of the Act of 2006) of the Principal Act is amended by the substitution for that section of the following:
3A.—(1) The Minister, or the Commissioner with the consent of the Minister, may from time to time issue guidelines in relation to the practical application and operation of any provision of the Firearms Acts 1925 to 2006, or of any regulation made under any provision of those Acts.
(2) The Commissioner with the consent of the Minister may, in particular, issue guidelines in relation to applications for firearm certificates and authorisations under this Act and to the conditions which may be attached to those certificates and authorisations.".
This amendment substitutes a new section for section 27, which provides for the issue of guidelines by the Minister and the Commissioner. The Minister has no role in relation to applications for firearm certificates or authorisations as set out in section 3A(2) and so reference to the Minister in this section has been deleted. The Commissioner's guidelines are currently being finalised and will be of great benefit for all who are involved in, or interested in the firearms licensing process. When I met the firearms consultative panel last week all members spoke highly of the work of the Commissioner's firearms policy unit, which has prepared these guidelines.
The Minister mentioned that he met the firearms consultative council. Again, this is an issue of some importance. I should have thought that certain consultations with the consultative council were proceeding in a manner that was bringing people involved in sport along with those charged with the responsibility of reviewing the legislation. How often would the Minister have met the consultative council in recent times, or what was the nature of those meetings?
I met the firearms council for the first time this week but my officials meet them on a regular basis. My officials are represented on the council, as is the Garda.
Is the Minister satisfied that the Commissioner is now the decision maker for these matters? It is interesting to note that throughout the bulk of firearms legislation, it is the superintendent of the relevant district who has the decision making power on the granting of licences and related matters. The Commissioner is now involved and that is a change the Minister is bringing forward for reasons of which he might advise us.
The Commissioner makes the decisions. He will issue the comprehensive 36 page guidelines booklet. These guidelines will be a great guide to all those applying and to members of the Garda Síochána who will deal with the applications. We have had difficulties in this area because there have been different interpretations of the regulations and of legislation. The idea is to have it much more centralised, but on the same basis so that people in different parts of the country have to make the same decisions.
A number of gun dealers to whom I spoke were concerned that they may have sold weapons which are still sitting in their stores for a long time. Will this speed up the process and make it more efficient?
There is a provision in the 2006 Act that a decision must be made within three months. That has not been commenced but it will commence following the enactment of this Bill.
I fully accept that the Commissioner should have the overriding role in the interpretation and delivery of the guidelines. I presume the operational interpretation and decision-making process will rest with the chief superintendents and superintendents in the different districts throughout the country.
That is correct.
I would like to go back to the Minister's reference to his meeting with the firearms consultative panel, and to the fact that his officials meet the panel regularly. I presume the most recent meeting was about these sections and the changes that he purports to make. Other than the panel expressing satisfaction about the matter mentioned by the Minister, was there any level of agreement between him and the people concerned at the end of that meeting?
The consultative panel consists of a wide range of groups that range from the IFA, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, the Irish Sports Council, the Shooting Sports Association of Ireland, the Garda Síochána, deer hunting representatives, firearms dealers' representatives, the National Target Shooting Association of Ireland, the Midlands National Shooting Centre, the National Association of Regional Gaming Councils, the Irish Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, Countryside Alliance Ireland and the Irish Gun Trade Association. I did not detect any huge difficulties at the meeting. People were very well aware of the Government's position on all of the issues, especially the issue of handguns. They did not articulate them as strongly as I thought, but I should not speak for them. It was a good exchange and there was no acrimony. There was complete understanding of the position the Government is taking.
I do not take any issue with the role of the Commissioner. The powers the Minister is taking to himself are unprecedented. He can now make regulations of whatever character he chooses. I presume the Minister and the Commissioner will be ad idem on that. I am surprised that he is taking such powers to himself in that context. The inference to be drawn from what he said is that the firearms consultative panel acquiesced in that.
There is no change from the 2006 Act in respect of the Minister's ability to make regulations. They relate to the regulation of dealers and shooting ranges. I am not giving the Minister any more powers in that respect.
I refer to sections 25 and 27 in general, before we deal with amendments that have been tabled. Our understanding is that there is widespread disquiet about the narrowing of the angle. The Minister seems to be saying that the firearms consultative panel acquiesced in the changes being made.
It is a very diverse group. I am not saying what the Deputy is suggesting. There was no huge difficulty at the meeting. There might have been one or two people who had a particular interests in some of the more controversial issues in this proposed legislation. We received a submission from Mr. Declan Cahill of the National Association of Sporting Rifle and Pistol Clubs. My officials are looking at this in the context of a sports administration perspective. We will talk to the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism about that. We have received many representations on the proposed legislation. My officials tell me that there has been unprecedented consultation on this.
It may have been unprecedented on the basis that the consultation was nil prior to that.
That is not the case. The whole reason for setting up the consultative panel was to bring people in. We passed legislation in 2006 and when I became involved in this Department, it was quite clear that much of the legislation passed then was not implemented. We are trying to implement the legislation the Oireachtas passed in 2006 and have a well understood playing field for the people involved, those who apply and those who decide on the applications.
I do not disagree with that, but I would have thought that the rolling function of the panel was to assist in the framing of a regulatory regime that brought people and that dealt with the issue in so far as one could. I do not think that there is any interested party that does not wish to have strict controls and a tight regulatory framework. I would have thought that consultation with the panel by the Minister was essential in framing a regime. I would have thought that he would have been helped in achieving his objective by sitting down with the panel and engaging with it. I would have thought representatives of the sport would assist the Minister in attaining his goal and would inform him as to the nature of the perceived gun culture which he as described as endemic. When he points to the United States for comparison in this regard, I suggest he is exaggerating in a major way.
I would have thought that by engaging with the panel, the Minister, his officials, the Garda Commissioner and other involved parties would, by consensus, put forth the highest possible standards of public safety. That is what everybody who has an interest in this is anxious to achieve. There are governing bodies with responsibilities in this area which are anxious to assist, but the public statements by the Minister fly in the face of any form of mutual engagement with a view towards reaching consensus. In effect, he has highlighted the issue in a way that is misrepresentative of society. The genuine difficulty, as I said on Second Stage, is not legally held weaponry but illegal consignments. These amendments and the power the Minister has vested upon himself will do nothing to deal with the problem of illegal firearms, evidence of which we see on a daily basis, with three murders in the last 24 hours.
My official who has dealt with this issue on a minute-by-minute basis in recent years reminds me that the consultative panel gave me a round of applause at the end of the meeting. Whether that was acquiescent or not I do not know.
The official must have a bad memory.
On the contrary, I assure the Deputy that I receive plaudits all the time. I am very popular, particularly in my own constituency. In the recent local elections, new candidates for my party did very well in my home town despite the difficulties elsewhere.
The consultative panel has done as its name suggests by consulting widely. I have been briefed by my officials on its activities and I met members of the panel last week. There was an attendance of 22 at that meeting. It is a large panel and members have different views on the various issues. I am reluctant to speak on their behalf because there is a danger that one or more members may subsequently declare that they disagree with the position I have put forward. However, one issue on which I am certain there is agreement among the panel members is support for restrictions on what is referred to as practical shooting, which we will deal with in a later amendment. The members agree that we must impose restrictions on the development of new modes of operating with firearms which are a cause for concern not only for the Garda but also for ordinary members of gun clubs who are concerned at what is happening. One need only look at some of the dedicated websites to see that what was a sport is now becoming, in some instances, big business. There is significant anecdotal evidence that certain operations are now taking place which are designed as businesses to teach and train people in the use of firearms, particularly in the context of security and bodyguard operations. The consultative panel is concerned in general about the darker aspects of some of the new avenues that are manifesting themselves in regard to the use of handguns in particular.
I am not naïve enough to imagine, nor did I at any stage suggest, that the substantial restriction on handguns will solve gangland crime or the use of illegal firearms in the State. I stated clearly to the consultative panel that I fully accept that 99.9% of the people represented in gun clubs are legitimate, law-abiding people who regard shooting as a sport and have no desire to operate in an illegal way. I have complimented the gun clubs over the years in the context of the difficulties in which we found ourselves on this island in the past. Even though there was a substantial number of licensed firearms in the State, very few found their way into paramilitary hands. The information I have from my officials, who are better versed than I am from a practical point of view, is that the State has been well served by gun clubs and associations.
Unfortunately, however, there has been a change in circumstances. As I said in replies to parliamentary questions, if we do not impose some types of restrictions, we will find ourselves, some years from now, in a situation where questions will be asked about why the Oireachtas did nothing about this. It is not my intention to scaremonger. However, I have personal experience of cases where, in a domestic setting and very much to the regret of the persons involved, a firearm has been used lethally. There has been good consultation on this issue but we can only go so far in consulting before we must make decisions. I thought about this long and hard and went back to the Cabinet on several occasions with proposals. I received unanimous support from Government that something must be done. If we do not take action now, there will be questions in the future as to why when we were warned we did nothing.
I referred to the duplication of legislative provisions in this area. There is legislation in operation that does not seem to achieve the objectives for which it was devised. The Minister refers to medium-term goals of codification and amalgamation of the various statutes, yet we are dealing here with another miscellaneous provisions Bill which introduces seven or eight measures in different aspects of the criminal law. This seems to be directly against the grain of codification.
The Minister spoke about sections of the 2006 Act which are not operative. That Act introduced a new modern framework for licensing, but its provisions are not in force. Now we are introducing new measures on top of provisions agreed by this House some years ago. How does this represent good practice and good law? In February 2008, the Minister's predecessor signed an order restricting the types of firearms and ammunition that are licensable. Now the Minister is investing further, more expansive powers in himself in this regard. What inadequacy in section 29 of the 2006 Act requires such early amendment? Why does the Minister need new legislative provisions to achieve an objective in the 2006 Act that is unachievable because it is not all operative? There does not appear to be co-ordination in the Department as to how best to deal with an issue that requires attention.
I do not understand the Deputy's point. This is an attempt to put in place a better regime for the licensing of firearms and in general, people have welcomed the provision of a longer licence and a more definite regime. People will know with some certainty that they will hold a licence for three years. As there now are so many weapons, one must have a fairly complex system to include every conceivable weapon that is at issue.
The Minister stated he does not understand the question on the reason he is introducing further legislation and regulation upon existing regulation and legislation. However, if he is unable to convince me as to the reason he is doing this, without being unduly cynical I could suggest that much of this is window dressing and that the Minister believes he needs to react in such a way in order that society believes he is acting tough. This involves the addition of reams of legislation and regulation upon a statutory framework that already exists but which is not working. Legislation has been introduced in 2006, 2007 and 2009 and there will be further legislative proposals next week.
Legislation evolves and does not stand still. Circumstances change and have changed fairly dramatically in this sphere since 2004, particularly in respect of handguns. Last year, Mr. Justice Charleton stated that ordinary people would be very concerned — I think those were his words — about what was happening. I believe the Government has an obligation to take note of this and that is one reason I am introducing this legislation. Moreover, the legislation is being changed to try to make the system more sophisticated to deal with the rapidly increasing types of weapons that are becoming available. For example, two or three years ago, airsoft guns were much less prolific in Ireland than now is the case. Another reason for introducing this legislation is to try to tidy up some of the unfinished business in the 2006 Act. These are the three aspects with which members are dealing in this legislation and I am surprised at the Deputy for criticising me for introducing legislation.
It is not the introduction of legislation but its workability or operation. Sections of the 2006 Act are inoperable and perhaps even unworkable.
It is generally accepted that this constitutes a positive change. A more streamlined, easily understood and uniform system is being introduced. As I noted, people will know that they will hold licences for three years, rather than one year. This also will clean up the position in respect of weapons that have not been used for years. People will give up weapons and many more weapons either will become functional or people will not renew the licences because they may no longer possess the guns. There is much anecdotal evidence that many people still have licences but no longer have the firearms. This legislation will make the system much more sophisticated and streamlined.
As I was in the Dáil Chamber for the Order of Business, this question may already have been answered but how many people have licences? While the number of licences that have been issued is known, how many people hold licences? The Bill digest provided to members by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service gave figures for licences up to 2007. What is the present figure?
Another question pertains to this amendment in particular and to the issuing of guidelines, which is a matter to which I have referred on other occasions. I suggest that rather than guidelines or regulations simply being issued by the Minister, perhaps they should be considered by this committee. This would allow some discussion on the changes that are taking place if the situation is as fluid as the Minister suggests. It would allow some debate in this forum and would enable the interested parties to outline how new guidelines would affect their sport or otherwise and these views then could be taken into consideration. As proposed, the Minister and the Commissioner will issue the guidelines in respect of the practical application and operation of the Bill's provisions. Perhaps members should consider the practicality of such provisions, particularly in this area, to ascertain whether whatever is being issued can be implemented, is required and is not to the detriment of society as whole.
That said, I welcome much of what is contained in the Bill. However, other questions arise. My assistant asked the Minister's advisers about changes that might come under these guidelines. For instance, is it proposed in future to place chips in weapons that are being imported? As dogs can be chipped, why can weapons not be chipped in order that they can be tracked if lost? This measure would then reveal that the vast majority of people who are in gun clubs and have licences are quite careful and that even when weapons are lost, they do not always necessarily end up in the hands of criminals, as the headlines would suggest.
Another point pertains to the issue of forensic testing. Weapons are being imported without being tested. Consequently, even if they are used in criminal circumstances, because no forensic testing has been performed on them before issuance of a licence or during the term of the licence, there is no guarantee that one may ascertain whether this is the case. As far as I can see, there is only anecdotal evidence that weapons lost or stolen are used in crime.
To answer the Deputy's question, it is estimated that 200,000 people have licences, whereas 233,000 licences have been issued. As for the practical aspects of this issue, although a number of gardaí serve on the consultative panel, they form part of the firearms policy unit of the Garda. In effect, they are the people who head up the management of the entire system of licensing and dealing with licensed firearms in general. This is the unit that brought forward the regulations that I understand the Garda Commissioner will issue before the end of July. They must come to me for approval and obviously I also will send them to the Attorney General for advice.
If members wish, the committee might invite the firearms policy unit to appear before it to discuss the practical issues of licensing because that would be of benefit. As for the issue of forensic examination on importation, the barrels of guns can be changed quite easily, having been used in an illegal operation. Consequently, this suggestion might not be practical. Ultimately, however, that is a matter for the Garda Síochána, which has regulations in respect of the surrender of firearms for ballistic testing. The Commissioner may, by notice in writing, require any person lawfully possessing a firearm to produce it at such a time and place as specified in the notice for the purpose of having ballistic or other tests carried out on it. The Garda already has this power if it has a suspicion as opposed to absolute knowledge.
I would hazard a guess that microchipping would cause considerable difficulties, given that approximately 233,000 firearms are already licensed. Requiring these and new firearms to be microchipped would pose a practical problem. However, if there was technology available to make it practical to do so, microchipping could be considered.
The technology is available. Perhaps this possibility could be examined at European level. Ireland is a small country and the number with licences is small. Since European standards have been set for cars, perhaps this issue might be addressed more appropriately at European level. In that way microchipping would be introduced in respect of all new weapons as opposed to weapons currently held, in regard to which the burden would be on the State. For example, the microchipping of all weapons produced in or entering the European Union could be introduced by the end of next year. While people would not be prevented from removing the chips, the measure would allow for some tracking of weapons.
Based on the Minister's comments, will he assure the committee that the Commissioner will control all training exercises to prevent the criminal exploitation of arms training meant for business purposes only? Only accredited organisations such as State bodies, including the police and the military, or voluntary bodies such as the national association for gun clubs and sports groups should have the right to provide training. Will this concern be enshrined in the Bill to minimise the opportunities to exploit others criminally?
We are dealing with sports bodies and practical uses on farms and the like which are well regulated and policed by the gun clubs. Their operations have been excellent for 30 or 40 years. If shooting ranges are being used for business purposes, an authority already deals with private security operations. Such operations must be licensed. Training for criminal purposes is a matter the Garda is on top of and in respect of which there is legislation in place. The Bill is trying to introduce a regulatory system covering the majority of firearm uses, being legitimate sports and practical operations. We are trying to address some anomalies in the way in which licences are given out and provide for more certainty.
I hope the Minister is not denying that, no matter what has gone before, this provision is a significant alteration of the licensing regime for firearms generally and handguns, in particular. We will address the latter in the next section.
Reverting to Deputy Flanagan's questions on measures that, despite having been enacted as recently as 2006, the Minister has stated have never been applied, I am not clear on why new measures are necessary. The Minister's presentation is more temperate and moderate than his comments in the Chamber, where he pushed a number of buttons that made me uneasy about the legislation. No comparison can be drawn between the situation in Ireland and the gun culture in the United States of America. The Minister makes us all nervous when he holds over our heads what happened in Dunblane with all that it implies. He states he has the Cabinet's unanimous support on the basis that everyone had been warned but did nothing about it. At the same time, he accepts that 99.9% of the members of gun clubs are law-abiding citizens engaged in legitimate sports activities. In so far as I can establish, including by way of parliamentary questions, there is no evidence of a leakage of guns from the clubs to the criminal fraternity.
I am not arguing against having a more rigorous licensing regime. A single statute bringing together all of the instruments identified by Mr. Justice Barr, to some of which the Minister has referred, would be tremendous. If I was the country's solicitor trying to follow the law on firearms and found it in the middle of a Bill on the Schengen agreement and so on, it would be fantastic, but that is the way we do it. I can understand why Mr. Justice Charleton said what he said. Apparently, there have been three gun murders in the past 24 hours. Therefore, I can understand why any member of the Bench would make those remarks. However, we must acknowledge the reality, especially in rural Ireland, that 200,000 people are engaging in recreational or sports activities — that is a lot of people — and that they are law-abiding citizens. I am puzzled, therefore, by the severity of the measures being offered. I do not want to sound naïve, but what does the Minister mean by the "dark side" of what is occurring? Is he saying we are training people, a tiny percentage of whom might become trained killers, or is he referring to the proliferation of security industry or special minders who are armed, yet unlicensed to be so?
I shall revert to my point on what I did when I became Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I took the time to read Mr. Justice Charleton's judgment from cover to cover. I also read a similar judgment by Mr. Justice Birmingham. I was extremely frightened by them and subsequently spoke with my officials. I am looking at an article by Des Crofton of the National Association of Regional Game Councils, NARGC, entitled, "The Handgun Controversy". The article says that very soon after the 2004 judgment in the Brophy case, applications started for 9 mm handguns, .38 calibre handguns, .357 Magnum calibre handguns, .40 calibre handguns, .45 calibre handguns, etc. and that they even saw the emergence of cowboy shooting in northern counties, including Donegal, and practical pistol shooting. I cannot tell members directly but I know that from my information in the Department there is serious evidence that some organisations are moving down a road of gun culture in certain areas, which is restricted at this stage. There has been a rapid increase in applications since 2004 for substantial types of firearms. There is disquiet in the legitimate gun fraternity.
I did not introduce this off the top of my head. I discussed it with my officials, the Garda Commissioner and Garda management and I questioned senior gardaí, the people who give out licences, in different areas of the country. I wanted to see if I got a different view from the Garda Commissioner, his top management team and the firearms policy unit. I found that not one of the practitioners of policing in this country said that what I was doing was wrong. They all said this is the right direction to take. I did not discuss this with the chief inspector of the Garda Inspectorate, Kathy O'Toole, but she has stated twice that what I am doing is correct, based on her experience as police chief in Boston.
One of the major problems gardaí have with legal or illegal handguns is the easy concealment. Handguns are not like rifles or shotguns. My suspicions and views were confirmed when gardaí referred to instances where murders and attempted murders were taking place, probably not with licensed handguns, in circumstances where it was difficult for the Garda Síochána to apprehend the perpetrators because the handguns were very easily concealed. Perhaps Deputies are not criticising me for the move but I suggest that Deputies should make inquiries into the darker side, which is significant. The Oireachtas should deal with this as much as it can.
One of the measures in this legislation is to insist that the purchase of firearms is on a face-to-face basis. We are banning purchasing firearms on the Internet, something that has already happened in other countries. I do not know if we want to go down the road of allowing people to buy firearms on the Internet. The consultative panel and the majority of gun associations do not want to go down that road but the Internet is being used to promote the darker side of the use of firearms and the purchase of firearms across borders without any reference to restrictions. What we are doing is correct and proper and any right-minded person would be very worried about the move since 2004, as Mr. Justice Charleton would say.
I visited a gun club before Christmas of last year. I was struck by how highly organised it was, especially from the safety point of view. I saw nothing that would concern me. The basic dilemma of legislation is balancing the common good against individual freedom. I hear what the Minister says about the dark side. There is a case for this committee to be briefed, confidentially or otherwise, in that regard. The business of purchasing guns on the Internet bears no relation to what I saw in the gun club. They do not do that, the club has a licensing system and after that members must get a gun licence. I am concerned because country sports are part of the fabric of the country. It is a proper pursuit and businesses built up around this are legitimate. Criminalising people who are law-abiding citizens is a point that is made.
This approach presents a scenario for optics rather than dealing with the real problems with gun crime. I am quite open to hearing the story of the darker side. As responsible legislators, if there are real problems they must be addressed. We need a balance and what the Minister proposes does not provide a balance between the legitimate pursuits of sporting people in international sports in which Ireland performs well and is respected. I do not see the relationship with the growing, awful situation in our country. The statistics I have been presented with do not make me feel that 233,000 licences contain other than a very minimal danger to the security of the State. When I visited the gun club, people described the way guns are stored to ensure they cannot be stolen by those disposed to evil. We need a meeting of minds. Some 99.9% of people are fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizens. The means by which licences are provided to people are such that health can be examined to discover if there are mental reasons a person should not be granted a licence. I am not convinced this is any more than a measure to give the impression of a problem about which the entire country is concerned. This is overkill of a legitimate sector that could be damaged by the actions of the Minister.
I do not accept it is overkill, nor do I accept it is for optics. Having examined the evidence available to me since I became Minister, if the Oireachtas did not examine this issue and deal with it as a matter of policy, there would be a dramatic increase in the number of licensed handguns here. At no stage did I link it to the illegal activity of criminal gangs or the criminal fraternity; it is a separate issue. As I stated, I do not believe that what we are doing here will have any effect, although a number of licensed handguns have been stolen. The fact that they were stolen is of itself a crime but I cannot say whether any of them was used in illegal activity after having been stolen.
I am not stating that I will use this in any shape or form to deal with criminality. What I am stating is that I believe that if the Irish people were asked whether they wanted a significant rapid increase in the ownership of handguns they would say "No" and I state this on the basis of the information made available to me from the Garda, my officials and inquiries from constituents.
Des Crofton is a major figure and significant player in this area and he wrote an article on it. To be fair, the article refers to the handgun controversy and it is well worth reading. In it he states that it cannot be denied that the return of handguns spawned practices never seen before in this country and that certain of those practices, not all, attracted elements which other conventional target shooting did not. He also states that he knows the vast majority of shooters will know that he is right and will support his assessment as this has already been discussed and agreed by all of the relevant shooting associations.
I am not stating that the associations or the shooting range that Deputy O'Shea visited are doing anything illegal. I acknowledge that 99% of the shooting fraternity are legitimate operators and history shows that they operate a fairly strict regime in conjunction with the Garda, particularly in view of the conflict on our island. However, we are in a new scenario and we should act before it is too late. I am not trying to use any of the awful incidents that took place elsewhere in the world but it is the case that the more weapons there are, the more possibility there is of incidents occurring that would not be as lethal if a gun was not available. I genuinely believe, given what I have been told, that if we did not put a stop to the 1,800 licences for handguns it would exponentially increase as it did since 2004.
The Minister is not preventing proliferation or capping the numbers. Effectively, what he is doing is shutting down a particular type of sport. That will be the effect of the licences withering. It is not a question of merely preventing proliferation. Des Crofton's opinion is interesting and it may even be the correct one; I do not know. However, I know he represents an entirely different sport; it is chalk and cheese. He very assertively argued his own corner as I well recall. The implications of what we are doing here is not only to tighten the regulations and put a stop to proliferation; we are terminating one particular acknowledged sport.
I have listened with some interest to the Minister's reasoning. When he speaks of a US-type gun culture and a Dunblane-type massacre he is exaggerating the situation and scaremongering unless he can convince the House of his concern; he is probably the only person who can do so because as part of his role as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform he has access to security briefings of a type that we and the general public do not. He is in a unique position to convince not only the House but the people. Arising from the briefings to which he has access, he feels that there is a difficulty. However, at the same time he acknowledges that there is no evidence of a licensed firearm or handgun having been involved in a crime of some significance; he cannot produce any evidence to that effect and I repeat my request that he might do so.
If licence holders of legally held handguns or firearms are not involved in criminal activity then they must be stolen or have fallen into the wrong hands. Will the Minister repeat the figures for stolen handguns? A figure of 30 or 31 was mentioned and that figure has been disputed with a suggestion that a mere handful of legally held handguns were stolen in recent times, none of which can be attributed, connected to or associated with criminal activity.
Why the necessity to ban certain firearms having regard to the fact that there are stringent controls? This is not like the United States where people can plead a constitutional right to bear arms. Rural Ireland is not like the rural America of George Bush Republicans with a chicken in every pot and a gun under every pillow. We have no such tendencies in this country and there are strict controls and regulations. Even those engaged in representing those involved in the industry have suggested to the Minister that the controls must be such as to allay any concern. The Minister speaks of information available to him that he is not prepared to share with us and I acknowledge the fact that he is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I defer to him for the time being in that regard.
I have spoken to the Garda Commissioner, his management team and senior people throughout the country.
All the senior people I have consulted separately told me that one of the biggest difficulties they face in fighting serious and fatal crimes is the availability of illegal handguns. The ease with which such weapons can be concealed is a significant challenge. To a certain extent, therefore, it is irrelevant to differentiate between illegal and legal because the more handguns there are in the country, the greater the difficulty for the Garda to police them. An incident occurred a couple of months ago in which gardaí stopped an individual who was riding a bicycle to which a handgun was strapped and who the gardaí believed was about to carry out an execution. The Garda believes the individual concerned was subsequently shot for failing to carry out this execution.
I have previously stated in regard to serious crimes that whatever gardaí ask for, they will receive. When I was appointed Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform I studied several significant reports on various issues, including the Gerard Hogan report on balance in criminal law and recent judgments on handgun possession. I decided that I had to act on the matter and I resent the implication from Deputy O'Shea, whom I regard as a reasonable man, that this is merely optics.
I am not linking my proposal to major incidents in this country but I have figures for Canada, where restrictions on handguns introduced in the aftermath of the Montreal massacre resulted in a 66% decrease in gun deaths over the subsequent 12 years. Every country which introduced restrictions experienced similar results. We should act before anything happens and some members of the gun fraternity agree with me. Des Crofton, who has been closely involved in much litigation against regulation, takes a similar view.
What is the connection?
There is a dark side to this.
What is the connection between access to handguns and easy concealment in the operations of the criminal fraternity and the phenomenon of properly licensed, regulated and supervised sports clubs? The man on the bicycle did not get his weapon from a sports club. Is the Minister saying that if we shut down every sports club in Ireland that the man on the bicycle would not have had a gun? Is it not a question of how these people access guns? Are they not importing illegal weapons with drug shipments? Is it not easy in the underworld to access weapons? Is this not where we should direct our focus? It may be a failure on my part but I do not see how shutting down the legitimate sector will make it any more likely that we get on top of the illegal sector. I cannot see the connection.
I used the example of the criminal on the bicycle to emphasise the difficulties faced by gardaí in regard to concealed weapons, whether legal and stolen or illegal. It is not a question of closing down every gun club in the country. I am not saying this measure will reduce firearm use in organised or ordinary crime but that it will prevent the normalisation of lethal weapons in this country or the rise of a culture in which handguns are the norm. Irish people accept that farmers need rifles and shotguns for normal outdoor use but I do not think they want to see licensed Magnums, Glocks or even AK-47 rifles. These are the types of weapons under discussion. Let us be frank, some people want to own these weapons as collectors' items but others want to fire them. I do not know whether Deputies have visited the ranges where these firearms are used in circumstances resembling detective programmes on the television. I am not sure that the Irish people desire this type of culture. The vast majority of gun clubs do not want such a culture.
We have been dealing with this amendment for about an hour. I acknowledge it is important but we will be debating related matters presently.
I accept what the Chairman has said. I ask the Minister the number of legally held AK-47s in the State. In regard to stolen handguns, he is unfair to dismiss Deputy O'Shea out of hand. I do not suppose the person stopped with a handgun strapped to his bicycle was a member of the National Association of Sporting Rifle and Pistol Clubs. I assume he did not have a licence because he was not a member of an organisation concerned with the regulation of this pursuit. The fact that the Minister is banning handguns will not affect this person's access to imported weapons. The question of stolen handguns is important and I ask for up-to-date figures.
I do not have the figures but somewhere in the region of 30 to 40 handguns have been stolen over the past several years. We had to introduce the Firearms (Restricted Firearms and Ammunition) Order 2008 to define "assault rifles", "bullpup rifles", "centre-fire firearms", "long firearms", "repeating firearms", "rim-fire firearms" and "rim-fire percussion ammunition". We had to bring in regulations because the evidence of gardaí was that people were attempting to bring these in as licensed weapons. Just last week somebody was stopped in a car in Dublin with an Airsoft replica AK47.
Did he not have a badge of the National Association of Sporting Rifle and Pistol Clubs?
I am not saying he did not, but that culture is becoming more prevalent all the time in the legitimate area. People saw an opportunity when the court decision in 2004 changed the landscape to allow people to apply for handguns. Before 2004, a very restrictive regime had been in place for 30 to 40 years. Because of court cases, somebody is now driving a coach and four through that. It behoves us as the Oireachtas to call a halt to that, put restrictions on it and allow it to happen for legitimate sporting needs. We have done that in that there is an exception for Olympic-style firearms.
My point is related to one I made earlier on this. If 30, or however many, handguns are stolen in the last year and used in crimes, gardaí have no mechanism, unless they recover that weapon, to know whether they are or were owned by people who had a licence because there is no forensic testing. If the forensic testing is done beforehand the gardaí would be able to use it as a lead towards their investigations.
Although the Minister is bringing in regulations, some of which are quite good, there is no reason we should not use the opportunity to bring in a regulation which would require forensic testing of all handguns in particular. There is no point in having forensic testing of shotguns because they are not used. This would assist gardaí in the event of a crime committed with the use of a revolver in that they could immediately rule out the ten, 30 or whatever number of revolvers that were stolen and then concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Or else they could rule those guns in and track back to when they were stolen, who was in that vicinity and who could have stolen them.
I am not sure of the practicality of doing forensic testing before the importation of a handgun but we will ask the Garda Commissioner and the firearms policy unit to examine it. It may be a good suggestion.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 27.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 22, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:
"3B.—The Minister shall conduct an annual review of the operation of this Act and lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the number and classes of certificates issued under this Act.".
Arising from the recent discussion it is important to have an annual review, bearing in mind what the Minister said. It is important we monitor the regulation, see what effect any new regulations have, particularly in the link between firearms and crime, and that we revisit the matter annually.
I have no problem with that. I want to examine the text again with the Parliamentary Counsel and will come back on Report Stage. It would be a good idea to have an annual review.
I will withdraw the amendment on the basis of what the Minister said and we can revisit the matter on Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 27 deleted.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."
Section 28(3D)(2) specifies that "any firearm certificate in respect of a short firearm ... granted between 19 November and the date of commencement of this section and in force shall stand revoked." How stand the applications of persons who may have applied for a licence before November 2008 and who meet the new criteria?
Any firearm certificate in respect of a short firearm granted between 19 November 2008 and the date of commencement of this section shall stand revoked. Anyone who applies within the new regime will be subject to it once the Bill is passed.
Will people who have applied for a pistol licence before November 2008 and who meet the new licence criteria be granted their licences?
I can ask the Garda Commissioner what the circumstances are. I do not know how many applications they have on hand.
Will the Minister check it out and let me know?
Yes.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 23, before section 29, to insert the following new section:
29.—Section 4B (inserted by section 34 of the Act of 2006) of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (2)(a) by the substitution for “authorisation” of “certification”.”.
This is a technical correction to section 4B of the principal Act as inserted by section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 which provides for functions for the firearms range inspector. The firearms range inspector has a function in examining applications for the certification rather than the authorisation of ranges. For the benefit of committee members, I will shortly make a statutory instrument governing target shooting clubs and a separate one for ranges. There has been extensive consultation on these two matters with the firearms consultative panel and the wider shooting community, with a dedicated seminar last February on the regulatory approach.
Amendment agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 23, line 31, after "shooting" to insert the following:
"save and except any firearm used for legitimate and controlled sporting purposes as may be specified in Regulations".
This is ground we went over somewhat and I do not wish to be repetitive but I reminded the Minister again of the sporting pursuit and he acknowledged that there would be an exemption for Olympic sport. I think I heard him say "Olympic-style" sports, which is a broadening from just Olympic sports. It is important that if there are international sporting pursuits of an accepted nature, we in Ireland should not be barred from participating because of these new regulations and laws. There is acceptance. I recently had the opportunity to visit a shooting range to determine the type of regulatory framework under which these clubs operate. I had the opportunity to engage in some detail on the manner in which the sport is pursued. Notwithstanding the Minister's comments on a perceived need on his part to ban handguns, I ask him to acknowledge there are certain controls of a significant nature in the regulation and control of the sport, that the guidelines are strict and that there are governing bodies which are responsible and accept the very high duty of care on the part of their membership. I would probably suggest that greater credence be given to bodies like the consultative panel which we discussed earlier.
I would have thought we must try to ensure that if people engage in sporting pursuits, albeit of a minority nature, our restrictions should acknowledge the existence of international competitive sports. There should be a mechanism for genuine sports enthusiasts to have their licences, even if they are granted under the most stringent and strict conditions. I hope the framework will include an acceptance in law for the existence of a licence for accepted sporting purposes or pursuits. What the Minister has said about Olympic sports may be too restrictive and I ask him to accept these comments.
As we are speaking to amendments Nos. 18 and 19, does Deputy Rabbitte wish to contribute?
I do not want to repeat what Deputy Flanagan has said and the arguments advanced earlier. I will move my amendment when invited to do so. With it I want to draw attention to the fact that subsection (1) is effectively a prohibition on practical shooting, effectively outlawing it. My amendment seeks to qualify that activity.
The amendment indicates that subsection (1) does not apply in certain circumstances unless the use of the firearm in question is in accordance with the regulations made by the Minister. With the amendment, subsection (2)(b) continues to state “Regulations under this subsection shall provide for conditions regarding licensing, supervision, safety, security of firearms and such other matters as are in the Minister’s opinion appropriate for the purpose of promoting public safety.”
Without going over any of the arguments we have rehearsed in the past hour and a half, it is unreasonable of the Minister to resist such an amendment because all it seeks to do is give him the power to make regulations and establish a regulatory framework with which he is happy, taking in public safety, monitoring, supervision, control and so on. It would be unreasonable of the Minister not to accept either of the two amendments, as they merely qualify the all-embracing prohibition in subsection (1).
If the Minister and his officials are disquieted by practices that they have picked up — although I am still not clear about them — they should design a regulatory framework short of a total prohibition. That is eminently reasonable and I would like to hear the Minister's comments.
In effect, the amendments are trying to get the Minister to endorse practical shooting. Taking away subsection (2) would have this effect. Practical shooting is combat shooting at the skies and a highly undesirable recent development in Irish shooting sports. The Garda authorities have recommended that practical shooting be prohibited and it is not endorsed by the firearms consultative panel.
This section makes it clear that nobody can apply to have a firearm on the grounds of wanting to engage in this activity with full bore handguns, rifles or shotguns. It is not in the public interest to tolerate the development of a subculture predicated on a shooting activity which by the liberal standards of the US is regarded as an extreme shooting activity. It is recognised internationally that some so-called target shooting sports are a Trojan horse for the efforts of handgun enthusiasts in the firearm industry to give what an observer would call combat shooting the appearance of a mainstream competitive sport.
In Ireland, for example, my Department has monitored with concern the development of the International Practical Shooting Confederation, IPSC, which features competitions in which people shoot their way through multi-stage target courses based on real-life combat scenarios, such as a home invasion or hostage rescue. Any cursory research on the Internet would conclude that these activities are marketed as the extreme end of handgun ownership and something which is an anathema to the tradition of Irish sporting clubs. It is not in the public interest and I ask the committee to look at the matter again.
I want to send a clear message today to those who think they can continue these activities by changing the name of their organisation. There is no equivocation on this point and there is no room for semantics. When my firearms range inspector commences certifying target shooting ranges, this point will be made abundantly clear.
Last December, following a meeting of the established sporting groups, the Irish Practical Shooting Association disbanded, although there were some determined to keep it going and find some sort of loophole which would allow it to continue. This is symptomatic of the perceptions of a few that we have liberalised our firearms laws in recent years. I am talking about any type of shooting apart from conventional bulls eye target shooting.
This activity is one that seeks to glorify and normalise attitudes to high powered handguns and promote their use and ownership. By imposing the 16 joule limit, the muzzle entry of a paintball marker, this section confirms that if a person wishes to engage in any shooting activity involving skirmishing or similar activities, using paintball-type equipment is the only acceptable way. In the UK, this activity is carried out using low powered air pistols and that is the only acceptable model for it to continue in this jurisdiction. Paintball activities are not being regarded as serious target shooting and they are authorised by the local superintendent under section 2(4)(d) of the Firearms Act 1925.
In the Bills digest produced for this Bill, the Oireachtas Library referred to a "combat-kill philosophy" which underpins this activity and the "shoot/no-shoot" decisions, which clearly illustrate the activity's combat origin and ethos. It is the Government's belief that the promotion of undesirable shooting practices over the last number of years, which has created demand for high-powered handguns, assault rifles and other military-type firearms, is not in the public interest and will not continue.
Practical shooting has been the cause of much controversy among the shooting community and it is banned from many ranges by the owners. I met the consultative panel last week and it is clear there are some medium and longer term strategic developmental issues for shooting sports generally in Ireland. I intend to write to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism on a number of points raised, although practical shooting is not one of them. I ask the Deputies to reconsider this and withdraw their amendments.
There was one issue the Minister did not address; namely, the matter of the exempted sporting pursuits that he would consider desirable in view of his earlier comments about Olympic and Olympic-style sports.
As a result of the meeting I had with the consultative panel last week I undertook to speak to the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism about this. I have no problem with legitimate sporting activities, but——
Internationally accepted sports.
We must find out the designation of "internationally recognised".
I thought the Minister would have done that already, because he is enshrining it in legislation.
No. My issue is one of security, not the definition of sports activities. We are putting this in primary legislation, not secondary legislation — I am not giving myself the power to do this behind closed doors. I am putting it here in lights that we want to ban, in effect, practical shooting. We do not want to ban normal paintball operations.
And other types of target practice that would be accepted as international competitive sports.
Static target practices.
How many of those non-static ranges are in the jurisdiction?
There were quite a number of them, but some have closed down.
How many?
There have been 30 or 40 shooting ranges in the country.
I am reliably advised that none of the description given by the Minister are among those visited by colleagues in the House across the parties.
No. The people who make representations to TDs, by and large, are from legitimate shooting ranges.
Is the Minister saying there are 40 locations in the jurisdiction where there are moving target ranges and so on?
How many are there?
I do not have those figures but there have been a number of them, some of which have closed down because of pressure from within sporting organisations themselves. However, there are still a number of them.
Is the Minister saying there is certain activity along the Border that might not be found in Deputy O'Shea's constituency?
No. They have existed in several counties, not necessarily along the Border.
To clarify, the range I visited was not in my constituency but in east Cork, near Fermoy. I stood behind people with handguns as they were engaging in target practice using bullseye-type targets. Is there not a way of outlawing the activities the Minister has described but allowing the present activities to continue in what the Minister has rightly described as law-abiding clubs that are not seeking to move into these areas, which the Minister found to be a dangerous and unacceptable departure?
Ultimately, the issue is for the Garda Commissioner to determine. What we want to do is to ban combat-style shooting practice. There have been incidences of people setting up mock scenes of hostage-taking or house invasions, human-sized targets popping up in forests and so on.
I will read to the Deputies from a letter I received from the office of the former Garda assistant commissioner, now deputy commissioner, Nacie Rice.
Practical pistol and shotgun shooting are new activities which mimic combat or confrontational shooting scenarios. This was developed as a more realistic training method for military and police personnel. The shooting at human-shaped targets would not be considered as legitimate firearms use and possession and the question therefore arises if such practice is considered as a legitimate reason for possessing or using the weapons. There would be concerns that this type of shooting ... could be seen as a way of training in the use of these weapons with a view to criminal actions and as such the banning of this type of shooting would remove the inherent dangers associated with people engaging in this type of shooting. It is agreed that the scenario-based combat simulation situations could easily lead to criminal elements using the type of shooting as a "cover" for the training in the use of these weapons. I recommend that practical shooting, which is clearly compared to combat shooting and not target shooting, should be removed and banned as this type of training in weapons is not legitimate and could be utilised by criminal elements.
Are the practical shooting ranges to which the Minister refers associated with particular companies or organisations or a group of licensed individuals?
There is some evidence that they are mainly commercial operations which were and are being used for training of bodyguards and security services.
Recently there has been much media coverage of supposed Irish mercenaries with a particular company, which I will not name. Is that the type of activity to which the Minister refers? Allegations of brutality and so on have been made about some of these security companies.
I do not want to be specific——
I am not asking the Minister to be specific, I am referring to the type of activity.
——but the Deputy is correct. It is that type of activity.
How stands amendment No. 18?
I will not push it, but I will come back to it on Report Stage. In the meantime I ask the Minister to ensure he is satisfied as to the definition of practical or dynamic shooting. He seems to have acknowledged an exemption for fixed target shooting in the context of competitive sports, but I am concerned at the broad definition of practical or dynamic shooting contained in Section 29, 4C. It is important that there be appropriate allowances in law for accepted international competitive sports involving target shooting. That is what I wish to achieve.
I will give the amendment further consideration but I ask the Minister to accept its bona fides, particularly with regard to international shooting disciplines, competitions and shooting bodies.
While I always accept the Deputy's bona fides, I cannot accept the premise of his amendment, which would, in effect, drive a coach and four through what we are doing here. I cannot give any undertakings about Report Stage. My position is clear: although we will not have an opportunity between now and the passing of this legislation due to time constraints, we will engage with the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism with regard to the definition of legitimate sporting activity. The problem is that one man's sport may be different to another man's sport.
It is not a major undertaking to define——
It is.
——a recognised international competitive sport.
This is an extremely litigious area and we must be precise.
One of my concerns is that the Minister's precision in describing practical and dynamic shooting is broad.
Listening to the Deputy one would think we had not ventilated this issue properly. I am trying to ban combat-style target shooting, but if we were to extend the Deputy's logic, it would be possible for a person to use an AK-47 to shoot at a static target. That is not acceptable.
I asked how many licensed AK-47s there were and the Minister could not tell me. It is not really an issue.
It is because quite a number of the licences granted for so-called handguns are for much more substantial weapons.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
I move amendment No 19:
In page 23, between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:
"(2)(a) Subsection (1) does not apply to the facilitation or engagement in the use of a firearm in accordance with regulations made by the Minister under this subsection.
(b) Regulations under this subsection shall provide for conditions regarding licensing, supervision, safety, security of firearms and such other matters as are in the Minister’s opinion appropriate for the purpose of promoting public safety.”.
I have one question for the Minister. As I understand it, the fear expressed by the deputy commissioner was that persons intent on following a criminal career might receive valuable training at one of these clubs. Why can the Minister not, as my amendment would allow, provide for advance vetting before a person could become a member of such a club or participate in the training we are discussing in respect of static shooting?
The section mirrors more or less what was done in the United Kingdom when it introduced a ban and it has worked well there. Is the Deputy suggesting that we should allow practical shooting but vet the persons who do it?
Yes, that is what I am saying, but we also need to agree on what is encompassed by practical shooting. The Minister's definition seems to rule out static target shooting.
It does not. We are trying to ban the combat-style shooting, namely, non-static shooting.
Deputy O'Shea suggested we might have a meeting of minds on the issue.
It depends on the definition of Olympic-style shooting. I must be precise in this legislation. We will engage with the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism on the activities involved, but I see it as restrictive. There are people in the country who participate in practical shooting and believe it to be a sport. There is also the other scenario where known criminals from this country travel to eastern Europe for practice. It is common in those countries where it is not regulated. There is also the scenario which used to be prevalent here to which Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred. I am not sure if it is the case now, but there is substantial evidence that in Ireland there used to be training of people who were plying their professional trade elsewhere in the world.
How stands the amendment?
I shall withdraw it pending further examination before Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Question proposed: "That section 29 stand part of the Bill."
I noticed a point similar to the one Deputy Flanagan raised earlier. In subsection (3), between paragraphs (a) and (b), should there not be the word “or” instead of “and”?
I am not sure. We can look at it again with the Parliamentary Counsel but the words "shall be liable on summary conviction" do not mean a person will be liable on both counts. It is either-or.
Then it should include the word "or".
We shall see.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 28 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 24, before section 30, to insert the following new section:
30.—The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 9:
9A.—(1) In this section—
"Act of 1997" means the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997;
"Collector General" means the Collector-General appointed under section 851 of the Act of 1997;
"tax clearance certificate" means a certificate under section 1095 (as substituted by section 127(b) of the Finance Act 2002) of the Act of 1997.
(2) The Minister shall refuse to register a person in the register of firearms dealers or renew any such registration in respect of
that person if that person is a person in relation to whom a tax clearance certificate is not in force.
(3) The Minister may nevertheless register a person in the register of firearms dealers or renew any such registration in
respect of that person if—
(a) the person has, at least four months before applying for such registration or renewal, applied for a tax clearance certificate and it has been refused and an appeal against the refusal has been made under section 1094(7) of the Act of 1997 but not determined, and (b) the Minister would, but for subsection (2), have registered that person in the register of firearms dealers or renewed any such registration in respect of the person.
(4) Where an appeal referred to in subsection (3) is made but is not successful, any registration or renewal of registration under that subsection shall expire 7 days after the appeal is determined or, where appropriate, finally determined.
(5) The Collector-General shall notify the Minister of any appeal against a refusal of an application for a tax clearance
certificate and of the determination or, as appropriate, final determination of any such appeal.".".
This amendment redrafts section 30. Section 30 inserts a new section 9A into the principal Act to provide that a firearms dealer must have a tax clearance certificate. The text has been redrafted to simplify the procedure on the advice of the Revenue Commissioners. For example, subsection (4) of section 9A in section 30 of the Bill provides that the Minister shall notify the Collector General of the registration of a person in the register of firearms dealers carried out under subsection (3). Revenue is of the view that this provision is not necessary and would result in needless correspondence. Accordingly, it is deleted in this Committee Stage amendment.
Amendment No. 28 provides for a tax clearance certificate requirement for dealers in realistic imitation firearms. Section 30 provides for a similar requirement for firearms dealers. I shall make a technical amendment to that amendment on Report Stage because I have been advised the text in subsection (3) needs to be changed.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 30 deleted.
SECTION 31.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 25, line 33, to delete "Saorstát Éireann" and substitute "the State".
This is a technical correction that substitutes "the State" for "Saorstát Éireann".
I take the opportunity to flag an amendment I am considering to the section on Report Stage. I wish to dispel any misconception that the provisions of the section are in any way designed to make life hard for the Irish shooting sports enthusiast. Therefore, I am willing to provide for an exemption in section 17 of the Firearms Act, as inserted by section 31 of the Bill, to provide for Irish shooters returning home with their personal firearms. However, regarding the purchase of firearms and ammunition, my intention is to ensure that as far is possible face-to-face transactions are the norm. I want to ensure distance methods of acquisition such as logging onto an Internet site and buying any weapon from an unscrupulous retailer are prohibited. This is mentioned specifically in the amended EU weapons directive. It is acknowledged in many jurisdictions that the anonymity of the Internet facilitates illegal weapons transactions.
Regarding the ability of an Irish citizen to travel abroad to buy a firearm, I must reflect on this because, with over 220 registered firearms dealers in the country, I question whether this is necessary. However, I will consider making an amendment on Report Stage to permit the holder of an Irish firearms certificate to purchase a firearm from a registered dealer within the European Union. Any such transaction would have to be on a face-to-face basis in line with the recently amended weapons directive.
Is this amendment No. 21? It is accepted.
A question came to mind when the Minister raised the exemption for Irish shooters travelling home. What is the situation in respect of international shooters coming to Ireland for an international competition? A licensing regime would be required.
They must have a non-resident licence from the Garda.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 26, line 9, after "expiration" to insert the following:
"giving the reason or reasons for such revocation in writing to the license holder".
Section 31 subsection 17(6) states the reason for refusing an application for a licence under this section or for its renewal shall be communicated in writing to the applicant. This refers to a refusal. It is inconsistent and perhaps unjust that an applicant would appear to be conferred with a fairer or more thorough procedure than the holder of a licence. If a licence is to be varied or revoked the reason for such a variation or revocation should also be communicated in writing to the holder.
I accept the principle of the Deputy's remarks and we will call on the Parliamentary Counsel to revert on the matter.
I withdraw it having regard to the Minister's comments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 31, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 32 and 33 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 26, before section 34, to insert the following new section:
34.—Section 15 of the Act of 2001 is amended by the substitution for subsection (2) of the following subsection:
"(2) A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, is in possession of any article made or adopted for use in the course of or in connection with the commission of an offence referred to in paragraph (a) to (d) of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.”.”.
I note a potential problem. The word "adopted" is in the amendment rather than "adapted". The amendment relates to difficulties in law related to knife crime. Let us consider the case of a domestic knife such as a kitchen knife or a screwdriver which has a role and function as opposed to a samurai sword. There may be a lawful authority or reasonable excuse for a person to have such an article on his person. For example, carrying a meat cleaver by a butcher might be plausible or acceptable. We must deal with the manner in which appliances which, on the face of it, may be used with reason but which have been adapted for other purposes. A flathead screwdriver can be adapted to become a most dangerous weapon and a torch may be adapted for use in connection with the commission of a crime or a theft. It is important the law recognises the manner in which appliances can be adapted and this should be enshrined in the legislation.
I understand that is taken care of in section 44(a), which states, "by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following: "(1A) A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, is in possession of any article made or adapted for use in the course of, or in connection with, the commission of an offence...shall be guilty of an offence".".
I have no wish to delay proceedings but does the Minister accept the point that, for example, the function of a torch is to emit light and the principal purpose of a flathead screwdriver is to screw screws? However, these items can be adapted.
Yes, it is the same thing. The Deputy's amendment is in effect the same as section 44.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 34 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 26, before section 35, to insert the following new section:
35.—(1) The loss or theft of any firearm or ammunition shall be reported by the person to whom the certificate for that firearm or ammunition has been issued on discovering or becoming aware of such loss or theft.
(2) A firearms certificate shall not be issued unless the applicant is made aware of this provision and signs a positive declaration confirming their understanding of this provision and its consequences.
(3) A person who fails or omits to report such a loss or theft under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable:
(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €3,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both.”.
In the context of our earlier discussion and having regard to the importance of a strict regulatory regime for the holding and licensing of firearms and ammunition, I would have thought it desirable to have mandatory reporting of licensed firearms and failure to report would, of itself, become a criminal offence. This should apply especially in the area of stolen shotguns, which I understand to be a problem. The duty of care on the licence holder and the owner would be such as to ensure a safe regime. In the event that a firearm or ammunition is stolen, the licence holder would bear a responsibility to at least report, and failure to report would be subject to criminal sanction.
I have no difficulty with the principle behind the amendment. However, I am unsure if the shooting community would welcome the imposition of five years for failure to report. Let us consider an instance in which a person has lost a shotgun while out on a boat. Let us suppose it fell overboard and perhaps he or she is embarrassed to report the fact and it is at the bottom of a lake.
Will the Minister re-examine the matter?
Yes. We have asked the Garda about the issue and it has some reservations about subsection (2) which refers to signing positive declarations and consequences and so on. The Garda believes this would introduce another paper trail. It would oblige the Garda to ensure each applicant would sign a declaration stating he or she understands or is aware of the new legal requirement. It would be preferable for the commissioner's guidelines to state that it is an offence under the section to fail to report a loss or theft of a firearm. With the deletion of subsection (2) the amendment is something we could consider in consultation with the firearms consultative panel.
I accept the Minister's remarks and I thank him for giving the matter consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 26, before section 35, to insert the following new section:
35.—The Act of 2001 is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 4:
"4A.—(1) A person is guilty of the offence of theft of a firearm or ammunition if he or she dishonestly appropriates a firearm or ammunition, as defined by section 1 of the Principal Act, without the consent of its holder of the certificate and with the intention of depriving its owner of it, or with the intention of using it in the commission of a criminal offence or storing it for use in the commission of a criminal offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years or both.".".
This new section is of similar import to the previous amendment dealing with theft of a firearm.
My people make the point that there is significant legislation dealing with the theft of a firearm already. A person guilty of theft under the Criminal Justice (Thefts and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 is liable to ten years imprisonment. Theft of a firearm may also be subject to penalties under the Firearms Acts. The penalty for unlawful possession without a certificate is up to seven years and for the possession of a firearm under suspicious circumstances the penalty ranges from a minimum of five years to 14 years. A person accused of firearms theft could conceivably be charged with all three offences. We believe the penalties are already adequate. Perhaps the Deputy will bear in mind the existing legislation, that is, the Criminal Justice (Thefts and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. Offenders are already liable to ten years imprisonment. The other Firearms Acts, provide for penalties for unlawful possession without a certificate of up to seven years and for the possession of a firearm under suspicious circumstances of between five and 14 years.
I will not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
SECTION 35.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 31, line 21, after "€3,000" to insert "or up to 12 months imprisonment".
There is only a financial penalty in the current legislation. The crime may be regarded as somewhat more serious and to warrant something more than simply a financial penalty.
We can re-examine the matter but my advice is that a maximum sentence of 12 months for inadvertently failing to surrender a certificate would appear to be somewhat excessive.
In view of the Minister's current position regarding prison places and so on, it is something I might examine in further detail. I will have another look at it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 31, line 28, to delete "shall obstruct or impede" and substitute "obstructs or impedes".
This is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 32, line 40, to delete "exceeding five years or both."." and substitute the following:
"exceeding five years or both.
91.—(1) In this section—
"Act of 1997" means the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997;
"Collector General" means the Collector-General appointed under section 851 of the Act of 1997;
"tax clearance certificate" means a certificate under section 1095 (as substituted by section 127(b) of the Finance Act 2002) of the Act of 1997.
(2) The Minister shall refuse to register a person in the register of dealers in realistic imitation firearms or renew any such registration in respect of that person if that person is a person in relation to whom a tax clearance certificate is not in force.
(3) The Minister may nevertheless register a person in the register of dealers in realistic imitation firearms or renew any such registration in respect of that person if the person has, at least four months before applying for such registration or renewal, applied for a tax clearance certificate and the Minister would, but for subsection (2), have registered that person in the register of dealers in realistic imitation firearms or renewed any such registration in respect of the person.
(4) Where an appeal referred to in subsection (3) is made but is not successful, any registration or renewal of registration under that subsection shall expire 7 days after the appeal is determined or, where appropriate, finally determined.
(5) The Collector-General shall notify the Minister of any appeal against a refusal of an application for a tax clearance certificate and of the determination or, as appropriate, final determination of any such appeal.".".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 35, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 36 to 38, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Question proposed: "That section 39 stand part of the Bill."
This section repeals section 40 of the Act of 2006 on the reloading of ammunition, which we discussed with the former Minister, Michael McDowell. I do not have a major problem with what appears to be the intention of the section, namely, to deal with this at a later stage in an explosives Bill but why repeal it now? Why not repeal it when that legislation is before us? Why not leave the measure in situ unless it is impractical and not operational?
Section 40 of the 2006 Act was never commenced. It will be dealt with in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 36, before section 40, but in Part 5, to insert the following new section:
40.—Rule 59 of the Prison Rules 2007 is hereby abolished and substituted by:
"(1) The Minister may grant remission of the sentence of a prisoner, not exceeding one quarter, where that prisoner has shown good conduct by engaging in authorised structured activity and the Minister is satisfied that, as a result, the prisoner is less likely to re-offend and will be better able to reintegrate into the community.
(2) Subsection (1) shall only apply to a prisoner who has been sentenced to:
(a) a term of imprisonment exceeding six months, or
(b) terms of imprisonment to be served consecutively the aggregate of which exceeds six months.
(3) This Rule shall not apply to a prisoner who is serving a term of imprisonment ordered under section 18 of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1926 (No. 18 of 1926), a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment or to a prisoner committed to prison for contempt of court.
(4) Nothing in this Rule shall result in a reduction in the period of remission of a sentence an individual prisoner has been granted prior to the entry into force of these Rules.".".
As this is a miscellaneous provisions Bill, I would have thought that consideration might be given to a miscellaneous provision that has not been addressed, that is, automatic remission in respect of prison sentences. It is an area that should be addressed, particularly in the context of prisoners and the role of prison in society. I would like to see a regime where remission of a sentence would be earned and that the earning of such remission would be linked to duties and pursuits within the prison, education and training courses, rehabilitation courses and a preparation for integration in society.
We cannot continue to have the revolving door regime where many prisoners who leave prison are back again with a short period. That centres around the treatment of prisoners by the State once they are within the prison system. I believe we have an opportunity to review the matter of remission and to build in to such remission the need for prisoners to be engaged within the prison system and not just be subject to lock and key. We could build in incentives for improved behaviour and engaging in pursuits of a rehabilitative nature. This could apply across the board, particularly to sex offenders taking up appropriate treatment courses which I accept should not be mandatory but should be incentivised, and the greatest incentive of all might be that of remission or commutation of a portion of the sentence.
The use of remission in our prisons has been tried and trusted and has proved to be an important tool in the good management of our prisons. The granting of sentence remission is a feature of many prison systems worldwide. It has been a feature of Ireland's criminal justice system since the foundation of the State.
A sanction of loss of remission may also be imposed on a prisoner but the period forfeited may be restored through subsequent good conduct. Such a system can have the effect of improving behavioural discipline among the prison population. Where a prisoner shows good conduct through his or her engagement in authorised structured activity, thereby earning remission, the prisoner is less likely to reoffend and will be better able to reintegrate into society. Certain categories of prisoners are excluded from the standard remission of sentence under the prison rules, for instance, life prisoners and prisoners on remand.
I cannot accept the amendment but I have asked my officials who are dealing with the preparation for the White Paper on Crime to examine the issue of remission because I accept that the public has some difficulty understanding the concept of remission, yet when I discuss it with the Irish Prison Service and the officials in my Department, it is regarded as a very good tool in ensuring good behaviour in prisons. It has operated reasonably well for people who behave in prison. We need to examine it in the context of the development of our prison system including the issue of rehabilitation and, rather than mandating people to participate in courses, we could at least incentivise them to examine this issue. The White Paper on Crime, the initial mapping out of the way we want to do that, will include examining the issue of remission.
I accept what the Minister has said. I would be pleased if he gave the matter further attention in the context of forthcoming documentation. We can come back to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 40 and 41 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 36, before section 42, to insert the following new section:
42.—Section 4 (as amended by section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1997 and section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 is hereby amended—
(a) by the deletion of subsection (6), and
(b) in subsection (9), by the deletion of “(6) or”.”.
The Attorney General has advised that there is a conflict between section 4(6)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 and the Garda regulations governing the treatment of prisoners in custody. The Attorney General is of the view that the approach adopted in the Act and in the subsequent regulations is inconsistent and in the circumstances, to ensure that a difficulty does not arise in this regard, the conflict between the two should be removed by way of amending legislation. The Garda Síochána has been consulted and it accepts the Attorney General’s view on the matter. The proposed amendment would therefore address the difficulty identified. This measure is connected with amendment No. 33 relating to the Garda custody regulations, which is also proposed in this Bill. The recommended solution to this matter is the deletion of the relevant section of the 1984 Act.
As I mentioned in my Second Stage contribution, I was considering the introduction of a provision whereby staff of the Garda technical bureau would not be required to give oral statements in court in all circumstances regarding matters which arise in court proceedings in respect of their work. This provision is still under consideration. I expect to be in a position to consider it further on Report Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 39, to delete lines 32 to 43 and substitute the following:
"(12) Subject to subsection (13), if an order under subparagraph (i) of subsection (1) or any variation of it under subsection (10) is not complied with, a warrant of committal of the person or any surety for such non-compliance shall be issued by the court and, for the purpose of determining the term of imprisonment to be served by the person or surety, the warrant shall be treated as if it were a warrant for imprisonment for the non-payment of a fine equivalent to the amount estreated under the said subparagraph (i) of subsection (1).
(13) Where the person referred to in subsection (12) is a child within the meaning of section 110 of the Children Act 2001, non-compliance with an order under subparagraph (i) of subsection (1) or with any variation of it under subsection (10) shall be treated as a default in payment of a fine, costs or compensation under the said section 110 and the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly.",".
This amendment substitutes a new subsection (12) for the subsection (12) set out on page 39 of the Bill and adds a further subsection. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the arrangements that apply in the event that a child does not comply with an estreatment order. Subsection (12) in section 43 is a restatement of the existing law regarding the enforcement of estreatment orders. It has recently been interpreted as applying to adults only on two grounds. First, it provides for imprisonment in the event of non-compliance of the estreatment order, and children are not subject to imprisonment; they are subject to detention under the Children Act 2001. Second, the subsection provides that in the event of non-compliance the period of imprisonment is to be calculated on the same basis as that which applies to the non-payment of a fine. Such an approach is out of line with the philosophy of the Children Act, which provides in section 110 that children may not be detained for non-payment of fines. Alternative sanctions apply, including community based sanctions. The aim of my amendment is to differentiate between adults and children. It makes subsection (12) subject to the proposed subsection (13) which provides that, in the case of children, section 110 of the Children Act will apply where a child fails to comply with an estreatment order.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 43, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
On Report Stage a further minor amendment will be proposed. The aim of the amendment will be to ensure that, in the case of a person convicted in the District Court but granted bail, pending the hearing of his or her appeal, who fails to appear before the Circuit Court for the appeal, the Circuit Court may, in addition to affirming the sentence of the District Court, also order estreatment or forfeiture without the necessity of issuing a bench warrant, as currently required. The issuing of a bench warrant serves no practical purpose in this circumstance as the effect of the Circuit Court order affirming the District Court sentence activates the original committal warrant.
Although it does form part of the Minister's statistics for outstanding bench warrants.
It might stop the Deputy using them to hammer me unfairly.
No. I will have to have examine that matter to ascertain what its practical effect will be.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 44 and 45 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 41, after line 7, to insert the following new section:
46.—Section 99 (as amended by section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007) of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 is hereby amended in subsection (9) by the insertion after "convicted of an offence" of ", being an offence committed after the making of the order under subsection (1)".".
Section 99 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 for the first time gives the courts a statutory basis for suspending or partially suspending sentences. The aim of my amendment which proposes the addition of a new section to the Bill is to clarify the operation of one aspect of the statutory framework around the revocation of suspended sentences. My amendment focuses on subsection (9) which deals with the situation where a person who is before a court has been convicted of an offence and is already subject to a suspended sentence imposed by another court for another offence. The subsection requires that the court dealing with the most recent conviction to remand the person to appear before the court that imposed the suspension for the other offence in order that the court can decide whether to revoke the suspension. If the suspension is revoked, the person is returned to the court that has convicted him or her most recently and the court will then impose its sentence and that sentence must be consecutive on the revoked suspended sentence.
At present, the process in subsection (9) is triggered even before the offence for which the person is convicted was committed prior to the imposition of the suspended sentence. In other words, the person has not broken the good behaviour condition of the suspended sentence. While it is the case that section 99(10) only requires a court to revoke all or part of the suspended sentence where it would be unjust to do so and it is almost certain that the court would not revoke the suspended sentence on the basis of a conviction for an offence committed prior to the imposition of the suspended sentence, the triggering of subsection (9) in these circumstances can be said to lead to unnecessary remands which eat into valuable court time and resources. In view of this I propose the insertion of the words "being an offence committed after the making of the order under subsection (1)", that is, the order suspending sentence, after the words "convicted of an offence". The effect of this addition is that the procedure in subsection (9) will only be triggered where a conviction handed down during a live suspended sentence relates to the breach of the good behaviour condition of that suspended sentence.
It can never be found by anybody wishing to determine it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 41, after line 7, to insert the following new section:
47.—Regulation 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 (Treatment of Persons in Custody in Garda Síochána Stations) Regulations 1987 (S.I. No. 119 of 1987) is hereby amended by the deletion of paragraphs (7)(a)(ii), (12)(c) and (12)(d).".".
I have already dealt with this issue. The Attorney General has advised that there is a conflict between section 4(6)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1984 and the Garda regulations. As I said, the Garda has been consulted and it accepts the Attorney General’s view on the deletion.
Amendment agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
I thank the Minister and his officials for attending. I also thank members for their co-operation.