Mr. Declan Keogh:

It is worth considering the historical circumstances. As a representative of the shooting bodies between 1995 and 2004, I engaged directly with the Department on all the issues we had. Leading up to the 2004 High Court challenges and the licensing of the first handgun, we experienced no co-operation or no meeting of the waters. There was no engagement to meet us half way. When the High Court ruled on the first pistol and the pistols were licensed as a consequence of that ruling, a raft of legislative changes was proposed. There were 42 amendments to the Firearms Acts.

We worked directly with the principal officer in the Department, Mr. Tom Lynch, on the content and format of the changes to the legislation. While it did not come out perfectly, it was very successful. In the engagement we brought the officials of the Department to Northern Ireland and showed them the range standards that were applied. Prior to the amendments in 2006, there were no range standards in Ireland. One could put a pistol range in a field if one wanted. We found that was a considerable issue affecting the security and future providence of our sport. We brought the departmental officials to Northern Ireland and showed them the clubs and ranges there. At that time, consideration was given to not licensing or perhaps removing some handguns. A decision was made by the legislators at the time that handguns should be licensed in a very controlled manner. We engaged in that legislative process. The outcome was the 42 amendments to the legislation, which brought forward the storage conditions and the question of restricted and non-restricted licences, separating the elements of the decision-making process within An Garda Síochána.

The legislative changes were absolutely in line with public safety guidelines. Everything in them related to public safety, including the storage conditions. The storage facility required in a person's home to hold a firearm is extremely expensive and requires a very arduous process. It is very secure, however. A person with a restricted firearm needs to have a monitored alarm and a gun safe. If he has more than one restricted firearm, he needs to have a GSM backed-up monitored alarm, which is extremely expensive. One has to be a member of an authorised and recognised club. This was a requirement in the legislation if one wanted to own a pistol or restricted firearm.

At the time in question, the amendments brought forward were very onerous but resulted in a range of standards. As I stated in my opening submission, the cost of applying the standard to the clubs was extremely high. The range inspector was appointed. A range inspector has a very good function. He inspects the ranges and then makes a recommendation to the local superintendent on bringing the club and range in question up to a particular standard. The local superintendent then applies conditions for the running of the club. These apply to the membership, range access, etc.

The regulation brought forward in 2004 made the process very functional and safe. I am absolutely at a loss as to why the joint review by An Garda Síochána and the justice officials resulted in such a raft of ridiculous and unnecessary proposals when our sport is so well regulated. There is no evidence that we have any problems.

To return to the main point, engagement with the Department was very effective in 2004. We sat with the person who wrote the legislation and made our comments. Changes were made to the legislation and the final result was very satisfying. We all agreed on it.