Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

The Minister will be much closer to it when I am finished. I do not for a moment suggest an ordinary, decent, licensed gun holder would in any way countenance the incident to which the Minister refers. I record bluntly that I absolutely condemn it.

I suggest strongly that the Minister fails to realise in section 30 that ordinary, decent, licensed gun holders are not the problem. The rise in the incidence of the discharging of firearms revealed by Garda statistics is in no way attributable to licensed gun holders. Such people have a long record of responsibility and they take the storage of their weapons seriously. While I accept the need to set standards for the storage of weapons, we must consider the legislative context. Provisions in this area go back to the 1925 Act, which I agree is in need of major reform. The Minister himself touched on some of these issues in his speech, but there are others, including the storage of tourists' guns. I have seen tourists come to my area with guns in the boots of their cars. While we are providing in a criminal justice Bill for the security of the firearms of decent, law-abiding citizens, we do not seem to have any provision for tourists' guns. This is just one example. There are also the questions of the application procedure and the medical history of an applicant, an issue which arose before the Abbeylara tribunal. I want to see a separate firearms Bill. There is more than adequate reason to provide one to update and reform existing provisions.

There are three principal issues arising from the Bill's content. While I see no great problem with section 4, the provisions of which relate to the preservation of crime scenes, perhaps the Minister will explain why it is necessary. What is it about the proposed approach in section 4 that distinguishes it from existing practice? I have no problem apart from a degree of curiosity about why the matter is being dealt with here.

As I said, section 5 creates issues we must consider carefully. It permits superintendents and higher ranking officers to issue search warrants in circumstances of urgency. The provision raises three issues. The premises to which search warrants apply are mainly houses and businesses. A person's home enjoys special status under the Constitution on the basis that a person's home is considered his or her castle. Article 45 provides that the dwelling of every person is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law. While I appreciate that we are providing for such law, we have traditionally ensured that where a person's home must be invaded and searched, a warrant must be issued by judicial authority.

We must also ask what will constitute circumstances of urgency. It is a crucial question. Historically, judges have shown themselves to be available in emergencies when required. Who will decide when circumstances of urgency may be deemed to have arisen? Will there be an objective view? Nothing is set out in the Bill to prescribe what shall constitute an emergency. Who will come to a judgment on the matter? While he touched on it in his speech, the Minister has not dealt with the Dylan Creaven case and the practical problems which have arisen for gardaí in obtaining warrants due to the restrictive decision of the Supreme Court. If my interpretation is correct, gardaí must approach the District Court judge assigned to the district in which a warrant is being issued. That particular judge may not be available.

I would like to see the matter examined in more detail and the question asked whether we should provide for some form of judicial supervision. Perhaps we could involve the 7,000 peace commissioners throughout the country who have worked over the years without recognition or reward. Could we use modern technology to facilitate judicial intervention? Perhaps a requirement could be introduced whereby a superintendent who feels he has to move quickly or as a matter of urgency at 1 a.m. must send an e-mail or fax to a judge which could be followed up in the morning. I have been told by a Garda superintendent that such circumstances can arise. I want to see avenues explored to establish whether we can retain in some fashion judicial supervision of the issue of warrants.

The extension of the power of gardaí to detain a person without charge must be finely balanced. The period of detention is being increased from 12 to 24 hours. I am aware from my discussions with gardaí that they feel on occasion they do not have enough time to question individuals. While they have a job to do, we must be mindful that we are interfering with the right of the individual to be at liberty and, in a way, with the presumption of innocence. We must be very careful. A balance must be struck to ensure the circumstances in which people are detained without charge remain limited.

The power to obtain by force swabs from parts of the body must also be examined. I was struck by the observations of the Human Rights Commission on the matter. The commission has a job to do and while it leans over backwards to talk about individual rights, it is a necessary body which we are fortunate to have. The commission is in a position to point out that there is another side to the coin and an alternative consideration to the need of those who want to ensure that every possible power is available to track down criminals and bring them to justice.

While, in general, the Human Rights Commission urges us to proceed cautiously with regard to these measures, it also clearly indicates that if such measures are necessary, they should be surrounded by major safeguards. That is the main point I take from the commission's observations. It states that gardaí should not proceed with non-intimate bodily samples taken by force unless they can justify it and that it must relate to the seriousness of the circumstances and the degree of the suspect's alleged participation, as well as the age, physical and mental health and background of the person involved. There could be a difference if one was talking about a grandmother as opposed to a young man in his twenties. Taking these two extreme cases into account, different views might arise about the appropriateness of the measures proposed.

The Human Rights Commission also suggests safeguards in terms of how such samples should be taken. It raises the question of reasonable privacy and who should and should not be present. This could particularly apply with regard to a child or young person who could be accompanied by a guardian or parent. It also mentions the number of gardaí who should be present and whether it might be useful to record the process on video. It raises the issue of having an interpreter present when dealing with somebody not fully conversant or able to deal with matters as Béarla nó as Gaeilge. We can tease out these issues, but it is no harm to put down markers for matters about which we need to be careful.

Returning to the issue of firearms legislation, I will press the Minister with regard to licensed gun-holders here, of which there are approximately 200,000. These generally come from a section of the population who would probably have been referred to as yeoman stock or tenant farmers in old British times. They have a very good record with regard to crime. There are issues in terms of facilities and training and how best to train members of the family. It has been suggested that there should be provision for training facilities so that they would be able to handle their guns properly.

If there is a refusal to grant a licence, should the person know the grounds for the refusal? There are problems relating to this, because sometimes the refusal could be based on soft intelligence. It might not be in the best interests of security to make such a disclosure. Not everybody applying for such a licence would fit into the category I described.

Should there be a time limit during which the application is considered? Should medical history be a factor? There is also a question regarding proper facilities for storage of guns. There are problems in section 30, which is a bit ambiguous. It refers to "secure accommodation". Are we speaking of a secure house or a secure, properly installed gun safe within the house? The phraseology of section 30 is itself ambiguous.

Tourists are not required to safely store their guns. Regarding the question of an appeal, it seems wrong in this day and age that there is no right of appeal if somebody is refused a gun licence. There is a certain inconsistency in the present administration of the system. That is understandable because every superintendent currently operates in isolation.

This all leads to my main point regarding the firearms issue and section 30. We should have separate legislation covering the issue in the Bill and all these other issues, some of which were touched on by the Minister in his speech. He should take the issue off the table in his closing speech. On behalf of the Opposition, I spoke to many of these people and am quite prepared to put forward views as to how we should have a modern, reformed up to date firearms Bill to cover these and other related issues.

There were bullet points in the Minister's speech relating to his innermost thoughts about what should be added to the Bill. There was a greater number of these than bullet points relating to what is in the Bill. I can only touch on them very briefly, because it is pretty outrageous that we are here in the national Parliament debating a Criminal Justice Bill relating to quite serious issues that may or may not be in the Bill by the time it leaves the House and all we have is a one-liner which constitutes the Minister's thoughts on a particular issue.

The first point refers to the Minister considering a provision to deal with participation in organised criminal gangs. At face value, this is something we should consider. We considered it in the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights, and it gave rise to much debate. I am not sure what is in the Minister's mind. I am trying to read between the words and thoughts, not the lines. Is he suggesting we should criminalise membership of a criminal gang? The committee considered that issue for quite a long time. It looked at the situation in Canada where there are precedents for such legislation. We also received submissions from various bodies, including the Bar Council, which pointed to a variety of difficulties associated with the matter. The Director of Public Prosecutions set out the technical difficulties with regard to any such offence.

Lo and behold, rereading the report I find that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, drew the committee's attention to the difficulties presented by any attempt to outlaw membership a criminal gang. If the Minister has a formula to deal with the issue, despite his reservations at that time, Parliament is entitled to see it in order to debate the matter. I leave the door open. I see a huge problem, in practical terms, of proving what is a gang. It might be a group of people with no formalised rules and with no continuing existence, even if one considers the current Provisional IRA which has been around for a while, since 1969. There are things one can point to with——

See this speech in context