Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I move amendment No. 88:

In page 37, line 30, after "security," to insert the following:

"and having consulted such organisations as in the Minister's opinion are representative of persons engaged in sporting or other lawful use of firearms,".

I am afraid to separate these amendments because I might lose something in the interim. This amendment relates to section 29 of the Bill which is a new section in the principal Act to allow the Minister make regulations. The first amendment is based on advice. I have received many requests from the shooting fraternity that the Minister listen to their legitimate concerns. There is an inherent resistance to consult anybody in respect of secondary legislation but that is all that is being requested. It is neither a veto nor a privileged position but only a consultation with these experts.

With all due respect to the Minister and his officials, it is best to deal with the technical world of competition, such as Olympic shooting and so on, by being open to consultation with those directly involved. It will not be an onerous burden. There is no obligation to have regard to the representations, merely to consult. That would address many of the fears of the organisations which feel that these sections focus on the criminal justice system but do not take account of the lawful and peaceful use of firearms by those engaged in sporting activities. There is a happy medium in these matters.

Amendment No. 89 proposes replacing the term "the muzzle energy" with "the muzzle energy of ammunition likely to be used by the firearm,". It is a technical observation. I am told that the ammunition has the muzzle energy, not the firearm. That would be a more correct way to put it.

Amendment No. 90 proposes a new subsection to the effect that "In making an order under subsection (1) the Minister shall have regard to the desirability of facilitating persons engaged in sporting or other lawful use of firearms." This is straightforward, and requests only that the Minister "have regard to", saying positively that it is desirable to facilitate. The requirement to do this can be reduced to two levels but the amendment states that it is desirable to facilitate persons engaged in sporting or other lawful use of firearms. That would not damage the Minister's intention in this legislation.

No doubt the Minister will be advised to hold on to all power, make no statutory requirement to consult anybody, and not weaken his power to legislate directly. All legislation comes from these Houses and I am conscious of the large volume of law made by secondary legislation, or statutory instrument. There is a growing practice of putting enabling legislation through these Houses so that a substantial amount of legislation which has a serious impact on people's rights and liberties goes through secondary legislation without proper scrutiny. In so far as possible, we should be open to facilitating the needs of law-abiding citizens and that is the intention of this group of amendments, especially amendment No. 90.

Amendment No. 91 proposes to provide for the right of appeal against an unjust ban. The Minister may point out that if people do not like secondary legislation, it is legislation and they can trot off to the court, but one cannot trot off to the court to strike down a law unless it is unconstitutional. The import of amendment No. 91 is to provide for an appeals mechanism in cases of bans which are imposed in an unjust fashion. The appeal will be made in the first instance to the Minister, who will have to listen to the case. If he is satisfied that no injustice took place he can simply make a determination to that effect. It is fair and reasonable that such an appeals mechanism should be put in place.

As I have said, there is a great deal of concern about this aspect of the Bill. Many of these issues have not been well-disseminated within the shooting fraternity. Will the Minister clarify section 29 which gives him the power to make regulations? I have been asked to ask the Minister specifically to confirm that it is not his intention to designate Olympic target shooting pistols as firearms which will be restricted or banned. I would like some clarification in that regard. I hope the Minister does not intend to restrict or prohibit the ownership of Olympic target shooting pistols which, by their nature, cannot be seen as offensive weapons.

I have also been asked to raise some of the anomalies in this legislation, but it is quite difficult to do so during a Report Stage debate. Section 30 of this Bill, which will amend section 3 of the Firearms Act 1925, outlines how a firearms certificate should be granted. These new provisions are good, by and large, although I have a query about section 30(2), which states that an "application for a restricted firearm certificate shall be made to the Commissioner." I wonder why such applications will not be made at local level, given that the general trend is for licences to be granted locally by local Garda officers who know the individuals concerned. I know it is a moot point. The Minister might say that although the applications are centralised, the recommendations on decisions will be localised.

I have spoken about the four amendments in my name. By and large, they seek to address and allay the concerns expressed to me by members of the shooting fraternity, who use firearms in a lawful and proper manner, obviously. They are concerned that they should not be restricted in enjoying their proper entitlement to use firearms for sporting purposes etc. I hope the specific concerns outlined in these four amendments will be addressed by the Minister.

See this speech in context