Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

If someone is mentally dodgy and the superintendent must decide whether to make further inquiries as envisaged by my amendment, the superintendent may ask for the person's medical history. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's amendment asks that I positively require the superintendent in every case to start engaging in psychiatric evaluations of the people being dealt with. That would have two effects. First, it casts on the superintendent an onerous test because people can appear to be psychiatrically normal but be harbouring psychiatric symptoms.

Second, it puts the cart before the horse. In any case where there is doubt, the superintendent will have sufficient capacity to get someone in a position to form a judgment on the matter — an expert — to provide a medical history. If the superintendent is not disposed to granting a person a licence or is in doubt and wants a medical report, it is better for the superintendent not to say that someone is deranged or to use lay terms of that type. In principle I do not have a huge problem with Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's amendment because he is merely saying people should be wary of the issue, but that is implicit in the arrangement. I do not think any superintendent would willingly give a certificate to somebody who was, in his or her view, at serious risk of mental instability.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh's amendment No. 103 proposes that the conditions applying to the grant of a firearms certificate apply equally to the grant of a firearms training certificate. That is already the case because of the definition of a firearms certificate: "a firearm certificate granted under this Act and, unless the context otherwise requires, includes a restricted firearm certificate, a firearms training certificate and a firearm certificate granted under the Firearms (Firearm Certificates for Non-Residents) Act 2000". I appreciate Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point but the matter is covered by the amendment.

See this speech in context