John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

The Minister has asked me to express his appreciation to Deputies from all sides of the House for their contributions to the debate on this Bill and for the constructive remarks which have been made on some of the proposals contained in this measure. On the comments on the firearms proposals made by Deputies Charles Flanagan and Rabbitte in their capacity as justice spokespersons for their respective parties, we thank them for their broad support for what is being proposed in this Bill. Control of firearms in the population generally cannot be other than a progressive initiative, and that appears to be the view of all sides of the House. Any society which is lax in its control of access to firearms is storing up trouble for itself.

Both Deputies Charles Flanagan and Rabbitte have pointed out that the firearms provisions of this Bill will not alleviate the situation regarding gangland crime. I have never claimed that these measures were intended to target gangland crime. This House will be aware of the many anti-gangland crime measures in place, including Operation Anvil, the focus of which is the disruption of serious, organised criminal activity. A sum of €21 million has been ring-fenced in the Garda budget for 2009 to ensure ongoing operations of Anvil continue to be undertaken by all units and sections of the Garda Síochána. The introduction of the Criminal Justice (Surveillance) Bill in the House very recently is another important initiative in the ongoing fight against crime. However, it is a matter of record that some legally held firearms are stolen. A total of 42 hand guns have been reported stolen since 2004. It stands to reason that they are stolen for a purpose which is likely to involve some form of criminal activity. It would be folly to suppose that the issue of legally held hand guns falling into wrong hands can be ignored.

The Government has also made it clear that its reasons for restricting hand guns are much wider. In particular, we have made it clear that we do not wish a hand gun culture to take hold here. Hand guns are different because they are easy to conceal, can often discharge a large number of bullets rapidly and feature so often in gun rampages. While a number of Deputies received representations from practical shooting enthusiasts, these are the views of the vocal minority and not representative of the views of the firearms consultative panel. Not all forms of target shooting activities are as legitimate and credible as they claim to be. For example, the United States Practical Shooting Association on its website advertises, "If shooting has an "extreme" sport, USPSA-sanctioned practical shooting is it."

The Oireachtas Library and Research Service, in the Bills digest produced for this Bill, referred to the combat-kill philosophy which underpins this activity and the shoot-no shoot decisions which clearly illustrate the combat ethos. Practical shooting is in bad taste. It is inherently an undesirable activity and a million miles removed from traditional target shooting. I remain very concerned at some of the activities and attitudes which have developed very quickly in this country following on from the licensing of handguns in recent years and this is one of them.

With the passage of this Bill, the law will be tighter. The Garda Commissioner will have the additional powers he needs to address matters relating to firearms licensing. It is the Government's belief that the promotion of undesirable shooting practices in recent years, which has created a demand for high powered hand guns, is not in the public interest and we do not want to let it continue.

In regard to Deputy Flanagan's comments on the ban on handgun ownership in the UK and its impact on crime rates, I will make the obvious observation that there has not been a second Dunblane since the ban. Any research on jurisdictions where access to handguns has been tightly controlled will show that such controls were introduced after a gun rampage. We do not want that kind of tragedy to occur here. Indeed, what is disturbing is how short-lived coverage of these gun rampages is now because they are so frequent.

As the Minister said, the firearms proposals in this Bill are primarily about the protection of public safety and the updating of the administrative and licensing arrangements for legally acquired firearms. Considering the serious consequences which could arise from anything less than a highly efficient administrative approach to the control of firearms in society, I do not believe any side of the House could object to the aims at the heart of this Part of the Bill.

I wish to address the query Deputy Flanagan raised in regard to the Minister's statement last November that he would review the licensing process annually. The Minister said at the time he would keep under annual review, in consultation with the Garda Commissioner, the outcome of the licensing procedure. If the outcome of that procedure leaves a situation which still poses an unacceptable risk to the community, he said he would use new powers, which the Bill would contain, to ban outright any type of firearm. The Deputy will be aware that these new powers are contained in section 25 which allows the Minister the power to declare certain firearms and ammunition as prohibited.

The provisions in the Bill concerning the operation of the European arrest warrant are designed to increase the efficiency of that system and to ensure greater co-operation between member states in regard to its operation. Crime, like many other activities in the modern world, increasingly has an international dimension. The House's broad welcome for these provisions is appreciated.

Turning to Part 2 of the Bill which contains amendments to the European Arrest Warrant Act, the following points arose in the debate. First, it should be pointed out that since the coming into operation of the European Arrest Warrant Act in 2004, this jurisdiction has received approximately 600 requests for arrest warrants from other states, 198 of which were received last year. In 2008, we issued 40 European arrest warrants which has resulted in the surrender of 13 individuals so far on foot of those warrants. Deputy Ó Snodaigh indicated his reservations about some of the proposals but if he reads the Minster's opening speech, he will note some of his concerns were addressed.

I will now deal with some of the issues raised by Deputies. Deputy Flanagan referred to Ireland's participation in the Schengen information system, SIS. As the Minister said, the original system is in the process of being upgraded. Work on the upgrade is being led by the EU Commission. It has not progressed as quickly as had been anticipated. I understand a number of technical problems have arisen. A timetable for implementation of the system will be decided at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in early June.

While Ireland's preparations are well in hand, further progress will be very much dependent on the decisions taken at the Justice and Home Affairs Council. The impact of those decisions on the Irish project, including the financial implications, will be assessed following the Council.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh asked why the Bill had not been referred to the Human Rights Commission. He expressed concern about the adequacy of human rights protection. It should be pointed out that there is no requirement to forward all Bills to the commission. In this case, the amendments are, in the main, of a technical or procedural nature and were not considered to warrant referral.

However, I would also draw Deputy Ó Snodaigh's attention to section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, which prohibits surrender where the person's rights under either the Constitution or the Convention on Human Rights would be breached. On any objective assessment, it is difficult to imagine what greater protection of human rights could be given.

The Deputy mentioned section 11 as a result of which the right to withdraw consent to surrender has been removed. There are strict requirements for the giving of consent. The judge of the High Court making the order must be satisfied that the consent is being given voluntarily and that the person fully understands the consequences of consenting and that the person had obtained, or was given the opportunity to obtain, legal advice before deciding to consent.

If the court is satisfied as to the giving of the consent, it must then consider whether the surrender of the person is prohibited under the Act or the framework decision - in other words, the requested person's consent cannot override the provisions of the Act and require the court to order surrender where this would be prohibited by the Act.

The comprehensive nature of the protections for a person consenting to surrender is such that the current provision which allows for withdrawal of consent right up to the steps of the aeroplane is no longer considered appropriate. Operational experience suggests that this particular provision has been availed of on vexatious grounds purely for the purpose of delaying surrender. The deletion of the provision in no way interferes with, or limits, any other legal rights of the person.

A further point raised by the Deputy on this section related to the restriction on the right of appeal. The restriction is similar to that contained in criminal justice legislation and again operational experience suggests the appeal process has been availed of on frivolous and vexatious grounds to delay or frustrate surrender.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh is also concerned with the provisions of section 10, in particular the possibility of a person being remanded in custody for a period of 14 days under the section. The section requires the person arrested to be brought before the court "as soon as maybe" after arrest and the matter is then the subject of judicial oversight. The Deputy will have noted the requirement for the person to be informed of the right to legal representation not only on arrest, but again on appearing before the court. The Deputy will also note that the remand is not automatically in custody but may be in custody or on bail at the court's discretion and, equally, it is not automatically for 14 days but for such period not exceeding 14 days as the court considers appropriate.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh also made some comments on the security of the SIS which exaggerate the actual position. Across all participating states, data security and access control are the highest of priorities. Each state must nominate a national supervisory authority to monitor the lawfulness of the use of, and access to, data held on the national SIS II database. The Deputy's statements in this regard are simply inaccurate.

In regard to Part 2, I intend to bring forward a number of further amendments to the 2003 Act on Committee Stage which will mainly be of a technical nature.

In regard to Deputies Flanagan's and Durkan's comments on the amendments in the Bill to the Bail Acts and in the system of bail as a whole, the question of the duration of any period of bail is always a matter for the courts and, to some extent, is related to the ordering of business in the courts. My Department keeps the law on bail under constant review and will continue to do so.

This Bill represents another legislative building block in the overall aim of improving and modernising our body of criminal legislation in this country. The fight against ever more sophisticated criminal activity is being undertaken on a range of fronts. The updating of our legislation to meet the current needs is but one of the weapons we must employ. It is with this in mind that I propose the measures contained in this Bill. I am grateful for the support it has been given by a significant number of Deputies who have made contributions to the debate.

See this speech in context