Alex White (Labour)

The arguments of Senators Regan and Mullen are well made, particularly in this regard. Senator Regan touched on it as he finished. I am very taken with what Senator Mullen said and I agree with him wholeheartedly when he criticised the Minister for essentially adopting the position of, "Trust me". The Minister tells us he has taken all the advice, spoken with the Garda and been assured the measure is necessary, been persuaded of a risk to public safety associated with this activity and he proposes to legislate against it. That is what the Minister is saying to the House.

I have no objection to, and would expect, a responsible Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to take advice from the relevant bodies and seek to understand the risk, if there is one. I expect a Minister to break it down and scrutinise those advisors and experts who are advising him or her to come up with the best policy, as the Minister and Government see fit, particularly where there is an apprehension of a risk to public safety. That is an important role of any Minister. What, however, is the role of the Parliament? Is it simply to nod at the Minister or Minister of State and say, "Yes, Sir, we understand you have taken this advice, we accept your bona fides and what you can say, and you can have your legislation exactly as you have proposed it"?

Do we have any role in examining the basis for or argument in favour of the change? If so, Senator Mullen is right that we should be allowed to share in and see the basic information, advice and risk assessment the Minister has seen. Why is that information not shared with us? It is a fundamental question and criticism by Senator Mullen. Senator Regan also makes this point. It is not enough for the Minister to come into the House and assert a risk. He must demonstrate, at least to some level, to parliamentarians and the public that this risk exists.

Other Senators made this point regarding other legislation. It is exactly the same approach that has been taken to other measures, particularly this week and last week. I believe an active decision has been made by the Minister, members of the Government or whoever at that level that either it is not necessary to persuade people in the Parliament, or there is a very peculiar view on what parliamentary scrutiny entails. I do not know about the people in the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party, for whom I have respect, although I am not particularly interested in them in this case and I do not say that in a disrespectful way, because this is the Parliament. Parliamentary scrutiny is not about just nodding and saying, "Yes, Sir, we will do as we are asked".

I am uncomfortable as a citizen, parliamentarian and parent with any proliferation at any level of any kind of guns. I am personally very uncomfortable about that. However, I know that in rural Ireland and in other contexts in this and other countries, guns are manufactured and exist. In some contexts, including military contexts, guns are often a necessary evil. They are manufactured and used in certain contexts, whether military or otherwise and in those contexts they are, perhaps regrettably, required. We want to regulate them and ensure they do not get into the wrong hands. We want to ensure there is no spread of the use or availability of firearms in any context that can be avoided. I agree with the objective 100%.

To return to the sporting activity involved here, which Senator Regan reminds us is recognised in many other countries, surely the burden falls on the Minister who wants to ban this activity not just to assert but to tell us why it would constitute a genuine threat to public safety. I was not in the Chamber when the Minister spoke but I heard some of what he said in my office. I have heard the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Curran, speaking on Second Stage on this issue. There is no justification other than this general sense that it is an undesirable activity. In the Minister's Second Stage speech he said, "In so far as it is akin to police and military tactical training, it is an undesirable activity". There is always this peculiar formulation. That is a slightly dishonest phraseology. Is it akin to police and military tactical training? There is the other phrase, which is a catch-all phrase covering a multitude, which the Minister of State, Deputy Curran, said on Second Stage - I do not know if the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, today repeated it or anything like it - that it was not rooted in any tradition in Ireland. As if not having a tradition of it alone, if true, would be a reason for introducing the very draconian ban that is proposed, which should have no place in our society.

On Second Stage the Minister also made the point that the majority of what are called mainstream shooting organisations have dissociated themselves from this activity. I have not had enough time to establish whether this means that they simply do not engage in it, have no interest in it or in some way have condemned it. I am genuinely asking this question and it is not just rhetorical. Have these organisations urged the Minister to ban this activity and if so on what basis? What is their rationale that this should be done?

As I am sure all of us do, I come from the point of view of not wanting in any sense to be party to any inappropriate proliferation in the use of firearms. However, we are entitled to be treated with the sort of respect with which I am sure the Minister of State would expect to be treated were he over here. That is, the Minister of the day should demonstrate, not just assert, what the risk to public safety entails and why this measure is so necessary to meet that threat.