Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)

Céad fáilte roimh an Aire. Is breá an rud é a fheiceáil sa Teach arís. Tá Sinn Féin ag tacú leis an mBille mar is Bille gearr teicniúil é, ach tá roinnt pointí gur mhaith linn a dhéanamh air.

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill 2010 in order that holders of shotgun licences can continue to use their firearms during the open season. This is a practical, sensible step that maintains the current process of applying for a licence to hold a firearm and continues that process into the future. According to the 2011 Act, the window for applications which took place after 2009 would come to a close at the beginning of August 2012. This legislation removes that window and now those in possession of firearms will simply comply with the general obligations which already existed upon firearms owners in terms of renewing licences, etc. This allows hunters to continue hunting during the open season without having to renew their licences during that period. It is to be noted that proper controls and legislation for firearms are necessary. There are some 233,120 registered firearms in Ireland and this is no small amount. Gun registration is rightly stringent in this State and we support that this continues to be the case.

The difficulties which can be caused by excessive ease of access to firearms are clear from other jurisdictions and can obviously impact upon the incidence of gun crime. We need to be vigilant on this issue and to ensure our gun control legislation remains satisfactorily stringent. However, we believe this legislation is a practical and reasonable step to ensure that those in possession of firearms are not required to renew their licences during the course of the open season and, administratively and practically, we recognise that this is sensible.

The debate has opened up a number of issues and I concur with much of what has been said. I would raise a point that has not been mentioned. This is seen as an administrative solution, an Irish solution to an Irish problem. It raises the question as to why it was not possible for the computerised system in the Department of Justice and Equality to take on board what seems to be a very simple change. That raises another question, which is not directly related to the Minister's brief, namely, the lack of computerisation in our Garda stations. If we cannot introduce a small change to provide for the ticking of a box in a form filing exercise in our Garda stations, and we have not been able to address it since 2009 with the amount of money that went through the system, it raises the questions as to the state the computerisation system in the Department of Justice and Equality. This should have been a relatively minor change that could have been introduced. I appreciate that the Minister is bringing in a solution which is practical and simple but it raises that issue. The Minister, if the information is available to him, might give us the background as to why we cannot make such simple changes, as we are aware of the problems in this area.

My colleague, Senator Reilly, alluded to a scenario this morning where gardaí being called out to an incident had to be collected by the person who made the telephone call about the incident because there was no Garda patrol car available to them. We know there are issues concerning resources in An Garda Síochána. When we are living in a computerised age and need to automate our system, it should have been possible to bring in this change.

I welcome the fact that the wildlife Bill proper is to be introduced in 2014. To pre-empt any potential referendum the Taoiseach might indicate should be held, the Minister might introduce that Bill in the Seanad beforehand because a number of Members elected to this House have an expertise in this area. The Seanad would be a good forum to debate this type of a Bill because the debate on it could be broad-ranging. The Minister might be able to outline the consultation process planned in the run up to the devising of the Bill. There are a huge number of issues relating to wildlife and environmental issues. There are very polarised opinions on areas designated as special areas of conservation, SACs, natural heritage areas, NHA, coursing and wildlife issues. It would be useful to have a broad consultation process on the development of the new wildlife Bill and we would welcome that. As part of that process I hope that will have a debate on SACs, NHAs, and special protections areas, SPAs. That debate was brought to the fore in Connemara during this week because of a planning application for a new road from Galway to Rossaveal. The locals in the area had asked that this road be kept as far away from the settlements as possible in order that there would be as little disruption to people living in the area. The advisers have said that they cannot do that because of the designations of SACs, NHAs and SPAs. I appreciate that is covered by an environmental directive from Europe but people who have researched the issue locally have questioned the way some of that designation was done at the beginning of the 2000s in that some of the visits by Department officials were scant. They did not go into great detail and a good deal of desk research was done. It comes back to the issue of who knows the area better.

The Donegal Island Fishermen's Group made a presentation to a joint committee yesterday and a representative of also mentioned this point and that is not to in any way disparage civil servants and the work they do in their Departments. That representative raised the question of whether the locals who live, fish, hunt or farm in an area know what is best for an area as well as the officials who base their findings on desk research. That type of debate would be welcomed on the wildlife Bill.

I note that members of the Minister's party in Galway recently called for the abolition of the NPWS. I am not sure what the Minister's view is on that on foot of what has happened recently in regard to turf cutting. Members of his party have said that the NPWS should be abolished. I am sure there would be a healthy, robust and entertaining debate in the Seanad on all these issues if we were to debate that Bill. I contend the Seanad might be the best Chamber to introduce such an important Bill.

We support the technical amendment to the legislation but we question why it was not possible to make a minor amendment to a computerisation system in a simple and practical fashion and why that has not happened since 2009.