Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Criminal Justice Bill 2004
Options
Comments
-
Were people actually expecting lots of amendments to be passed? Did people think most of these amendments were positive?
1. Government parties rarely accept opposition amendments to bills unless they are unavoidable.
2. Most of the amendments weren't all that important (meaningless consultation), some were very negative (higher age limits, reloading security). it does seem like the minister took on board some of the ones that could have been potentially messy beaurocratic screwups.
Like almost all legislation, it's the implementation that will decide things, s I'll hold off till I hear what's restricted, see what conditions are being imposed, and see how people are going with applications of all sorts.0 -
I don't agree civ. The bill as it stands will seriously weigh in behind the Minister in doing pretty much whatever he wants to do and we won't have much of a footing to go to court over it. If he turns around on the first day the law's enacted, and declares that all pistols are restricted and that they can only be licenced by someone with 24 hour security personnel on-site, how do you challange it?0
-
You don't. Were you expecting any different?
Everyone with any knowledge of the DoJ knew they weren't going to let the cuirrent situation continue - where they've pretty much no control over what can and can't be licenced or imported.
For the record, i don't think it'll be as bad as some are making out, though I'm sure I won't like some of what happens. I'm an optimist at heart, and currently there seems to be a fairly good vibe towards responsible firearms ownership.
Edit to add: the only reason the current situation came about is that elderly legislation that hadn't been kept up to date with changing times was found to have been improperly implemented. At least now if something goes against us we can have the (cold) comfort of knowing that it's been done legally instead of policy decisions with no legal basis.0 -
Cold comfort indeed. Pistols returned after thirty years, they hang about long enough for some 300 people to get one and the sport to just start making a start, and then this happens? You might be an optimist civ, I'm not.0
-
Just watched the sound clip on Orichteas report.It was intresting to hear Min Mc Dowell say"I have been under considerable pressure from the shooting community regarding the matter of liscensing of people at 14 years for competition"[my quote] And on his answer to a FG TD on wether a 14 yr old can go out shooting with an 18 year old."We would be living in a fansty land ,if we didnt belive that this didnt happen on farms around Ireland when people go out rabbit shooting or whatever"
So it looks like from all this we were listned to all right and in good Irish fashion it was turned against us to deny us what we wanted.Moral of the story here ,tell noone in power nothing. it will be used against you.0 -
Advertisement
-
This blank space was previously occupied by a rant .
Pointless really..
0 -
-
Here's the bit CG's talking about:Mr. G. Murphy: While I accept the Minister’s statement on shooting competitions and shooting ranges, can he assure me that in these circumstances an 18 year old cannot roam around the country with a 14 year old who has a certificate? Does the Minister think allowing an 18 year old and a 14 year old to walk around the countryside with guns provides adequate protection to the public?
Mr. McDowell: The intention is that a person over the age of 18 and upwards with a firearms certificate will be entitled to supervise a person who has a firearms training certificate.
Mr. G. Murphy: The Minister confirms that an 18 year old and a 14 year old can wander around farmlands with two loaded guns and that is the only restriction or supervision affecting them.
Mr. McDowell: The 14 year old cannot possess a gun; he can only make use of it.
Mr. Howlin: He can possess it but he cannot own it.
Mr. McDowell: No he cannot own it.
Mr. G. Murphy: He could carry it but not possess it.
Mr. McDowell: He could carry it under supervision.
Mr. Howlin: Yes. That is possession.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: He could use it on a shooting range.
Mr. McDowell: Only the 18 year old with him can own a gun. We are beginning to live in a fantasy world if we think that does not happen on farms in rural Ireland when people go rabbit shooting or whatever. It does happen.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Of course it happens, as do a lot of things.
Mr. McDowell: Not to mention what Na Fianna get up to in the woods.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Yes. “If you go down in the woods today[.]”0 -
More bits of note:Mr. Howlin: 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.
Mr. McDowell: The Deputy has proposed four amendments to section 29 which proposes the insertion of a new section 2B in the Firearms Act 1925. The new section 2B provides that the Minister, in the interests of public safety and security, can make an order deeming certain firearms “to be restricted” by reference to specific criteria. Amendments Nos. 88, 90 and 91, in the name of Deputy Howlin, are related. Amendment No. 88 proposes that when the Minister is deciding, in the interests of public safety and security, whether to make an order deeming firearms to be restricted, he should be statutorily required to consult the shooting organisations. In other words, he is suggesting that I should have to consult the gun lobby before I make an order.
Mr. Howlin: Yes.
Mr. McDowell: I am not prepared to put such a requirement in statute form. I keep the door open to the gun lobby, generally speaking, when it wants to make representations to me. The Deputy proposes in amendment No. 90 that when I am making an order restricting certain types of guns, I should be statutorily required to “have regard to the desirability of facilitating persons” who are engaged in shooting. It is natural that any Minister would take account of such issues. Public safety comes first, however. I am not keen on having a judicial review.
Mr. Howlin: The Minister will not be restricted in any way.
Mr. McDowell: No.
Mr. Howlin: The amendment simply states that he “shall have regard to”.
Mr. McDowell: Amendment No. 91 proposes that a grievance mechanism should be put in place for people who are aggrieved by a ministerial order restricting certain firearms on safety and security grounds. This amendment would mean, in effect, that the High Court would have the capacity to reverse the order on the grounds of reasonableness or policy. I do not propose to hand over that function to the Judiciary, which has enough to do.
Mr. Howlin: The Minister might be a member of the Judiciary in the future.
Mr. McDowell: I might be. If I were sitting on the bench, I do not think I would aspire to get involved in this matter.
Mr. Howlin: What about the first part of my proposal? There should at least be a mechanism whereby one can appeal to the Minister.
Mr. McDowell: Every order made can be reviewed immediately. None of these orders is set in stone.
Mr. Howlin: By whom can the orders be reviewed?
Mr. McDowell: If it was made clear to me that I had simply got it wrong, or that I had been overly broad in restricting a category of weapons, I could bring an amending regulation into effect the very next day.
Ms Lynch: The Minister would have to accept that he got it wrong in the first place.
Mr. McDowell: I would have to accept that.
Ms Lynch: That will not happen.
Mr. McDowell: Members tend to face an uphill battle with me in that regard.
Mr. Howlin: We have noticed.0 -
continued...Mr. McDowell: My successors will probably be much more error-prone than I am. There is no problem with the corrective mechanism. If the Minister of the day is convinced that he or she has got something wrong, he or she can reverse that decision and put it right. I respect and have no problem with the shooting, firearms and hunting lobby, which consists of people who engage in competitive shooting and people who engage in hunting. As long as they keep their guns safely, use their guns for the purposes for which we expect them to use them and are careful in the use of their guns, I encourage them to——
Mr. Howlin: Is the Minister’s preference for such people to use their guns against burglars and intruders?
Mr. McDowell: We live in a world in which the Minister must have the right to restrict certain firearms.
Deputy Howlin asked why applications will have to be made centrally to the Garda Commissioner. I have included that provision because I want consistent results across the country. I do not want it to be the case that AK-47s, for example, are on issue in County Tipperary, while another superintendent is taking a different view of the matter in County Louth. There must be a single policy on this issue throughout the country. These matters are of such importance that the policy underlying this section of the Bill is to centralise this issue in a single set of hands so that a consistent policy is applied.
Deputies referred to muzzle velocity. I am sure Deputy Howlin appreciates that the velocity of any projectile leaving a weapon depends on the strength of the cartridge.
Mr. Howlin: I assure the Minister that it is highly unlikely that I appreciate that at all.
Mr. McDowell: It depends on the strength of the cartridge. Some people put more powder into their cartridges to adjust the velocity at which projectiles leave their guns. Even though the strength of the ammunition is, in general terms, one of the factors to be taken into account when determining whether a weapon has a certain muzzle velocity, it is possible to describe a weapon like an automatic rifle as a high-velocity weapon not simply by reference to the ammunition that is used in it but because of its general characteristics. Although I appreciate the point made by lobbyists to Deputy Howlin that in theory it all depends on the strength of the explosive used in the ammunition, that is not the full picture. The nature of the weapon is also a contributory factor. A short barrel of a certain kind will always be a low velocity weapon.
Mr. Howlin: FCA training was not lost on the Minister.
Mr. McDowell: It was not. The difference between a high velocity and low velocity weapon is, in conventional terms, not just defined by reference to the strength of the ammunition used. It is also by reference to other characteristics of the weapon. A Kalashnikov rifle would be described as a high velocity weapon, no matter what bullets were used in it.
Mr. Howlin: I am disappointed with the Minister’s response. He has said he has no difficulty with my proposals but he does not want to put them into law. Apart from the technical amendment, I do not see why it cannot be in the law if it gives an assurance to people. A requirement to a consultation process is not a great burden.
I know Departments do not like legal requirements to consult with other parties. If they had their way, they would not even consult the Oireachtas. Bills would simply be sent to the House for rubber-stamping. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is particularly prone to that foible. I will not put on record my direct experience of an official’s comment on the Opposition and its right to deal with legislation. It was, however, an interesting lesson on the attitude of the Executive and the permanent Civil Service to the Oireachtas. It is incumbent on the Oireachtas where possible to pull back to the broad parameters of its constitutional right to legislate. This is a right the Executive often believes is its rather than that of the Oireachtas.
Amendment No. 88 proposes no more than a consultation process. The consultations, after hearing the case, can be entirely ignored. It does no injury to anyone and would be a positive statement from the Minister. On amendment No. 89, I know little of muzzle energy. I am simply presenting a case made to me and I accept the Minister’s rebuttal, if that is what he has been advised.
Mr. McDowell: The problem with the Labour Party is that it has not had an armed wing for a long time.
Mr. Howlin: That is exactly it.
Mr. McDowell: Notwithstanding the arrival of Democratic Left.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: One must not forget the Labour Party is the oldest political party in the State.
Mr. Howlin: However, it was founded by a revolutionary, James Connolly, who had an armed tradition. The Progressive Democrats Party has no armed tradition of which we know. It tends to keep its pugilism internalised.
Ms Lynch: Temptation.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Until it spills over.
Mr. Howlin: Occasionally, it spills out.
On amendment No. 90, it will not damage the Minister to acknowledge in the law that he should have regard to the desirability of facilitating persons engaged in sporting or other lawful use of firearms. He has agreed with this publicly and, for once, he should kick the traces of his advisers.
I accept the Minister’s point on amendment No. 91 that he does not want himself or his successors to be second-guessed by the High Court. Will he, however, accept the first tranche of the amendment which would formally allow people who feel aggrieved to appeal directly to the Minister? The proposed subsection (2) simply refers to a rejection or acceptance of the case made. Subsection (3), which I will not press, simply allows people to write to the Minister to state a case.
Mr. McDowell: A democratic right exists to communicate with any officer of the State.
Mr. Howlin: One can just state that.
Mr. McDowell: An individual can write to an officer of the State, claiming an unreasonable order has been made. Most Ministers would consider such letters——
Mr. Howlin: Most Ministers would never see them.
Mr. McDowell: ——unless it was manifestly unreasonable. If one feels one’s post to a Minister is being diverted, there are other ways to contact directly him or her. Ministers are extremely accessible and I do not know of any Minister who is beyond communication.
I have only experience of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on a personal level since I became Minister. During my tenure, no other Department has been more open and consultative in its legislative approach. No other Department has published heads of Bills, taken amendments, had lengthy debates and put out draft legislation for consultation. No other Department has sent its papers to the Irish Human Rights Commission.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: That is because it is required to do so by law.
Mr. McDowell: The Irish Human Rights Commission has publicly acknowledged this. The Law Reform Commission was mentioned in this morning’s debate. At the recent launch of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill, the president of the commission was asked by a member of the press whether she felt frustrated that the commission’s reports were not acted upon. She said the Law Reform Commission had a higher success rate in getting its proposals into law than many of its counterparts in other jurisdictions.
Mr. Howlin: That is not saying much.
Mr. McDowell: She also said in recent years the situation had substantially improved.
Mr. Howlin: I am no wiser as to why the first part of amendment No. 91 cannot be accepted. I cannot imagine it could be a difficulty for the Minister. If he claims it is already a democratic right, why will he not formulise it? I am taken aback he will not accept the right of appropriate bodies to advance consultations on regulations that could impact upon them.
Mr. McDowell: This reminds me of when F.E. Smith, later the first Earl of Birkenhead, made a lengthy legal submission to a judge. Half an hour into it, the judge said to Smith that he was still none the wiser for it. Smith replied, “Perhaps not the wiser, My Lord, but certainly much better educated”.
Mr. Howlin: I wonder which one of us is the better educated.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 67.
Amendment declared lost.0 -
Advertisement
-
About the only one we won was 93, and it's interesting also because it points out that the practicalities of implementation and the legal framework aren't something you should interchange willy-nilly. Pity the Minister didn't agree with that logic in other amendmentsMr. Howlin: My amendment No. 93 proposes to replace the words “one month” in subsection (8) of section 30 with “three months”. I have tabled this amendment at the behest of the shooting fraternity whose members point to an anomaly in this regard. I am interested in the Minister’s view on this. A certificate holder cannot currently apply for renewal of his or her firearm certificate until one month before its expiry. However, the Garda then has three months to make a decision on that application. This means one could be stranded for two months without a licence. My amendment is designed to synchronise the timing in this regard to eliminate this unacceptable time lag.
Mr. McDowell: I am informed that while there are delays in regard to the issuing of new firearm certificates - sometimes of as much as three months - renewal is an almost automatic process, similar to getting one’s car taxed. Lengthy delays are not a problem in terms of renewals. Applications for renewal should be submitted at a date proximate to the date on which the new licence commences. We do not want a situation where a certificate holder’s circumstances may have changed significantly before the new licence is issued.
Mr. Howlin: The reality is that there should be synchronisation in this process. If the Minister says licence holders should only have a month to apply so that applications will be proximate to the expiry date, it should also be the case that the Garda has a month to make a decision on those applications. Whatever may be the general case in practice, the law provides that gardaí have three months to make a decision but certificate holders have only month to apply. There could legally be a two-month gap where one is left high and dry without a licence.
Mr. McDowell: I am advised that the three-month period for making a decision applies in regard to new certificates. The renewals process, however, is almost an automatic process.
Mr. Howlin: What is the legal framework?
Mr. McDowell: I do not believe the three-month period applies to renewals.
Mr. Howlin: It does.
Mr. McDowell: Deputy Howlin is correct; it applies to all applications. However, the Deputy’s argument is akin to demanding that Dublin City Council must renew one’s car tax within three months of application. It all happens by an automatic process, more or less by return of post. The particular notional difficulty to which the Deputy refers - that a renewal could take three months - does not happen in practice.
Mr. Howlin: The Minister cannot say that for certain.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: On amendment No. 93, it seems the Minister may be confusing the practicalities with the formal position in law.
Mr. Howlin: Exactly.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The formal position in law, as outlined by Deputy Howlin, confirms that there is a dysfunctionality or disconnection between the application and granting processes. The west Cork approach to something like this would be to suggest we split the difference and allow two months for both renewal application and Garda decision.
Mr. McDowell: This argument is academic but I will accept the amendment to prevent Deputy Howlin from calling another division.
Mr. Howlin: I thank the Minister.
...
Mr. Howlin: I move amendment No. 93:
In page 39, lines 11 and 12, to delete “one month” and substitute “3 months”.
Mr. McDowell: I accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.0 -
Here's the "transparancy can go too far" comment in context:Mr. Howlin: I move amendment No. 94:
In page 40, line 28, after “Minister,” to insert the following:
“and having consulted such organisations as in the Commissioner’s opinion are representative of persons engaged in sporting or other lawful use of firearms,”.
This amendment deals with the same ground we have covered, but in this instance it is an insertion into a different section of the Bill, namely page 40, line 28. It is not an unreasonable requirement that there would be consultation and I hope since the earlier division the Minister has reflected on that and will now consider it desirable.
The same issue is addressed in amendment No. 95, which creates a new subsection (3).
With regard to amendment No. 96, the point was made to me by the shooting fraternity that guidelines should not be secret. In that context, the amendment states that “Guidelines under this section shall be made available by the Commissioner to those likely to be affected thereby”. I presume that is probably intended anyway but I do not see any harm in stating it explicitly as a requirement.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The points made by Deputy Howlin are perfectly valid. Part of the difficulty in discussing guidelines and the shooting fraternity is that we are dealing with a totally different category of people to the shooting fraternity that we are trying to lock up because of their involvement in crimes with firearms. That is one of the difficulties and I argued strongly during earlier debates on this Bill that we should be dealing with the sporting shooting fraternity in a separate category.
Be that as it may, the Minister has insisted on going ahead with this approach so we are dealing with the genuine, law-abiding people who are involved in shooting for sport or for the control of vermin. In that context, the approach of the Legislature should be to ensure that the fullest consultation takes place in a transparent and open manner, in so far as the Garda Commissioner and the Minister are concerned. Provision should be made for consultation with representative organisations. The sporting organisations should be facilitated as far as possible and guidelines should not be hidden. If there are guidelines under which the system operates, they should be made fully available to such organisations. We should not have a Kafkaesque approach whereby organisations find themselves in a situation of being expected to comply with guidelines of which they are not aware.
Mr. McDowell: The Commissioner has agreed to consult the shooting lobby, if I may use that phrase, and does so on a regular basis. It is not as if the——
Mr. Howlin: Perhaps “legitimate shooting lobby” is more appropriate.
Mr. McDowell: It is not as if the Commissioner is hostile to that lobby.
The guidelines are being provided for because effectively the High Court held that each local Superintendent was a corporation sole as regards making his or her mind up as to what policies would apply. Missives from the Phoenix Park and the Commissioner were deemed to be ultra vires and an improper circumscription of the discretion given by the law to local Superintendents.
While some guidelines may be the proper subject of public scrutiny, others may not. Let us suppose, for example, that the Commissioner were, on security grounds, to say that applications from people who live very close to persons who have serious crime propensities should be examined with great caution. He or she may not want to put such information into the public domain for the guidance of those people who are the object of the direction itself. There are some kinds of guidelines that the Commissioner may wish to issue, on security grounds, for particular reasons but it may not be appropriate that——
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Is the Minister saying that a law-abiding citizen could be penalised because he or she lives near a criminal?
Mr. Howlin: That is extraordinary.
Mr. McDowell: I am saying to the Deputy, yes, very definitely——
Mr. Howlin: The law-abiding citizen could be penalised and that fact could be kept a secret.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: That is exactly the type of guideline that the ordinary citizen should be made aware of.
Mr. McDowell: The Deputies are ignoring the fact that the Commissioner may want to issue security-related guidelines but he or she should not have to put them into the public domain just for the curiosity of the Deputies who wish to see how the matter is being dealt with. The Commissioner may want, at a particular time because of a particular perceived threat, to issue a particular guideline and it is not reasonable in those circumstances to say——
Mr. Howlin: That is extraordinary.
Mr. McDowell: It is not extraordinary. It is perfectly reasonable. It will achieve a uniform policy across the country and allow the Commissioner to have an input into the decision making by Superintendents. I do not think that every aspect should be secret. I appreciate that if the Commissioner said something very general like, “be careful about younger applicants”, that would not have any security implications. However, there could well be security-driven guidelines which the Commissioner would not want to put into the public domain.
I agree with the EU Commissioner, Mr. McCreevy, that sometimes transparency is taken too far in this country.0 -
And here's the response to the comment:
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: The Minister is changing his tune a little.
Mr. Howlin: I think the Minister has finally lost it, judging by his last comment. I recall bringing the Electoral Bill through this House, as Minister, in 1997 and the attitude of the then Opposition spokesperson and current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell to that legislation. That is linked to the attitude of the Government, of which he is a member, to the Freedom of Information Act, in the way it has been wound back.
The lawful shooting fraternity sees this section as the Minister overturning the courts, presumably the Dunne v. Donohoe case, in a way that gives him the right, in legislation, to do as he pleases, without oversight or any need to consult those affected. The section will have an enormous impact on the recreational and personal rights of people who have always worked very hard to obey the law and live within it, the compliant taxpayers and good citizens, but will have no impact on those who break the law and abuse firearms for criminal ends who will be untouched by this provision. The legitimate shooting fraternity feels a great sense of grievance at the Minister’s approach and I thought, to ameliorate this, that ensuring the guidelines are published would not be a demanding burden. The Minister thinks it is a bridge too far, since he cannot imagine letting people know what the guidelines being created effect. The Minister’s case struck Deputy Jim O’Keeffe and me as most bizarre. He says that if the Commissioner wished to issue guidelines to restrict or deny a firearms certificate——
Mr. McDowell: I mentioned paying special attention. I did not say anything about denying a certificate.
Mr. Howlin: If the guidelines said that——
Mr. McDowell: I did not.
Mr. Howlin: I thought the Minister did, but let me take it a stage further. Whatever he said and whatever guidelines the Commissioner formulates, they will have some impact on a law-abiding citizen who has done nothing wrong, simply because he lives in the same parish as or near a wrongdoer. Not only is he to be deprived of rights and negatively affected, he is not to know why. If he is denied a firearms certificate because of guidelines of which he is not to know, what is he supposed to believe?
It is very difficult. I had a case in my constituency where an individual was denied a firearms certificate, and no reason was given. If one is a ne’er-do-well, one should be told so and that one is not trusted. However, the notion that any citizen can be deprived of a right and not have that made public is unjust. There must be some mechanism of appeal if one believes oneself to have been wrongly deprived of a right. One can only know that if a reason is given. The notion of transparency must be embedded in every Department, including the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. They must be transparent in explaining such things. I am very disappointed at the Minister’s attitude to these matters.
Mr. McDowell: It has been agreed with the shooting organisations that the general guidelines will be discussed with them and published. I do not accept the proposition that a confidential guideline cannot be issued on occasion, although that may surprise people.
Deputy Howlin referred to my attitude to the Freedom of Information Act 1997, but I remind him that before the introduction of amending legislation by this Government, it was the practice for Opposition spokesmen on finance to be able to go to the Department of Finance and have it cost their policies in confidence. The Information Commissioner of the day decided that the process should be subject to freedom of information accessibility. I always feel that the Opposition never zeroed in on that point in this House. It was a retrograde decision that flew in the face of common sense and had to be subject to statutory amendment.
Mr. Howlin: Very good.
Mr. McDowell: My other point is that the deliberative process before the amendment was being seriously diminished by the requirement that all related documents be available to the public. The Freedom of Information Act 1997 was changed in that respect, since which time the situation has improved. One now hears genuine opinions and both sides of the story.
Mr. Howlin: Only today the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform refused a freedom of information request I had submitted.
Mr. McDowell: That was the decision of an officer of the Department and had nothing to do with me.
Mr. Howlin: I do not suggest it did. I am saying the issue of working behind——
Mr. McDowell: My point is that I do not accept every guideline must be published. However, I believe general ones will be published and that the shooting organisations know that.
Mr. Howlin: They do not require to be published, however.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: My sense of justice has been outraged, in particular by the example the Minister quoted in support of his contention that there should be no consultation or publication of guidelines. It is extraordinary that a citizen of this State should be denied a firearm on the basis of secret guidance of which he is unaware and about which the organisation of which he is a member is not consulted.
Mr. McDowell: I said nothing of the sort. I said it might be possible, for instance, for the Commissioner to have brought to the attention of local superintendents the need to pay special attention to persons who lived in close proximity.
Mr. Howlin: To what end?
Mr. McDowell: So that special attention might be paid to avoid heightened risk. That is all.
Mr. Howlin: I will read the blacks.
Mr. McDowell: I hope that the Deputy does so. The term “special attention” does not mean that a person may have no gun. It simply means one must be careful.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Does that mean it will decrease the prospect of that law-abiding citizen being issued with a licence?
Mr. McDowell: There is no general right to bear arms in this country. We do not live in the United States.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: There is a general right to fair play.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This is Report Stage rather than Committee Stage.
Mr. McDowell: There is a general right to public security.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: Perhaps I might continue with the contribution I was making before the Minister interrupted me several times. The Minister is on the defensive on this issue.
Mr. Howlin: He is wrong.
Mr. McDowell: I am not wrong. The Deputy is winging it.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: He doth protest too much, methinks. He has clearly set out a scenario where he would be quite prepared to support a citizen who genuinely requires, and under normal circumstances would be entitled to, a firearm being denied one.
Mr. McDowell: I did not say that. I said that special attention would have to be paid.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: What is the purpose of paying special attention?
Mr. McDowell: It is because of the heightened risk in certain circumstances.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: What does that mean? Why should the result of the special attention not be to grant the applicant the firearms licence in case he needs it to ward off an attack by the criminal living nearby? The clear implication of the Minister’s example——
Mr. McDowell: We heard the Deputy’s advocacy of lethal violence last night.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: I am sorry.
Mr. Howlin: The Deputy should not be drawn.
Mr. J. O’Keeffe: That was one of the Minister’s many interruptions, and perhaps I had better let it pass.
I honestly believe that it says something about the Minister that he should be prepared to support such a situation. Although superficially not an important issue, for the individual affected it could be very important. That individual would not even be able to find out why he or she was denied a licence. It is not acceptable, and I would like any Commissioner reading this exchange to be clear that this approach - if not advocated by the Minister, at least mentioned by him - does not enjoy the support of the House.
Mr. Howlin: Hear, hear.
...
Amendment put and declared lost.0 -
At least the Clay Pigeon lads got a good mention in the record:Mr. Howlin: I thank the Minister for addressing the amendments. It is very helpful to hear his thought processes before I speak. The first amendment in my name is amendment No. 98 which proposes that the words “or a clay-pigeon shooting club” be inserted after “club”. The Minister said it was not necessary because clay pigeons were shot only by shotguns. My advice is that is not the case. I am advised that clay pigeon shooting is a form of target shooting. There is a specialised weapon, it is an Olympic event and Ireland’s Olympic clay pigeon shooting team holds, among many sporting awards, the world championship title of 2002. It holds several world cup bronze and gold medals, both individual and team, and an eighth place finish at the Olympics in Athens. I am also informed that the Irish Sports Council has this year awarded €150,000 to the Irish Clay Pigeon Shooting Association to further its efforts in the specialised sport of target shooting. In those circumstances they should be allowed to practise their craft.
Sadly the subsequent debate was, well, it'd be funny if it wasn't serious:Mr. Howlin: The Minister did not comment on clay pigeons.
Mr. McDowell: I am genuinely at a loss because it is my understanding - the Deputy said I am wrong - that clay pigeon shooting is done by a shotgun type——
Mr. Howlin: A field day, or something like that, is the norm.
Mr. McDowell: Clay pigeons are not shot at with ball ammunition. I have never heard of a clay pigeon being shot at with a round of ammunition of the conventional type. The obvious problem would be ricochets in that they could go anywhere.
Ms Lynch: It explodes when one hits it. It disintegrates as it is clay.
Mr. McDowell: Not necessarily. If there is a round, as opposed to a shotgun discharge, the round, if it hits an object at an oblique ankle, could go in any direction and hit anybody if one was firing up in the air.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: One could have a shotgun round as well.
Mr. McDowell: I am making the point that shotguns are of a particular kind. I have never heard of clay pigeon shooting with conventional——
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: One can get rounds for shotguns which have a single pellet in them.
Mr. McDowell: So be it, but I have never heard of clay pigeon shooting with anything like a .22 rifle or——
Mr. Howlin: Nobody is suggesting that. There are specialist weapons for use in what is described as an Olympic sport, namely, Olympic clay pigeon shooting.
Mr. McDowell: It is my understanding - I may be wrong - that they do not use one projectile. If Deputy Ó Snodaigh is correct, one could fire that from a shotgun anyway.
Mr. Howlin: I would take Deputy Ó Snodaigh’s advice on these matters.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: There are other provisions in the Bill in regard to making rounds at home and so on.
Mr. McDowell: I am told Deputy Ó Snodaigh will be disappointed to hear there is a question over the legality of using a single projectile as a shotgun.
Mr. Howlin: I move amendment No. 98:
In page 41, line 16, after “club” to insert “or a clay-pigeon shooting club”.
I would like an assurance from the Minister that the request made to me by those who know, and who are the professionals, that the Olympic sport of clay pigeon shooting will not be adversely affected by these provisions.
Mr. McDowell: I do not believe it will be adversely affected by the provision.
Mr. Howlin: If that proves to be wrong, will the Minister address it in the Seanad?
Mr. McDowell: I will eat humble pie in the Seanad.
Mr. Howlin: Very good. I thank the Minister.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.0 -
The competency catch-22 debate was confusing to say the least. Does this look to anyone like anyone made any sense in there?Mr. Howlin: I move amendment No. 104:
In page 44, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
“(15) Regulations under subsection (13) insofar as they determine standards by reference to subsection (14)(vi) shall have due regard to the need for shooting ranges to be used by persons who are in the process of acquiring competency in the use of firearms.”.
The import of my amendment was again suggested by those who know in that they perceive a catch-22 that the Minister can regulate ranges by reference to competency but that they are to be used by persons without competency. My amendment suggests that ”Regulations under subsection (13) insofar as they determine standards by reference to subsection (14)(vi) shall have due regard to the need for shooting ranges to be used by persons who are in the process of acquiring competency in the use of firearms”, so there is not a catch-22 in that one must be competent to use a range even though one must get that competency by using a range. I do not know the import of the Minister’s amendment in this regard.
Mr. McDowell: I am satisfied that the section as drafted effectively provides what Deputy Howlin seeks. Subsection (13) as it stands provides for the Minister to make regulations specifying minimum standards which minimum standards under subsection (14) shall be determined by reference to a number of factors. One of those factors is the level of competence of persons using the range.
Mr. Howlin: That is the point. How does one get competence? To use the range one must have a certain level of competence but to get competence, one must use the range. That is the catch-22.
Mr. McDowell: The design of the range must be decided by reference to the level of competence of persons using it. If people have a very low competence level, it must be designed in a way which is safe for them to use. The Minister can take into account the level of competence of persons using a range as one of the criteria for deciding whether to authorise the use of that range. This is a somewhat circular argument. I do not believe there is much of an issue.
Mr. Howlin: If what the Minister said is what is captured in the Bill, I am happy. As I read it, one has to be competent to shoot in a range but to get competence, one has to shoot in a range.
Mr. McDowell: The minimum standard shall be determined in the case of a shooting range by reference to any or all of the following matters: security, membership, management, design, construction, maintenance, types of firearms and ammunition to be used and the level of competence of persons using the range. The minimum standards are to be determined by reference to a number of matters, including the level of competence of persons using it.
Mr. Howlin: I accept the Minister’s assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.0 -
Christ!!!The ignorant,and unknowing,being led by the blind deaf and dumb.:rolleyes:
Ok,lets see what disasters shall befall us tomrrow.Night all.0 -
The evening's debate isn't up yet, but those are the more interesting snippets there.
So, what next? Well, Seanad on Friday. We could email senators and re-raise some of the more important points, such as:- The need for an appeals mechanism against orders making firearms restricted.
- The need for a formal consultation mechanism over such restriction orders.
- The need for a formal consultation mechanism for drafting of guidelines on the implementation of the firearms act by the Commissioner/Minister.
- The need for these guidelines to be required by law to be published openly.
- The need for clay pigeon shooters to be able to get licences for target shooting with shotguns without having to join a rifle/pistol club (yes, 90% of them do have unlimited licences, but in case noone noticed, that's not what they're using the firearm for, and according to the bill, that's enough to get your firearm confiscated and could also be construed as a criminal offence).
- The need for "target shooting" and "shooting range" to be defined in law since target shooting on an unauthorised shooting range is now a criminal offence.
- The need for "zeroing" to be defined seperately from "target shooting" and for zeroing off a shooting range to be legal for a hunter.
0 -
The Bill as passed by the Dail last night has been put up on the web here. Our stuff starts on page 35.
I was talking to a friend in Labour earlier this morning. He thinks the best chance we'd have of changing anything in the bill now would be to contact the FF TDs in our constituencies and ask them that the bill be changed, pointing out exactly what's wrong with it. He doesn't think we'd get much of a change by lobbying senators, though we'd get our objections on the record. Given the recent FF backbench unrest, we might have an opening.
So here's a map of Ireland by constituency - click on the your constituency to get a list of TD's. Their emails are all of the same format: firstname.lastname@oireachtas.ie
Or you could just go to the Fianna Fail contact page and enter your complaint there. Not sure that that'd have the same effect though it's worth copying your email there by cut'n'paste just so they can't say they didn't get any.
If we can get amendments raised in the Dail without access to the Minister and as private individuals, with only a week or so to work in, then we might well have a chance to change at least some of the stuff in the Bill. It's definitely worth doing, rather than sitting about for the next twenty years and bemoaning how unfair it all is and how it was all screwed up in '06...
Some TD's emails to start on:
Wicklow (East Coast, DRC, BRC, RRPC, Hilltop, etc):
[url=mailto:Dick.Roche@oireachtas.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]Dick Roche[/url]
[url=mailto:Joe.Jacob@oireachtas.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]Joe Jacob[/url]
Meath (WTSC, etc):
[url=mailto:Noel.Dempsey@oireachtas.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]Noel Dempsey[/url]
[url=mailto:Mary.Wallace@oireachtas.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]Mary Wallace[/url]
[url=mailto:Johnny.Brady@oireachtas.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]Johnny Brady[/url]
Kerry South (KTSC, etc):
[url=mailto:John.ODonoghue@oireachtas.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]John ODonoghue[/url]
Cork East (FRC, etc):
[url=mailto:Ned.OKeeffe@oireachtas.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]Ned OKeeffe[/url]
[url=mailto:Michael.Ahern@oireachtas.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]Michael Ahern[/url]0 -
Laois/Offaly (MNSCI)
Brian Cowen (would be the closest to the range, minister for finance, may be hard to get to his attention).
John Moloney (one of the FF backbenchers who made all the noise this week).
Sean Fleming (fairly good at getting things to high level attention, in my experience - also definitely worried about keeping his seat next time round - always makes them keen to listen!).0 -
Whats ol'Mc Dowells email addy??He should be getting a copy as well considering it is his genius that put this together.
Just sent my email outlining the points Sparks made into Peter Power,[Limerick] who had a hand in this as well.0 -
Advertisement
-
Clare gunner wrote:Whats ol'Mc Dowells email addy??He should be getting a copy as well considering it is his genius that put this together.
It's [url=mailto:info@michaelmcdowell.ie?subject=Criminal Justice Bill 2004]info@michaelmcdowell.ie[/url]. Or call Mary McCowan on (01) 498 8084 to arrange a meeting at his constituency office. Though personally, I think it's like the hen trying to get the fox to not bite so hard to be asking him Still though. Worth the cost of the email. 0 -
A thought for the pig iron worths.Would it be more effective if a group of us repersenting the long and the short and the tall of Irish shooters were to make an appointment to meet Min Mc Dowell and appered at his doorstep?Usually political folks find this alot more alarming and are wont to take it abit more seriously than maybe a bunch of emails?0
-
Apart from that having been tried for the past decade, and quite probably leading to the current situation, would you really want to try to "alarm" McDowell?0
-
Well,Sparks,did +60, 50,40 30,20,15,10,5 odd shooters ever show up on a ministers door in the last decade?Or was it discussed by paid PR spin doctors over lunch and drinkies in the Dail pub.Or by heads of shooting organisations who were fobbed off with "looking into it "noises??
It proably wont achive anything agreed, as much as emailing all and sundry,it is easier to delete emails than dismiss people,but it would show McD that not all the sheeple are too happy with his shepearding.Alarm him what more can he do?Better to lose it protesting,than go silently into the night INMHO0 -
*hehehe*was it discussed by paid PR spin doctors over lunch and drinkies in the Dail pub
Er, no. Associations were told several times that that was needed, but the money was never there. (No, I don't know how much got spent on court cases).
I think he knows that. If you can get an appointment, well, I guess it'd be worth a shot - but wandering in with a hurley's not likely to do any good, if you follow me.it would show McD that not all the sheeple are too happy with his shepearding0 -
I think he knows that. If you can get an appointment, well, I guess it'd be worth a shot - but wandering in with a hurley's not likely to do any good, if you follow me.
Nah pick handles and baseball bats are better undivided attention getters or for concealability Mc Dowels favourite.... the fireside poker.:D
But seriously,if there is an intrest in doing this how much time do we have,who will be spokesman,who will come definately??
Cmon folks,it is YOU shooters who are going to be affected by this.Dont think you wont be.Speak and do somthing NOW or forever hold your peace.
Any nominations,voulenteers etc??
Post now...0 -
Here's my problem with this. We tried nominated spokesmen in organisations that had specific rules and look where we are now! Nominate spokesmen without those organisations would be even worse! If you want to go see McDowell, I say do it. But I wouldn't say to try to represent anyone else. At least that way he'd see the grassroots response rather than a single person telling him something without much visibly backing it up.But seriously,if there is an intrest in doing this how much time do we have,who will be spokesman,who will come definately??0 -
Last night's debate transcripts are up here.
About the most pertinent part was the exchange over amendment 122, which said that if the Superintendent/Commissioner didn't get back to you on your renewal or application within 3 months, it was deemed to be refused and you didn't have to be notified:Mr. McDowell:...
Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 are in my name. Section 30 as it stands provides that any person issuing a firearms certificate shall do so within three months. The section, however, does not provide for circumstances where the issuing person is unable or failed to issue the certificate within the prescribed period.
Amendment No. 122 provides that where a certificate does not issue within the prescribed period it will be deemed to have been refused so that the applicant can go to the District Court. If, for example, the superintendent had flu for the last week, the person who applied for the firearms certificate will not find himself or herself in the situation of having nothing against which to appeal. The licence will be deemed to have been refused and he or she will be able to go to the District Court to apply for the licence there.
Amendment No. 123 is a technical amendment.
...
Mr. Howlin: I wish to refer to the Minister’s amendments. I am concerned that the formula would be that if the statutory timeframe set out is not adhered to the licence would be deemed to have been refused. In most other instances, for example, planning permission, with which the Minister is conversant, it is deemed to be granted if it has not been dealt with in the proper statutory period. That is seen to put pressure on the regulatory authority to do the job in the timeframe set out.
There might be unique circumstances in which this might not happen but there should be some other mechanism whereby it goes to another authority. If, due to some unique set of circumstances, the normal statutory provision cannot be complied with, which is not the applicant’s fault, he or she should not have the double burden of trying to reverse a refusal and the expense of going to court to do so. It seems it is not a citizen-friendly way to constitute the law. It might suit those involved in the Administration to say that the citizen will have to carry the burden if the Administration cocks up, but that is not the way normal things work anymore. The Administration is expected to be efficient and to deliver for the citizen. The citizen should not be doubly burdened when the Administration cannot deliver within the timeframe set out by the Oireachtas, for whatever reason.
Mr. G. Murphy: I support Deputy Howlin to a certain extent. We need to consider what will happen in court if the officer who was responsible for issuing the certificate in the first place is not capable of indicating to the court the conclusions he reached on foot of the investigation he pursued up to that point. It seems that it has been decided to deal with the issue rather than to act in a justifiable manner. If the court learns that the certificate was not issued in time, it might consider that the issuing officer did not have time to conduct a proper investigation, or that the officer found something wrong with the application, and therefore decide that the application should be refused.
Mr. McDowell: I take the point the Deputy is making. This State, unlike the US, does not provide a constitutional right to have a firearm.
Mr. Howlin: It is the same as the right to drive a car or build a house.
Mr. McDowell: There is no general right to have a firearm. The State does not have a presumption one way or another - it does not hold that everyone who wants a firearm can have one. The State’s view is that having a firearm is a licensed and certificated activity.
Mr. Howlin: Everyone must be treated equally.
Mr. McDowell: That is the way Ireland works.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: One must have a licence for one’s car or one’s television.
Mr. McDowell: There is no presumption in favour of everybody who wants to have a firearm in their house. That is not the way Ireland has ever worked as an independent State.
Mr. Howlin: Nobody is suggesting that.
Mr. McDowell: We are not going down that road now. That is the first point.
Mr. Howlin: That is a canard.
Mr. McDowell: The second point is that if a superintendent asks for a psychiatric report but does not get co-operation from the psychiatrist - the psychiatrist may be on holiday or there may be no conclusive evidence——
Mr. Howlin: He would refuse it.
Mr. McDowell: Of course the superintendent can refuse to grant a certificate in circumstances of that nature.
Mr. Howlin: Yes.
Mr. McDowell: The superintendent can refuse if he does not have the evidence on the last day.
Mr. Howlin: Correct.
Mr. McDowell: If he does not make a decision because he simply does not want to do so on the basis of nothing, he will be deemed to have refused. The applicant will not be in a worse position in such circumstances. I honestly believe we have to be clear about this. To possess a firearm is a matter of some consequence. To apply to the State for a permit to have a firearm is also a matter of some consequence. It is not the case that one gets the right to have a firearm, by default, whenever the State cannot think of a reason to the contrary or whenever something goes wrong in the system. I make no bones about saying I do not want unsuitable people to get firearms because they were given a permit when something went wrong. It is not the end of the world if people have to go to the District Court. The suggestion that it costs money to go to the District Court is not accurate. If one contacts one’s local District Court clerk, either through their office or their website, one can fill out a form to make one’s appeal oneself. The District Court is not a lawyer-driven court. Anybody who has a statable case, particularly somebody who has simply been let down by the system, should win that case as of right at an early hearing. I do not agree with the proposition that the default mode should be to issue a firearms licence - the default mode should be not to issue a licence.
Mr. Howlin: I did not say that.
Mr. McDowell: I did not say the Deputy said that. I am saying I do not agree with that proposition.
Mr. Howlin: Nobody made such a proposition.0 -
continued...Mr. McDowell: Applying to possess a firearm is not like applying for planning permission, for example. The possession of a firearm is a matter of such consequence that there should not be a presumption in favour of it. I think it should be a neutral proposition, at the best. Those who want to possess firearms should always carry the onus of proof.
Mr. Howlin: The Minister started by half-agreeing with this proposal, but he then argued himself into opposing it. Nobody has suggested there should be a default mechanism whereby firearms licences are issued. I am saying there should be a standard. We should ensure that under the regime we establish - we are putting in place a set of law here - the citizens of Ireland can apply for such licences, regardless of whether it is a right. As long as citizens meet the criteria which are set by the Oireachtas, they have an entitlement. The problem is that everyone should be treated equally. I do not accept the notion, which the Minister seems to think is hunky-dory, that when our system breaks down, citizens should have to carry the burden. I do not think it is right, fair or in tune with modern thinking. It is in tune with the old-fashioned thinking, which I notice again and again in justice legislation, that citizens should have to go the extra mile and push the rock a bit further up, whereas the agencies of the State should not be required to deal with the citizenry properly, fairly, efficiently, effectively and in a 21st century way. That is the issue I am raising.
If the system we put in place fails, for whatever reason, citizens should not be penalised. They should have the right to go to somebody else, or there should be an automatic transfer or some other mechanism. It should not end in refusal. There should be a delay mechanism, or some other authorised officer should be required to make a decision within four weeks. There should be some other mechanism. It should not end in refusal - that carries a stigma because people think they have been refused for a reason. If one has to appeal, one is challenging a process in which one was not given a hearing in the first instance. Any decision to refuse is taken without one’s side of the case having been heard or one’s evidence having been weighed up. It is just a wrong supposition - that is my case in this regard.
Mr. G. Murphy: I would like to add to what Deputy Howlin has said. If the courts system is so simple at District Court level that people can do the work themselves, how is the court expected to have the type of information that the issuing officer, who did not make the decision because he did not have the report from the psychiatrist, did not have in the first place? How does that pan out eventually? If the deciding officer does not have adequate information to make the decision and if the court process is as simple as the Minister claims it is, how can the court be in a position to make the decision?
Mr. Howlin: Some 100 cases have to be dealt with each day.
Mr. McDowell: Very briefly, there is no——
An Ceann Comhairle: Does the House agree to allow the Minister to speak for a third time on these amendments?
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Agreed.
Mr. McDowell: I thought this was my second contribution on these amendments.
Mr. Howlin: No.
Mr. McDowell: I do not know.
Mr. G. Murphy: It is agreed to allow the Minister to speak.
Aengus Ó Snodaigh: This is his fourth time to speak.
An Ceann Comhairle: It is the third time.
Mr. McDowell: Perhaps I am counting wrongly. This is a matter of some consequence.
Mr. Howlin: Yes.
Mr. McDowell: If, for whatever reason, an application is not granted to a superintendent——
Mr. Howlin: By a superintendent.
Mr. McDowell: ——we are faced with two propositions. We could say it is deemed to be granted——
Mr. Howlin: No.
Mr. G. Murphy: No.
Mr. McDowell: ——or we could say it is deemed not to be granted and give the person a right to go to somebody who will deal with the issue.
Mr. Howlin: It should be transferred to another officer for a month.
Mr. McDowell: Yes, but——
Mr. Howlin: It should not be refused.
Mr. McDowell: ——you have not tabled an amendment to that effect. Frankly, that is not——
Mr. Howlin: You tabled your amendment for the first time today.
Mr. McDowell: That is not on offer.
An Ceann Comhairle: I ask Deputy Howlin to allow the Minister to conclude and I ask the Minister to address his remarks through the Chair.
Mr. McDowell: I am proposing a means of dealing with this issue. I am proposing that people who do not meet the deadline should have some clear method of getting a decision in their favour. To provide for another officer really does not answer the question. It may not be the officer’s fault - it may be that the psychiatrist would not produce the report, for example. It may be that the superintendent was operating to a deadline and decided not to make a decision because no evidence was available to him and he was in genuine doubt. In such circumstances, applicants are entitled to go to an impartial person and say they want a decision to be made.
Mr. Howlin: That is an old-fashioned mindset.
Mr. McDowell: The notion that it is based on the point of view of securocrats or people within the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform——
Mr. Howlin: It is.
Mr. McDowell: The possession of firearms is a very serious matter.
Mr. Howlin: The citizen is always wrong.
Mr. McDowell: If a person who got a licence by default killed somebody with a firearm——
Mr. Howlin: Nobody suggested that.
Mr. McDowell: ——Deputy Howlin would be the first to ask——
Mr. Howlin: Nobody suggested that until the Minister mentioned such a case.
Mr. McDowell: ——how the man in question got the licence in the first place.
Mr. Howlin: The Minister is constantly building straw men to knock down.
Mr. McDowell: I move amendment No. 122:
In page 53, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:
”(5) For the purposes of this section-
(a) an issuing person-
(i) who is required under section 3(9), 4A(7) or 10(4F) to decide on an application within a specified period, and
(ii) who does not so decide,
is deemed to have decided to refuse to grant the application,
(b) the applicant is deemed to have received notice of the decision on the expiration of that period, and
(c) as the case may be, section 3(10) does not apply in relation to the application.”.
Amendment put and declared carried.0 -
Advertisement
-
Quick question ..
Anyone know a cheap suppliers for "Pending" trays for applications ..?
They should be big enough to hold about 3 months worth..
(Peachy ain't it .... do nothing lads and they are all automatically refused )
:mad:0
Advertisement