Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)

All this week we have seen from the Government what Mrs. Thatcher described as "treachery with a smile on its face". This treachery has not been directed at the Opposition but has taken place between the various factions, federations and pretenders, seen and unseen, within the Government ranks. We have seen the Fianna Fáil backbenchers, the not-so-sweet 16, who had their sudden conversion not on the road to Damascus but on the road to democratic devastation. It goes to show that it is ultimately the simple issues that matter. There is nothing quite like a doorstep and a ballot box to induce an outbreak of panic, or perhaps I should say "resolve", in the various ranks of what has become a compromised, fractured and fractious coalition.

These are interesting times in Irish politics. Three weeks ago, the alarm bells rang to signal a Government in crisis. We know now that this could well be a terminal crisis and we know the reasons for it. The only good in any of this savage, ridiculous and embarrassing saga is that the Government parties were forced to come clean. The various factions that have surfaced to date were forced to expose their true colours. Crucially, the people got a chance to see for themselves what is really going on at the heart of the Government.

The Opposition could simply sit back and enjoy this crisis but we do not intend to do so. This is a time for reflection on our future direction and on the need for leadership. There has been no Government action in this regard for some time and the fissures are growing and festering.

That is why Fine Gael and the Labour Party set a precedent by writing to the Director of Public Prosecutions seeking information that the Government, on seven successive occasions, did not provide, in the interests of the public regarding persons who may have been charged under two, now redundant, sections of the 1935 Act and who are still in the system. We are not sure what will happen to those people.

The Government amendment states that Dáil Éireann declines to give the Bill a Second Reading in order that consideration may be given to the issues raised in this Bill and in another Private Members' Bill recently introduced in the Seanad. The story around the House is that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform wrote the Bill that is in the Seanad in the name of Senator Morrissey. It is further alleged that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform offered assistance to Senator Morrissey in the drafting of his Bill. If that is the case, it is very different from the treatment meted out to my party which produced a Private Members' Bill and, out of courtesy, sent it to the Department for its information, only for it to be leaked to the press.

The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste confirmed today that the Bill before the Seanad in the name of a Member is not a Government Bill, nor a Progressive Democrats Bill, but a Bill in the name of Progressive Democrat Senators, allegedly written by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I would have thought that if the Government was serious about the issues raised in the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform-Senator Morrissey Bill, it would accept the Bill before the House this evening and allow it to be debated in Committee. It could then deal with the content of the Government amendment and allow time for examination, reflection and debate on the matters therein. The Government should accept the Bill, send it to Committee for consideration and discuss the issues raised therein and in the Senator Morrissey/Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Bill.

It is time for politics and the law to come out of denial and see what the public sees, namely, the enormous gap between what people expect from the law of the country and what they get in its place. Such people are the silent majority who work hard and play by the rules. They are the very people who are fed up with a legal system that seems to obsess over the rights of the accused, the tiny minority, at the expense of the rights of the rest of the people, the law-abiding majority.

If this country is to have a mature debate on the nature of liberty and what it means in our lives, we must ensure that we balance rights with responsibilities — the right of the individual to a fair trial and the inalienable right to be held innocent until proven guilty, while not forgetting the responsibilities of the State to the rest of society. Justice cannot be for one side alone. It must be done, and seen to be done, for both sides. That is not as much about granting the rights of the majority as about publicly recognising those rights and making sure they are protected in the working and application of the law.

An old saying holds that the foundation of law is good faith. If we are honest we will admit that considerable work will have to be done to restore public confidence and faith in our criminal justice system. It is the spirit and not just the form of the law that keeps justice alive. In too many cases, the people see justice and the law as two distinctly different entities. Home defence is a clear case, from the people's perspective, where justice and the law could be a lot closer.

In addressing home defence through the Bill introduced by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, we are focusing on an issue that could potentially face many house owners and parents, namely their right to protect and defend themselves, their families and homes in a reasonable manner against an intruder. For Fine Gael, "reasonable" must include the removal of the issue of retreat. Retreating in one's own home is not a reasonable option.

Imagine if one has heard a burglar. One might be willing to retreat but a myriad of what-if scenarios present themselves, those of elderly relatives, school children coming home during the day, teenagers returning home late after a night out, small children waking from a nightmare, babies waking to be fed. What happens then, in the thousands of houses that empty out at 6.30 a.m. and remain empty all day, which have become a burglar's paradise? Does one expose one's wife, son or toddler to the danger posed by a stranger in one's home? Does one deny them the right to protection in order to guarantee the rights of a person who has already broken the law by breaking into one's home in the first place?

This is not a question of doing what is acceptable but of doing what is right. It is utterly ridiculous and ludicrous that, as it stands, if a person does not retreat but defends his or her home and family against an intruder, that intruder might sue that person. A burglar breaks into a person's home, he or she defends him or herself, his or her children and property and the burglar could take that person to court. Where is the balance of justice in that? According to the Constitution, a person's home is inviolable and where a person acts reasonably in its defence, the balance of the law should be re-struck in the home owner's favour and against the intruder.

We want to create a presumption that the force used in defending one's home is reasonable and that proving otherwise should fall to the prosecution. I know many people who, on finding an intruder in their house in the middle of the night, would not go down to the kitchen and say, "Carry on, take the television, the CD player and the keys of the cars." Most people would react very differently when in their own home. That is why the balance should be re-tilted to express the priority of the law-abiding citizen as against somebody who has already broken the law by breaking into a person's house.

Some people may claim this Bill is a charter arising from the recent case in my county involving Mr. Pádraig Nally but it has nothing to do with that. This Bill only applies in the case of an intruder breaking into the home.

I do not know if the Minister has ever been attacked. I was mugged once by two people, high on drugs, with a knife, which was a pretty daunting prospect. Until the day I die, I will remember the rasping sound of a knife being pulled from a leather scabbard and the impression that leaves on one's mind. For me, it was not a case of fear but of being prepared to fight for my life, literally. One can imagine the hundreds of thousands of people who have been absolutely terrified, given that there are 500 burglaries per week, happening at all times of the day and night. Public representatives from both sides of the House have heard stories of women waking up to find an intruder in their bedroom, knife in hand. What are people to do? Most would probably retreat, hide and hope the intruder goes away. Others who want to defend their castle, wife, property and children might take a very different view.

My party's approach to home defence is part of a broader rebalancing of the law which we would like to see applied throughout the criminal justice system involving sentencing and bail. Too often, people see the criminal justice system as a kind of no-man's land, with no obvious correlation between the crime and the sentence. It often appears that criminals are simply getting away with it. When it comes to sentencing, the people should have a voice. Every time a guilty verdict is handed down in a serious case, the prosecution should be able to propose, in open court, a sentence that reflects the people's view.

I would like the Oireachtas, whose Members are elected by people of all shades of opinion, to approve the sentencing tariffs for serious crimes, from minimum to maximum. The Judiciary would maintain its independence in setting a sentence but if that sentence does not match up to the view of the people, the judge should be required to explain his or her sentencing decision in open court. The process would retain and protect judicial independence, make the system more transparent and the Judiciary more accountable.

We should be very clear and tougher regarding bail. In the last two years, 11,000 crimes were committed by offenders on bail. We need new legislation to make it tougher to obtain bail in the case of a serious crime. Where bail is granted, electronic tagging should be introduced as an extra facility, if the court so decides, so that gardaí can know where offenders are on a 24-hour, seven days a week basis. There is no doubt that in the past ten years this country has become a far less civilised place in which to live. I want to restore civility to public life and public space. We want to create strong and binding ties in our society. There is plenty of outrage among the public that crime has reached such a critical state in this country. The political challenge for Deputies is to transform that, and building a better society and a safer Ireland is the task entrusted to politicians. This Bill, in the name of Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and other Fine Gael Members, will contribute to that.

I hope that, when the Government responds, instead of tabling a holding amendment for its own sake, it will have the courage to accept the Fine Gael Bill and prove on Committee Stage that it has a different point of view. We can take the Seanad Bill in the name of Senator Morrissey and others, with the watermark of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if that be the case, and argue in committee the issues in that Bill and this Bill, in an open, thorough and comprehensive fashion, perhaps seeking to amend it.

The Government should not have a holding arrangement. We will be gone from here in two weeks, not returning until the end of September, by which time we will be involved in all sorts of preparations for Estimates and politicking so that this will not appear on the Order Paper between September and Christmas. Thereafter, if the Government is still around, it will be hell for leather to the white tape.

See this speech in context