Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

It is important that we have a reasoned debate and that the issues are argued and debated reasonably. The same might be helpful from the point of view of newspaper comment. I recall when we debated this matter on my Bill three years ago some comment in the newspapers that just did not relate to the facts of the Bill and rather seemed to be prejudicial ranting.

The starting point for me on this Bill is the Constitution. Article 40 is quite clear, stating:

The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law.

The problem is that the dwellings of the citizens are being entered every day. In fact, as I understand it, there are approximately 500 burglaries every week.

The question is what type of legal certainty should exist as to the rights of a homeowner in confronting these burglaries. Some of these are aggravated burglaries and some of them have serious consequences. Over the years there have been instances of homeowners who have been killed in their own houses. At the very least, we owe it to homeowners to have certainty in the law as to what they are entitled to do to defend themselves, their families and their property. My appeal to the Minister is that he would look at this Bill in that context.

There may be flaws in the Bill. I made the same case when I introduced my Bill along the same lines three years ago. I indicated that if the Minister had problems with any aspects of it, to refer it to Committee and to tease out those problems.

I am glad that my colleagues, Deputies Charlie Flanagan and Ring, have produced a new updated version of my Bill which deals with some of the questions raised about it three years ago. From that point of view, it is a Bill that should be given the most serious consideration by this House.

Essentially, the Fine Gael approach is to get certainty in the law as far as the rights of the homeowners are concerned and to shift the balance in favour of the homeowner. It is not a question of saying to burglars that they have no rights, but certainly before the law they must have far less rights than the homeowner. The homeowner must be entitled to defend himself, his family and property.

As Deputy Flanagan mentions, the homeowner may be wise on occasion not to do that and to run, but fight or flight is a matter on which a homeowner must make up his or her mind in a split second. The natural human reaction is fight or flight, and there may be only seconds in which to decide which to do.

There should be no compulsion on the homeowner to retreat. There should be an understanding of the situation that the homeowner is confronted with and certainty as to his or her rights in the event of whatever decision he or she takes. It seems ludicrous that if in such a situation the householder injures the burglar or trespasser, the trespasser could possibly sue the homeowner. That is outrageous.

I do not intend to go into the detail of the Bill. I want a reasoned debate. I want a response from the Minister that he accepts there is a reasoned case to put forward. If there are technical issues in this Bill to address, as there could have been in my Bill three years ago, let us tease them out in Committee. I suggest that the proper response from the Minister is to let this Bill through, let it go to Committee Stage and tease out any outstanding flaws at that stage. That would be a reasoned response and what homeowners would expect.

See this speech in context