Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)

It strikes me as the purest form of hypocrisy to oppose a matter one day and propose it the next. I believe in conviction politics, but I also believe that the best time to change one's mind is when one is wrong. Has the Progressive Democrats Party changed its mind, has the Tánaiste decided that his party should support the rights of home owners to defend themselves in their homes and has he finally seen that Fine Gael was right when it proposed the Criminal Law (Home Defence) Bill 2006 in the other House?

Fine Gael has led the body politic in providing protection in this crucial area of law. As part of the rainbow Government, we passed the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997, significant legislation that pulled together the various assault offences and provided citizens, the Garda Síochána, the Judiciary and legal practitioners with a single reference point for law in this regard.

Latterly, we sought to improve the legislation by tweaking a small part of it through the Criminal Law (Home Defence) Bill 2006 which aimed to clarify the law in respect of home owners and intruders. On 27 June 2006, the Bill was proposed in the Dáil by my colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, but the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government voted the Bill down in an act of political cowardice. Since then, the Law Reform Commission published a report that agreed in principle with the main thrust of our Bill.

The most important difference between the Fine Gael Bill and this one is that the latter allows murder. It is a charter for murderers in that it would excuse a person murdering someone within his or her own home. It is dangerous legislation compared with the Fine Gael Bill which was voted down by the Progressive Democrats and which specifically excluded any defence for murder.

At the time, the Tánaiste tried to ridicule our Bill by suggesting that a gate-crasher at a party would have been subject to assault with lawful excuse. He could not have been more disingenuous in his comments, as the Bill referred specifically to "reasonable" force being used to remove someone. No court in the land would regard his suggestion as being reasonable.

Article 40.5 of the Constitution of Ireland states: "The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law." This article provides the constitutional basis for the Fine Gael Bill. Fine Gael wants to promote its strongly held opinion that the rights of the victim and not the criminal should be most protected by law. While we in Fine Gael do not promote the excessive use of violence, we believe that an innocent person who is intruded upon in his or her home, often in the dead of night, should not have the law weighted against him or her in the quest to prove that he or she acted reasonably.

Our change in the law would have vindicated the rights of ordinary people, such as the Tánaiste and I, who attempt to protect their homes and families in the face of knife or gun-wielding intruders intent on theft or injury to the occupants. Had the Bill been accepted by the Government, intruders might have thought twice before embarking on stealing sprees that can maim and destroy lives.

Further to what our party leader, Deputy Kenny, stated in his speech at our Ard-Fheis last year, Fine Gael wants to provide protection from civil liability to people who could potentially be sued by a burglar. A householder would have had no liability for an intruder who trips or injures himself or herself in that person's house, even if the intruder was injured by the defensive actions of the householder. This Bill has nothing to say on that subject. The Bill, which the Leader insists is a Private Members' Bill in the name of Senator Morrissey and not a Government Bill, gives no indication of where the Government stands on that issue. All we know is that it rejected Fine Gael's attempts to clarify the law and we can only assume it does not consider home defence a worthwhile issue.

Our Bill would have provided a full defence in criminal and civil law in cases where force is reasonably used by occupiers of dwellings to defend life or property against persons trespassing with criminal intent. While this Bill has the same thrust, it fails to deal with the broad spectrum of issues at hand. At this stage, a clear statement by the Tánaiste, who is present, would be helpful. Does he not accept that the Fine Gael Private Members' Bill is sensible and reasonable and had the potential to deal effectively with this issue of concern to householders?

The greatest problem with the Bill is that it allows for murder. Fine Gael is not in favour of murder or of allowing people to make use of an unsubstantiated excuse for it. We believe in home owners' rights to defend their homes. Therefore, we will support this Bill but will seek to amend it on Committee Stage to correct what are patent lacunae in its provisions. Proposing a Bill that is similar to, but not as carefully thought-out as, the Fine Gael Bill is a hypocritical exercise on the part of the Progressive Democrats. Members of the Progressive Democrats do not like what we proposed because we got in before them.