David Norris (Independent)

-----can be outraged by this kind of intrusion, in particular, the perusal of personal material. He was going through my wallet and was fingering a picture of my aunt to whom I was devoted. This incensed me completely.

The Minister stated the first recourse should be to the Garda Síochána. That is the ideal situation, but there is the reduction in Garda numbers and the closure of police stations. My local station, Fitzgibbon Street, has been closed recently. It was done initially, we were told, for purposes of redecoration, but that is complete rubbish. We now know that it has simply been closed.

Within the past week there was an attack on my house. I believe it was inspired by the fact that extremely unpleasant and obnoxious leaflets were distributed around the area. I will not even go into the nature of the leaflets - they were too revolting. There was an attempt made to kick in my front door at approximately 9.30 p.m. or 10 o'clock. I rang Fitzgibbon Street and got no reply. I rang Mountjoy Garda station immediately and I have to say they were around straightaway. I went out armed with a well-crafted 19th century shillelagh, which - let nobody think that this is the kind of thing one buys in a souvenir shop - is, indeed, a lethal weapon and inspires fear. It has worked for me on similar occasions in the past.

I understand thoroughly what people feel about the defence of their home and the entitlement to defend it and to protect themselves in anticipation of the fact that the person who has violently or nefariously entered their home may be armed with something that could do them considerable damage or may be stronger, or there may be vulnerable persons, including spouses or children, in the house who may be held hostage, etc. There is a natural human instinct to support this Bill but, as I stated, a balance must be struck.

The Minister stated our home is where we raise our children. That is so for some, but that is not a definition of a home. I certainly am not raising any children, as far as I am aware, in my home but it does not mean that it is not my home. It is my home and I feel just as proprietorial about it as if I did have the pleasure, or difficulty, whichever it is, of rearing children.

However, the Minister is quite correct where he states that it is where we spend time in the intimate company of family and friends and where we live our private lives in peace, and we should be allowed to do that. The Constitution, in fact, guarantees us this right. Anything that reinforces that constitutional guarantee and protection is significant.

Reference was made to the decision in the DPP v. Barnes. An Englishman's home is his castle was, I think, the original phrase James Joyce transmuted in Finnegan's Wake into "the Irishman's home is his coffin". Presumably, this legislation is intended to ensure that in as far as possible it does not become a coffin and that somebody attacked in his or her home should not be the recipient of unlimited violence.

The approach in the United States is extreme. Anybody who has visited Los Angeles, as I have on a number of occasions as it is a city I rather like, will have been intimidated by the notices on so many front lawns that the property is subject to armed protection and intruders may be shot on sight. Personally, I think that is going rather too far. I assume that is the kind of caveat that Senator Bacik has addressed.

It is also useful that the Bill contains definitions of "curtilage" so that we get the limitations under which a certain reasonable and legitimate degree of force may be used to repel attack.

Also, the Minister, in defining home on the question of property, makes a good point, that it is not quite the same as jewellery or even treasured memorabilia. There is something that, universally, through cultures, has been regarded as sacred about the home. It is, of course, irritating to lose possessions, but the dwelling house is, in fact, much more than a property. It is something to which people have very considerable attachment and in which they should, indeed, be allowed to feel safe.

Whereas, as I stated, I have read the Minister's speech with great interest, I regret that I was not in a position to hear all the arguments of my colleagues because I was detained at another meeting. I look forward to the future discussion of the Bill and to see whether amendments tabled.

On one of the new aspects on which I am prepared to be corrected by my various legal colleagues, including the Minister, there was previously a requirement that one should be shown to have retreated and have shown oneself to be, if not exactly acquiescent, not behaving inappropriately and that one was giving the perpetrator some kind of reasonable chance. That is a sophisticated argument that needs to be looked at and I welcome the fact that, in section 3, the obligation to retreat from the dwelling, which, as I understand it, previously existed in law, has now been nullified by the Bill. There should be no such requirement on somebody who is living in their own home. I do not see why they should be forced to retreat by law. If this Bill successfully addresses that issue, then it will, indeed, have been a good day's work.