Before the debate commences, I am prepared to allow the two members of the Fine Gael Party who are promoting the Bill to speak, one member of the Labour Party and the Minister.
Private Members' Business. - Offensive Weapons Bill, 1970: First Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed:
That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to prohibit the possession and production of certain weapons.
—(Deputy Cosgrave).
Acting Chairman
The purpose of this Bill is as set out. The actual terms of the Bill are substantially in line with the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill introduced by the Minister's predecessor. The reasons for the proposals antecede by a considerable length of time the actual provisions included in the Criminal Justice Bill as introduced. Some years ago, both by way of Parliamentary Question and in the course of debate, I raised the urgency and gravity of the problem of injury and, unfortunately, loss of life occasioned in the main by the use of certain offensive weapons known generally as "flick-knives". The provisions included in the Criminal Justice Bill described under the title of the Bill submitted in the name of Deputy Fitzpatrick and myself, cover the description "offensive weapons" precisely because the difficulty of dealing with attacks on individuals and injury to persons by naming a particular weapon is obvious. I have been seriously perturbed for many years by the number of serious injuries and in some cases deaths—quite recently a number of deaths—arising from stabbings or injuries inflicted by the use of flick-knives of knives of one character or another. I recognise straight away that it is almost impossible to prevent by legislation injury to a person or persons by attacks of this character. The purpose of the measure that we have put down for discussion is to strengthen the authorities by enabling the Garda to have additional powers and, at the same time, prescribing penalties for injury or, in the most extreme cases, loss of life, caused by abuses which are currently liable to occur, mainly, of course, in the cities, but also in rural areas.
Everyone recognises that there is here a serious social problem, that the power and penalties that at present exist are insufficient to deter some of the perpetrators of these outrages from using knives or offensive weapons of one sort or another against an individual or group. It is for these reasons that I have been pressing for a considerable time that steps should be taken to deal with this problem. When I raised this matter originally during the time of one of the Minister's predecessors he expressed the view generally that it was not a very serious problem. Since then, unfortunately, there have been a number of serious cases of injury. In some cases the person injured was a member of the Garda. In most cases private citizens were the subject of attack. Undoubtedly, as I have said, this is not a matter that can be prevented by legislation. If people are determined to commit crimes, no amount of legislation and no penalty however grave can act as a preventative. On the other hand, if penalties are sufficiently severe and if the powers of action afforded to the Garda and sanctioned by the courts in respect of the commission of crimes of this character are sufficiently strong, they can act as a deterrent.
The phraseology of the Bill that we have drafted is very largely in line with the sections that I mentioned that were included in the Criminal Justice Bill as introduced. When this matter was first raised by me and by some others in the House we were concerned at the number of incidents. Since then the extent and the number of these cases have increased and the severe losses that have been felt by persons who have been injured and the deaths that have resulted in some extreme cases have highlighted the need for action to deal with the problem.
The reason that we drafted the Bill in the language that is included in the Bill as lodged and covered by the title Offensive Weapons Bill was to ensure that it would be readily and speedily acceptable to the Minister and the Government. Anyone who has considered this problem will agree that it is a problem that concerns the welfare of society as a whole. It is not a problem that has any political or other overtones to it. It is a problem possibly associated with development elsewhere, possibly, in some respects as old as society itself. There is no restriction on the purchase or acquisition of these weapons by individuals. We feel there should be control over their acquisition.
There is in this country and in most countries an obligation on persons who seek to use firearms to get a licence to have a firearm. There is no similar obligation in respect of a knife of any character. The number of cases that have occurred and the potentiality for serious injury and loss of life that exists warrants the definite conclusion that some restriction should also be imposed on the acquisition of knives other than in the case of knives used by persons who is the ordinary course of their business are obliged to use them. There are, of course, a whole variety of occupations in which people have to have knives or weapons. Drillers, carpenters, mechanics, tool-makers of one kind or another are obliged in the course of their employment and the normal course of their work to possess and to use these weapons. It would be a relatively simple matter to issue licences in respect of these defined categories of persons who because of their occupation are obliged to use particular types of weapons. On the other hand, the absolute freedom that at present exists to buy or to acquire, use or carry offensive weapons or a knife, with the serious consequences, including lethal consequences, that may flow from it inevitably poses the question that there should be some restriction on their acquisition, ownership and possession by persons without legitimate cause and reason and not being possessed of a permit or licence of some sort from some recognised authority.
As I said, it is a social problem. It is a problem which because of its very nature it is not easy to solve. I do not suggest that the enactment of any legislation, either this Bill as drafted or the provisions included in the Criminal Justice Bill or any other measure, can solve it in the last analysis. All it can do is lessen or minimise the dangers. At the same time, I feel we have an obligation to enact legislation, to operate controls and to impose sanctions that may act in some way as an effective deterrent. We have seen groups, or gangs if you like, of young boys or teenagers assembling together and, possibly, something that starts as a simple and ordinary display of good spirits or ordinary play or amusement between them develops into a row and, at some stage or other, knives are produced and the consequences are very serious and, unfortunately, in some cases fatal for those involved.
I do not want to exaggerate the seriousness of that situation but, at the same time, the number of cases that have occurred, the number of cases of serious injury and the number of deaths, warrant action by the Legislature to provide adequate powers and some system of restriction on the carrying of knives and at the same time providing sufficient penalties.
It may be said that the initial powers introduced in the Criminal Justice Bill would have been sufficient. I think it was a mistake in a measure of that sort to embrace so many different matters, some of them completely unrelated to others, and some that had no obvious direct connection with the criminal code. In any event, without discussing that, this is a matter that I and a number of other Deputies on all sides of the House have been concerned with for some considerable time. It is a social problem. Action by the Legislature is necessary in the form of the enactment of a particular piece of legislation. The granting of certain powers to the Garda and the operation of certain sanctions might alleviate this problem.
I want to indicate briefly to the House the terms of this measure so that Deputies may be familiar with the actual provisions in it. The Bill is the same type as some sections in the Criminal Justice Bill and it provides:
2. Where a person, while committing (or being reasonably believed by the other person hereinafter mentioned to be about to commit) an offence, or in the course of a dispute or fight, produces in a manner likely unlawfully to intimidate another person any knife whatsoever, or any other article capable of inflicting serious injury, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment, and (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and such imprisonment.
3.—(1) Where a person, without reasonable excuse (the onus of proving which shall lie on him),—
(a) has with him in—
(i) any dance hall, dance marquee, cinema, theatre, recreation hall or amusement hall,
(ii) any club premises, or
(iii) any premises in which food or drink (whether intoxicating or not) is served to the public,
at a time when people are likely to be resorting thereto, or
(b) has with him at any sports fixture, carnival, bazaar or other place of entertainment where people are likely to congregate,
any knife whatsoever other than a pocket-knife no blade of which can be locked by a lever, button, spring or other device in an "open" position, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Where a person, without reasonable excuse (the onus of proving which shall lie on him), has with him in any public place—
(a) any flick-knife, or
(b) any other article whatsoever made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person,
he shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) Where a person has with him in any public place any article intended by him unlawfully to cause injury to or intimidate any person either in a particular eventuality or otherwise, he shall be guilty of an offence.
Section 4 is a new section. It provides:
(4) Where a person imports, manufactures, sells, hires, offers for sale or hire, or exposes or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire, or gives or lends to any person, any flick-knife, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) In a prosecution for an offence under subsection (3) of this section, it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to allege or show that the intent to cause injury or intimidate was intent to cause injury to or intimidate a particular person and if, having regard to all the circumstances (including the type of the article alleged to have been intended to cause injury or intimidate, the time of the day or night, and the place), the court thinks it reasonable to do so, it may regard possession of the article in the particular circumstances as sufficient evidence of intent in the absence of any adequate explanation by the defendant.
A person who is guilty of an offence under that section will be liable to the fines and imprisonments I have mentioned. It defines a flick-knife or a knife of that character. That, I think, covers as fully as is necessary the provisions of the measure we have introduced.
I want to re-emphasise the gravity of this situation. Indeed, on many occasions when ordinary legitimate demonstrations are held troublemakers of one kind or another associate themselves or connect themselves with them. These may be protests or sports meetings where people are, perhaps, excessively enthusiastic about a particular team. Because of the consumption of intoxicating liquor or because of incidents in dancehalls and places of amusement people get involved in rows. There have been exceptions where rows developed between rival groups, but in very many cases the people who have been killed or injured were inoffensive by-standers and not concerned in any way with the events that led up to injury or death.
As I say, there have been exceptions where rows developed between individuals or rival gangs and, indeed, some of the worst cases have resulted from that. I believe that the Garda have done a very good job with the existing powers. In many cases they have shown great bravery. In my own constituency a particular garda showed exceptional bravery in an individual case. This was recognised and rightly so. At the same time, the existing powers are not sufficient to deal with the problem. As legislators we all know it exists. It has been commented upon in the Press and in articles by responsible persons concerned with social problems, as an evil that should be dealt with.
This problem in so far as it exists as a problem, to some extent can be lessened by effective action by the Legislature. We have an obligation to enact the necessary legislation. I do not for a moment suggest that the enactment of any legislation can prevent people committing crimes, that crimes can be prevented by legislation no matter how severe. The history of human behaviour negatives the suggestion that you can make people good by passing a law. At the same time, you can operate restrictions and, in fact, restrictions are operated not merely here but in other countries on the carrying, distribution and sale of firearms.
One of the unfortunate features of this problem is that the knives which have been the cause of so much serious injury and loss of life are relatively small weapons that can be carried without being obvious to the Garda or to other persons until some action or row occurs. Because the problem exists and because it is seen to exist, we have an obligation to take action before it gets more serious. Deputy Fitzpatrick and I have endeavoured to draft this measure in line with the proviso in the Criminal Justice Bill as initially drafted, in the belief that it would be generally acceptable to the Minister and the House and also in the knowledge that this problem is one which in a period of many years I have expressed concern about, indeed, long before it became a matter of such public attention as at present.
Therefore, there is an obligation on the Dáil to enact this legislation or a measure similar to it so that whatever powers are necessary can be given to the Garda and the necessary penalties fixed for imposition by the courts where persons are found to be in conflict with the law. I believe this is a problem that requires to be dealt with, and this House has an obligation. I think the country will accept a measure of this sort aimed at eradicating a problem which has already caused injury and loss of life and which may become more serious if effective action is not taken. It is for those reasons that I formally propose this Bill.
I should like some clarification. Is the number of speakers limited?
Yes. There may be a second Fine Gael speaker, one from Labour and the Minister. There is no right of reply.
Is this in accordance with Standing Orders?
Acting Chairman
It is a precedent.
There is no time limit?
Acting Chairman
A short statement. Deputy Cosgrave was brief.
Who concludes?
Acting Chairman
There is no conclusion.
Deputy Thornley rose.
(Cavan): I formally second and I reserve the right to speak later. It might be as well if the Minister made his statement now before the rest of us speak.
Deputy Thornley has been called on. I am opposing this motion. I am quite prepared to listen to Deputy Thornley.
Acting Chairman
There are no set rules, only precedent. If the Minister would like to make a statement now——
I prefer to hear what Deputy Thornley has to say.
I am happy to defer to the Minister. I always do. In supporting the broad outline of the Bill I am in some slight difficulty at the outset and this very difficulty is the very reason why I should support the First Reading. The difficulty is that the Bill is not available to me in its printed form. Therefore, although Deputy Cosgrave has outlined its provisions in some detail, it would be most helpful to the Members to have the printed document. This is an instance, therefore, when the motion that the Bill be printed could pass without opposition.
Obviously the Bill has been framed with particular care and attention to detail and points to one of the most horrific social evils which afflict our contemporary society, particularly in a constituency like that which I have the honour to represent. It is this growing flood of violence particularly among the young. It is a matter with which under existing law the Garda Síochána are finding it increasingly difficult to deal.
If I may make an aside point, it has been suggested in a place foreign to here that those of us who sit on these benches have some special hostility to the Garda Síochána. I do not think that is so and I should like here to pay a tribute to the Garda in their efforts are seriously handicapped be-volume of violence in our city. Their efforts are seriously handicapped because they are so much under strength and so much occupied with so many other problems of one kind or another ranging from guarding banks to the prosecution of motorists.
This is a problem which I am particularly conscious of because of the constituency for which I sit but also, if I may pay a tribute in this House to someone, because of my close friendship with Detective Sergeant Brannigan, a famous member of the Garda Síochána whom I got to know closely through his boxing activities. I know from him the extraordinary difficulties gardaí encounter late at night outside dancehalls and emptying public houses, with particular reference to violence among the young.
When I say this is a growing problem I do not want to be called an alarmist or to be classed as the Mrs. Grundy of the Labour Party. Neither do I wish to be taken as suggesting that the city has been given over to anarchy and violence. It is confined to a small minority among our urban population. I do say, however, that ordinary people living in ordinary corporation houses, trying to live decent lives and bring up decent families in the face of appalling difficulties, are living in fear of physical assault like the one on Christmas Day in this city so amply demonstrated. This danger has been further increased by—this has been admitted only recently— drinking among the young, a very unfortunate and regrettable thing. Some Deputies and others see fit to make a spectacular issue of the drug problem, but they would do well to consider the enormous incidence of alcoholism in this country and the fact that a very high proportion of children leaving school will be alcoholics within a relatively short time.
We are straying very far from what is before us.
I do not think so, unless the Minister is going to argue that violence is the result of original sin; I think it can be the result of alcoholism, so if there is a spread of the consumption of alcohol amongst the young, surely it relates to the problem of violence amongst the young. This growth of drink amongst the young has further burdened the Garda and makes all the more necessary the acceptance of the principles outlined in the Bill which Deputy Cosgrave asks us to approve.
I wish to underline my full agreement with one point he made and, in fact, to extend it. Legislation of itself cannot be a deterrent to crime. People will commit crime even if laws are passed against it. People will externalise their inner tensions and problems in violence even if laws are passed which prevent them from carrying the physical weapons which lead to death and destruction in this city. There are many reasons for this. We live in an age in which violence is glorified. As I tried to point out to the House in another context but the Minister did not seem particularly receptive to my point of view, the young have exposed to them on every side the whole concept of the virtues of war; they are exposed to horror comics; they are exposed to advertisements for guns and for all kinds of toys containing the idea that violence is manly and heroic.
One must have the utmost pity for some of the people who are guilty of this form of violence, particularly violence with knives which are commonplace in large areas of working-class Dublin, violence with one of the most familiar phenomena in addition to the flick-knife, the lethal sharpened steel comb which I have come across very often in my work in working-class areas. Many of these people are driven to this because of the absolute barrenness and sterility of their home environment. They are brought up in barrack-like encampments, tiny houses pressed one against the other. They have no privacy and no leisure. They have no place to meet their friends, no place to congregate.
Deputy Cosgrave will agree with me that simply to pass a Bill will not solve that problem, although it will go some way to meet some of its consequences. Its consequences are that the place of congregation of these people is the new horrific phenomenon of the enormous dancehall to which so many young people travel such distances, wealthy to some degree as never before for a brief period before marriage. There they can drink and fight after the dances.
Again there is the phenomenon of the enormous publichouse. In my own constituency outside one publichouse close to where I hold one of my clinics there was a potentially lethal fight and only the rapid and fortuitous intervention of the Garda prevented someone from being killed there. It is a sad thing that we have reached the stage in Ireland where the kind of people who used foregather at the crossroads now forgather in dancehalls and publichouses armed with the kind of concealed weapon which Deputy Cosgrave's Bill seeks to eliminate.
This problem must be met in many other ways besides legislation, by the provision of community centres, for example; the provision of psychiatric care for these people, many of whom are simply disturbed rather than intrinsically criminal, disturbed very often by the example of violence given to them by their elders.
The problem can only be met by the provision of youth clubs. If I may, marginally within the rules of order, ride one of my hobby-horses, one way it could be met is by the provision of greater sporting facilities, more particularly for boxing. One of the healthiest ways in which this sort of competitive, aggressive violence which exists in all of us, the Minister and myself included, can be externalised is within the boxing ring where it is subject to the control of certain rules. Again, I quote my friend, Sergeant Brannigan, who commutes from refereeing fights to breaking up fights in working-class Dublin and who would rather referee fights in the ring of the Stadium ring than break up the fights in the places about which I am talking.
It will take many years to solve this problem, but the Bill introduced by Deputy Cosgrave is a step in the right direction. It is also a step in the right direction, because it is appalling that there are people who can make money from the sale of these weapons which I myself have seen on display in certain shops in this city. I know when the Minister for Transport and Power was Minister for Justice he went some considerable distance towards the banning of the more obviously lethal flick-knives, but we could go considerably further in this direction.
It is a very small request to ask the Government to allow the First Stage of this Bill to pass and be published. If I, as a new Deputy, understand Standing Orders correctly, the Bill would be open to substantial amendment. The Minister's knowledge of this subject is much greater than mine and he can explain this to me later, but at this stage it would be an appropriate gesture on the part of the Government to accept the Bill thus showing their concern about a pressing social problem which particularly but not exclusively applies to the city of Dublin.
This has been a slightly tense six months in this Dáil, I understand from people who have been here longer than I have, a tension not exactly reduced by the fact that a by-election is taking place next Wednesday. To concede that Deputy Cosgrave has done his homework and produced the outlines of an effective Bill would be a small concession on the part of the Government. Therefore, on behalf of the Labour Party I should like to associate myself with it.
I have already indicated I was opposing this Bill which is termed—and it is the only original thing about it—the Offensive Weapons Bill, 1970. There is one thing which the mover, Deputy Cosgrave, has stated and with which I agree, that is, that no amount of legislation in this field will cure the matter but that it may act as some deterrent. There is legislation there, and there for a very long time, dealing with offensive weapons. It is enshrined in section 6 of the Vagrancy Act of 1824. That law already makes it an offence to carry offensive weapons. The suggestions made here provide additions to that law and the means of enforcing it.
Deputy Cosgrave stated that the provisions of this Bill are substantially the same as certain sections of the Criminal Justice Bill. That is the understatement of the year. The Bill before the House is in fact lifted word for word from Part IV of the Criminal Justice Bill which was held up so long in the last Dáil mainly by the efforts of Deputy Fitzpatrick and his predecessor then occupying that seat, the then Deputy Michael O'Higgins.
The Bill before us, the Offensive Weapons Bill, 1970, is in fact word for word, comma for comma, Part IV of the Criminal Justice Bill which was introduced in this House and which will be reintroduced within the next couple of weeks in this House. The effort of Deputy Fitzpatrick in this connection is to copy those sections of the Criminal Justice Bill but in the order of copying them to put section 23 before section 22 as those sections appear in Part IV of the Criminal Justice Bill. It is as I said an exact replica line for line, section for section, word for word, comma for comma, including the definitions of this particular portion of the Criminal Justice Bill. Now, that being so, it will astound some of those listening to hear the people in the Fine Gael benches speaking about their anxiety to have this legislation put on the Statute Book when in fact they took up so much of the time of the last Dáil preventing this very legislation going on the Statute Book. We had week in and week out, month in and month out, this obstruction of the Criminal Justice Bill, which includes those very sections, a Bill opposed so bitterly by the Fine Gael Party and especially by their spokesman on legal matters in this House at that time who, as I recall, was so good as to prophesy in one of his last statements that in a very short time he would be occupying my place here and that that would be the end of the Criminal Justice Bill including those sections that are lifted from that Bill and introduced here under the guise of being a new measure.
I must compliment Deputy Fitzpatrick on his tremendous research into his subject and on his great ingenuity in putting section 23 of the Criminal Justice Bill before section 22 and dishing it up here in this form alleging it to be some new measure after some deep thinking being done on this matter by the Fine Gael Party.
The offer was made to have Part IV passed.
It must be a record in the larceny of legislation in this House. I never remember in all my years here a political party having the gall to come in here barefaced and take two sections out of a Bill introduced by a Government party and say this is new thinking, this is a new Bill, we are going to deal with it in this particular way. It is certainly inconceivable, when they so bitterly opposed the Criminal Justice Bill including those sections, that in such a short time we should have this part of the Criminal Justice Bill lifted out of it, dressed up under a new name and introduced here word for word, sentence for sentence. There are such things as plagiarism and copyright. I do not know that we will have to go into them in this connection but this is so.
Would the Minister tell us if it was originally Fianna Fáil's as he claims, why he is opposing it now?
I will tell the Deputy in due course why I am opposing it now. It is not a matter of what I claim to be Fianna Fáil policy. The text is there for the Deputy to see and to read. The Deputy, unlike his colleague, Deputy Thornley, was in this House when the Criminal Justice Bill was being debated here. If he read it he should know and recognise those two sections are Part IV of that Bill. There is no necessity for Deputy Thornley or anybody else in this House to ask for this Fine Gael Bill to be printed. The Bill is already there in Part IV of the Criminal Justice Bill and you have only to look at it and to read it. This is the position.
Would the Minister clear up a point? Is it intended to resume the Criminal Justice Bill where it left off before the election or to bring in a new Bill?
We will be dealing with the Criminal Justice Bill in this House within the next couple of weeks and I will deal with it in my own way. I am dealing with the particular portion of it that was lifted out of it by my friends opposite.
I am only anxious to know if it is the same Bill or a new one?
It will be the same Bill with amendments I proposed before the adjournment of the last Dáil, amendments which were circulated.
Will it be a resumed discussion on the Bill as it was before the general election?
I will indicate to the House when I am introducing the resumed discussion what I propose to do about that Bill. The one thing I want to assure the House on this issue is that those sections which have been lifted from it by Deputy Fitzpatrick will be included in the new Bill. This effort of taking a portion of a law reform measure like the Criminal Justice Bill out of it and introducing it here with those two sections under a different heading is exactly what I think one would expect from Deputy Fitzpatrick's research because it is the very same thing as this effort made around Budget time to lift the good things like the provision of increases for old age pensioners out of the Budget, adopting them but at the same time voting against the necessary taxation to implement that particular portion of the Budget.
It would appear that it is the effort of Deputy Fitzpatrick to lift a portion of a Bill introduced by this Government into this House, a portion he likes, and introduce it as a new Fine Gael Bill and leave the rest of that particular measure there. It is for those reasons I am opposing this unprecedented effort at plagiarism by Deputy Fitzpatrick in this House. This is the most outrageous proposal and the most outrageous example of political playacting I have seen in my long term serving in this House—to take two sections out of a Bill, give them a new name and pretend that this is something new to deal with an urgent social problem when the very same people stopped this legislation being enacted by the last Dáil. Consequently I will oppose this measure and if the Deputies opposite are so worried about dealing with this problem they will have an opportunity of helping me to expedite the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill through this House when I introduce it in the Dáil in the next couple of months.
(Cavan): For some considerable time past public opinion and the public conscience have been seriously distributed in this country by the increase in crimes of violence, violence resulting in serious bodily injury on many occasions and not infrequently resulting in death. This party have been conscious of this state of affairs for some years past. The leader of this party, Deputy Cosgrave, questioned the then Minister for Justice, Deputy B. Lenihan, about the necessity for controlling offensive weapons. Deputy Cosgrave suggested that there was a serious problem to be dealt with. The Minister's attitude was that the problem was not serious and that it did not need any special legislation. Not alone has this party been deeply conscious of the seriousness of this problem and of the necessity for controlling it but the Minister, in May last, in answer to a Parliamentary question stated that, in 1966, 34 assaults involving the use of knives took place. In 1967 there were 31 assaults involving the use of knives and in 1968 31 such assaults occurred. In 1966 one death resulted from an assault involving the use of a knife. In 1967 one death resulted from an assault involving the use of a knife. In 1968 two such deaths occurred. The figures I have given do not relate to the whole country. They relate only to the county and city of Dublin. We know as a matter of public knowledge that many such stabbings took place throughout the length and breadth of the country.
The Fine Gael Party have always been prepared to strengthen the law in relation to this so as to prevent the carrying of offensive weapons, such as knives, in public places and to deal seriously with offences resulting from such knives and other offensive weapons. The Minister might have been a little bit more gracious in his speech dealing with this Bill, put forward in a serious manner to deal with a serious problem, which has perturbed the public mind, public opinion and the public conscience as evidenced by leading articles in newspapers and speeches made by responsible people. In this House the Minister harps on the fact that these provisions were included in the Criminal Justice Bill. I agree that they were included in that Bill. I agree that for all practical purposes the sections of this Bill which I am asking the House to give authority to print were lifted out of the Criminal Justice Bill which was debated in this House last year. I make no apology for so doing. The then Deputy M.J. O'Higgins, as spokesman on Justice in this House, made it clear that there were many things in the Criminal Justice Bill which this party approved of, welcomed and endorsed but, on the other hand, there were many things objectionable and obnoxious in the Criminal Justice Bill which this party would resist to the last. Indeed, I might tell the House in opposing the objectionable provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill this party were not out on a limb. This Party were in line with public opinion as expressed by every free newspaper in this country, as expressed by members of the churches. The Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis were of the same opinion as the majority of the people in this country when they passed a resolution stoutly condemning, and calling for the withdrawal of, certain sections of the Criminal Justice Bill. This party were not prepared to accept a package deal. They were not prepared to accept the coating on the pill, the coating on the pill being these sections which we agreed with and the pill being the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill which took away the freedom of the individual and interfered with his constitutional rights.
This problem of flick-knives, offensive weapons and crimes of violence has been a source of great anxiety to the people of this country for a great length of time. It is something which should not have been delayed. It should have been dealt with as a matter of urgency. The Minister comes in here and says he was dealing with this in the Criminal Justice Bill but was obstructed by the Fine Gael and Labour Parties. He might have said also that he would have got further if he had not been obstructed by his own Ard Fheis.
In the light of this serious national problem, let us consider the speed with which the Government were dealing with this matter. The Criminal Justice Bill, on which the Minister bases his argument, got a First Reading in this House on the 22nd June, 1967. It got that reading by unanimous agreement of this House. When did it see the light of day and when did the Government dealing with this urgent national problem see fit to give this Criminal Justice Bill a Second Reading? It was almost two years later on the 18th February, 1969. Surely this was an unprecedented delay in pushing forward the Bill of which the Minister is so proud. This was an inexcusable delay in dealing with this question of flick-knives and offensive weapons. The Bill was discussed on the 22nd, 23rd, 29th and 30th of April and on the 7th May, 1969. There was a general election on the 18th June, 1969.
At which this Bill was an issue. What happened Deputy Michael O'Higgins at that election?
(Cavan): The Minister should deal with this matter in a responsible way. There is no use becoming truculent or offensive. I have told the Minister there was undue delay by the Government in controlling offensive weapons. For that reason this party felt impelled to put through a Private Members' Bill to do what the Government neglected to do. In support of that contention I have reminded the House that the Bill containing the sections which I have put in this Bill was introduced first on the 22nd June, 1967, but the Government did not seek a Second Reading for it until 18th February, 1969. There was a general election on the 18th June, 1969, as I was telling the Minister when he interrupted me. An open cheque was given to the Minister and the Government to come back and get on with the urgent business of the country. The Minister has not introduced into this House yet, or asked us to deal with, the Criminal Justice Bill which provides these sections which I have put in this Bill. We will again resist the Criminal Justice Bill with its objectionable provisions and sections but we will give the Minister for Justice and the Government the portions of the Criminal Justice Bill which are exactly on all fours with the Bill which I am producing here now in five minutes in this House if he wants them, but we will not accept the package deal.
Unfortunately, the Government do not intend to give permission to have this Bill printed and circulated. Therefore, it is necessary for me to explain to the House briefly what the Bill proposes.
The statement of the Deputy in this case is restricted somewhat. A general debate is not allowed on this type of motion.
(Cavan): The Leas-Cheann Comhairle was not in the Chair when the debate began. It has ranged over a fairly wide field. The Minister dealt at considerable length with the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill and the intentions behind it. With the greatest respect, while what I have said up to now may have been doubtful from the point of view of being in order, what I am about to say is, I think, entirely in order because I propose to give a brief explanation of what is contained in the Bill.
This was already given by Deputy Cosgrave. All I said—and I was very brief—was to point out that this Bill is word for word part IV of the Criminal Justice Bill which is already printed and is there for everybody to see.
(Cavan): I submit with respect that if I cannot refer to the few sections in the Bill and make short observations on them it is hard to see what the purpose of my speech would be.
The Chair is merely concerned with the fact that on a motion such as this anything in the nature of a Second Reading speech would not be in order.
(Cavan): I do not intend to make a Second Reading speech in which I could roam all over criminal law. I intend to confine myself to what is in the Bill.
Section 2 of the Bill proposes to enact that where a person while committing an offence or in the course of a dispute or fight produces, in a manner likely to unlawfully intimidate another person, any knife whatsoever or any other article capable of inflicting serious injury, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of £100 or six months and on conviction on indictment to £200 or two years. That seeks to convey that any person who intimidates another with a knife, even if he does not in fact cause injury, shall be liable to these penalties.
Section 3 of the Bill is of vital importance, in my opinion, because it prohibits the bringing of a knife or an offensive weapon into a dance hall, dance marquee, cinema, theatre, recreation hall or amusement hall or any club premises in which food or drink is served to the public. I commend that section of the Bill as a really worthwhile section. Unfortunately, we know certain serious offences are committed in dance halls where people go to enjoy themselves because people carry these offensive weapons. It is to our discredit that many assaults and rows apparently arise in dance halls. I think it is vital in the interests of public safety and the protection of the public in general that the carrying of those knives in dance halls or marquees— which have become very common all over the country—or in publichouses, clubs or restaurants, should be prohibited and this Bill proposes to prohibit them.
Subsection (2) provides that where a person without reasonable excuse——
The Chair must point out again that in the ordinary way where a Bill like this is being opposed, permission is not given to print the Bill. I appreciate that the Deputy is getting around this very skilfully at the moment.
And he is repeating what Deputy Cosgrave said earlier.
(Cavan): I respectfully submit that is the point in allowing the sponsors of the Bill to make a speech—because permission is not given to print the Bill. Otherwise, if I were to be ruled out of order on that I would be put in the position of recommending a Bill to the House and inviting the House to accept and pass that Bill in blinkers.
Ask them to pass the Criminal Justice Bill which has these sections in it.
(Cavan): I am dealing with the Chair.
Standing Orders provide for a statement. The Chair would hope that the Deputy would keep to the statement.
(Cavan): I will not deal with it section by section but the Bill also provides that it is open to the court, without proof of intent, to assume that a person who is found with an offensive weapon in a dance hall, a public place, a restaurant or in a club or any place where food or drink is served is deemed to have it there for an illegal purpose and is brought under the terms of the Bill. He is liable on summary conviction to a fine of £100 or six months or both. If he is charged on indictment and brought before judge and jury in the circuit court he is liable to a fine of £200 or two years imprisonment. A definition section defines a flick-knife —I think it is necessary to put that on record—and says that in this section a flick-knife means a knife (a) the blade of which opens when hand pressure is applied to a button, spring, lever or other device——
Mr. J. Lenehan
This is completely irrelevant. The Bill has not been introduced and how can the Deputy discuss a Bill that has not been introduced?
The Deputy is in no position to say what is relevant.
(Cavan):——or a catch to the handle or (b) the blade of which is released from the handle or sheath by force of gravity or the application of——
The Chair must point out that the Deputy is going into detail.
(Cavan): I bow to your ruling and I shall not go into detail. The Minister has stated that the Fine Gael Party are responsible for the fact that we have no effective legislation on the Statute Book to deal with the problem I have been dealing with and I want to prove that is not so. He referred to Deputy Michael O'Higgins's obstruction of the Criminal Justice Bill in this House. On May 7th, 1969, Deputy O'Higgins, in dealing with the Criminal Justice Bill stated:
I think it is due to the determined effort made by Deputy Liam Cosgrave in campaigning for such legislation that the provisions of sections 22 and 23 have been introduced in this Bill. I want to make this offer to the Minister. If he will bring in a new Bill or another Bill, a short Bill containing sections 22 and 23 of this Bill—and I am fully authorised by my Party to state this—my Party are prepared to give him all Stages of such a Bill in one day.
Debate adjourned.