Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Dec 1989

Vol. 394 No. 6

Firearms and Offensive Weapons Bill, 1989 [ Seanad ]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. O'Dea

When we adjourned on the previous day, I was discussing the meaning of the term "lawful authority" in section 8 (1) and (2). It appears that the "lawful authority" must constitute public duty in the narrowest possible sense. If seems, for example, that an employer cannot authorise his employees to carry offensive weapons simply by getting them to contract to do so. The other defence contained in section 8 (1) and (2) is the defence of reasonable excuse. The defence of reasonable excuse is one that is readily understandable and can be appreciated by most people. The criterion for a reasonable excuse is whether a reasonable man would think it excuseable to carry a weapon in the circumstances. That is the circumstances. That is the criterion for the test of reasonable excuse. Presumably — and we can only anticipate what will happen — the courts will construe this term as it was construed in the United Kingdom. It may not be enough that the intentions of the accused were lawful. The question that will arise in most cases is whether self defence is a reasonable excuse.

In the United Kingdom case of Evans v. Hughes in 1972 it was held that self defence will be a reasonable excuse where, in the words of the courts, there is an eminent particular threat affecting the circumstances in which the weapon was carried. The question then arises as to whether there is a distinction between a person being under constant threat and a person who is threatened intermittently. Questions will arise about such people as security guards who are armed with batons or say, taxi drivers who carry weapons for their own protection. Perhaps the Minister, when replying to the Second Stage debate, will advert to how this defence will apply to those people.

There are a few other points I want to raise briefly before I conclude. In section 8 (2) (b), in relation to a weapon which is "made or adapted" for causing injury, there are examples of cases in the neighbouring jurisdiction where a weapon which was not made for the purpose of causing offence to somebody is accidentally adapted in such a way that it would fall within that category. The example has been given of a bottle which is accidentally broken. Do the words "made or adapted" include a situation where a weapon is in somebody's possession which has been accidentally adapted for use to injure, incapacitate etc? Terminology which runs through various sections of the Bill is that a person has with him a weapon of offence. I presume that the term "with him" means he knowingly has it with him. There is United Kingdom case law which I will not go into—I will reserve my comments until we are on Committee Stage — which would suggest that there is some doubt about this. I presume that the word "knowingly" will be interpreted in the Bill.

The term "public place" is very widely defined in section 8 (1). It is specifically designed to include various events such as a discotheque, football match, bazaar, carnival etc. Deputy McCartan raised the point that there would be a difficulty of interpretation about what constitutes a carnival, a bazaar, etc. I do not share Deputy McCartan's pessimism on that score because the section goes on to say "or other similar place". If something does not fall exactly within the category of the place described it will fall within the terminology of "or other similar place".

It is correct to distinguish between public places, per se, and public places such as carnivals, football matches, etc. where people are congregated for the purpose of entertainment. The only point I would query is what types of weapon should a person be allowed to carry into a crowded situation. I am not happy that the knife or other pointed weapon which a person is prohibited from carrying under section 8 (1) is sufficient. That should be extended to any type of weapon because any type of weapon can cause injury. I have already dealt with that point in some detail and I do not want to go back over it again.

I also share Deputy McCartan's views on the question of the folding pocket knife. I am not happy that the folding pocket knife should be excluded from the category of weapons which are included in this legislation.

Section 8 (3) deals with the case of a person who is carrying a weapon which has an innocent origin and which does not have a destructive use. If a person is carrying such a weapon in a public place he must carry it with the intention to injure, incapacitate, intimidate etc. I take it from the wording of the section that the intention must be to incapacitate, injure, etc. at some time in the future. That can give rise to unexpected and anomalous results. Take, for example, a case of a person from Limerick who is convinced that he is owed money by somebody in Dublin. He leaves Limerick by train — a train is a public place for the purposes of the legislation — carrying a pocket knife or a butcher's knife with the intention of intimidating the person in Dublin so as to secure what he feels he is owed. On the way from Limerick to Dublin he is guilty of an offence under this section. If he meets the man in Dublin, gets the money, does not have to produce the knife and he is on the way home with the knife, at that stage, he is not guilty of an offence, unless the knife happens to be a flick knife, as defined in the Bill, in which case he is guilty both on the way to Dublin and on the way back. I accept we cannot write legislation to cover every eventuality. Some Deputies have made the suggestion that perhaps we should adopt a simpler approach to this whole matter and ban the carrying of all weapons of offence in all situations except where the person carrying the weapon can establish lawful authority or reasonable excuse. I would not go that far but I am giving that example to illustrate the interpretation which the courts put on this legislation and which can give rise to anomalous situations in certain circumstances.

Section 10 deals with a situation where a person, while committing or appearing to be about to commit an offence, or in the course of a dispute or fight, produces a weapon. Does the word "produce" cover the situation where that person picks a weapon off the floor or accepts a weapon handed to him by somebody else? Does he need to have the weapon on him and then produce it in the sense in which the word is normally used?

As I said, under section 10 if a person has a weapon with him he is already guilty if he is intent in a public place on causing injury, incapacitating, etc. However, if it is impossible for the prosecution to establish that intent and he produces the weapon in the circumstances outlined in section 10, he can also commit an offence. Consequently, section 10 is welcome in that it is designed to close a possible gap in the law. However, I ask the Minister to comment when replying to Second Stage on why the section states that in order to be convicted, the accused will have to produce the weapon in a manner likely unlawfully to intimidate another person. It appears to me that if a person produces a weapon by committing, or appearing to be about to commit, an offence or in the course of a fight or dispute, he should be guilty. I am not happy that the wording "in a manner likely unlawfully to intimidate another person" will do anything except to provide loopholes, which I know is not the Minister's intention.

I also query the part of the section which says that he will be guilty of an offence if he produces the weapon in the course of a fight or a dispute. It should also cover the situation where he produces the weapon in anticipation of a fight or dispute. The Minister will probably make the point that this is covered in section 8 but I should like him to comment further.

Sections 13 and 15 of the Bill give powers to the Garda to arrest and search. Section 13 allows a garda to arrest without warrant anybody he reasonably suspects to be in the act of committing an offence under sections 8, 9 or 10. Section 8 concerns possession of weapons in various circumstances. Section 9 covers a person in possession of a weapon while trespassing. However, section 10 concerns a person producing a weapon and, consequently, the question must arise as to whether that terminology is suitable for cases covered by it. It is just a drafting point and perhaps the Minister will examine it between now and Committee Stage.

Section 15 allows a member of the Garda Síochána to search a person if he suspects that that person has a weapon covered by section 8 in his possession in certain circumstances. This will apply where a breach of the peace is occurring. Secondly, he has such power where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a breach of the peace may occur. Thirdly, he has that power where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a breach of the peace has occured. However, as I interpret the section, a garda will have that power only where a number of people are congregated at one of the places mentioned in section 8(1) (a) such as a discotheque, cinema, etc. and the breach of the peace has occurred, is occurring or may occur, in the place while the people were congregated there. At what stage does the garda cease to have this power? For example, if people have gone home from a football match and the terraces are empty, but if something happened earlier at the match and the garda suspects a certain individual whom he wants to search later in the evening, does the section cover that person? In the case of breach of the peace before the match takes place and before people begin to congregate, does a garda have the power to search anyone he suspects will engage in conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace? Whatever about extending the power of search indefinitely, it should be wide enough to cover a situation where a garda anticipates a breach of the peace and is able to apprehend the person before the event to which the section relates takes place.

I should also like guidance on the question of "a number of people". Would it be as few as two people and would the term "congregated" be appropriate to just two people? These points should be discussed on Committee Stage and I do not want to labour them now.

I mentioned the question of the terminology in the different sections in relation to a person having a weapon with him. If a person goes to a disco or a football match and knows he can readily lay his hands on a weapon, is it covered by the Bill? Does he have to be carrying the weapon? Will the Minister reply to that point? Section 7 deals with a situation where a person discharges a firearm being reckless as to whether it leads to certain consequences. We had a long discussion on "recklessness" in the debate on the Larcency Bill. I made the point — and I do not want to repeat it at any length — that there is no such thing as "recklessness"per se. The courts have interpreted “recklessness” in various ways. Broadly, it falls into two categories, subjective and objective. It is subjective when the person has to advert to a situation and objective when the person does not necessarily have to advert to any danger. Nothing has to enter his mind but he will be guilty if a reasonable man would not have acted in that way in those circumstances. The English courts have divided quite dramatically on the question of whether “recklessness” in criminal legislation means subjective or objective recklessness. I do not want that sort of division in Irish law and I suggest that the Minister insert another subsection to section 7 containing a definition of “recklessness” which will make it quite clear whether he is talking about subjective or objective recklessness. If he is including such a definition, I ask him to make the definition subjective as I am opposed to the idea of importing civil law concepts to criminal law.

Deputies referred to section 14 at some length. The controversial part of the section is the provision that gives a peace commissioner the right to issue a warrant to the Garda to enter a person's property, by force if necessary. The section states that if a justice of the District Court or a peace commissioner is satisfied on the sworn information of a member of the Garda Síochána that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence ... etc. There may be constitutional difficulties in giving a peace commissioner that sort of power. The Minister will be aware that the courts have reserved judicial functions under the Constitution in interpreting various situations as to whether the power being exercised by any administrative authority is judicial. They have jealously guarded their own powers and exclusive rights in this regard. It might solve the problem and get away from all the constitutional argument if the section were to read "if a justice of the District Court, or if he is unavailable, a peace commissioner". The onus should be on the Garda to seek a mandate to enter a person's property from a justice of the District Court in the first instance. If the Justice of the District Court is unavailable and the matter is urgent, then — and only then — can he refer to a peace commissioner.

I spoke at length on this legislation the last day it was debated in the House and I do not want to go over the same ground as some of my colleagues want to speak. I have raised various points, some of them might have been more appropriate on Committee Stage, but I look forward to a comprehensive reply from the Minister at the end of Second Stage.

Mr. Flanagan

I welcome the opportunity of making a brief contribution on this simple but nontheless important Bill which, as has already been said, simply extends the definition of "firearms" to include crossbows and stun guns. It also makes it an offence to carry offensive weapons, affording greater powers of search, arrest, and confiscation to the Garda.

I do not intend to go over the same ground dealt with here following the Minister's Second Stage introductory remarks and the extensive debate that took place in the Seanad in recent months. The amendments taken on board in the course of the Seanad discussion have added considerable weight to the provisions of this Bill. Nonetheless there are specific provisions which can be examined between now and Committee Stage in the hope of tightening them up even further in order to deal with the ever-increasing crime problem.

At present there is little or no restriction on possession of a dangerous implement, be that a knife, hatchet or bayonet, no matter of what type, length or the circumstances in which such may be used. I am delighted to note that their usage is addressed in this Bill.

The stun gun is something of a new phenomenon in Irish society. In recent years it has come on the Irish market, it must be said, to assist in the commission of burglaries and is used effectively by criminals to carry out muggings and other serious crimes against persons and property. It is important that the House realise that the discharge of a stun gun can deliver an immediate shock of up to 70,000 volts. Some Members speaking on Second Stage contended that it would take in the region of two to three minutes for the effect of its discharge to deliver its lethal message to its victim. My understanding is that its effect is immediate, that it is an immediate shock. Perhaps our medical colleague on the opposite benches might clarify that point in the course of his remarks. My understanding is that the discharge of a stun gun has the immediate effect of attacking the central nervous system rendering its victim immediately helpless. Not so long ago stun guns were banned in Britain. Since then it has emerged that Ireland has become something of a dumping ground for such weapons following the implementation of a prohibition order in Britain. Indeed British dealers, having anticipated the recent controls imposed there, have been engaging in the business of offering stun guns at reduced, attractive rates to interested parties here.

On the other hand, the crossbow, an extremely lethal weapon, is available for sale here on the open market particularly in sports-hobies shops. It is important to emphasise that in the main the proprietors of such stores are law abiding citizens. Certainly they are not in the business of promoting or advertising such weapons or engaging in any type of publicity that might induce people to purchase them because of their attractiveness for purposes other than sporting. The simple, stark fact remains that if a teenager or anybody else, even a child, walks into a sports or hobbies shop that deals in crossbows, they can be purchased without any questions being asked or any restrictions being imposed, assuming that the potential purchaser has the wherewithal in terms of finance to pay. Therefore, it is indeed time that a provision to prohibit crossbows be introduced.

I might add that there have been a number of incidents here in which personal injury has been inflicted by the use of crossbows. Something of a public discussion on their usage took place following an incident in County Kerry in November 1985 in which a member of the Garda Síochána was injured when struck by a crossbow arrow. Luckily that injury was not serious. However, it had the effect of alarming the Garda authorities to the fact that crossbows were being used for other than sporting purposes. A survey was undertaken in the aftermath of that incident to ascertain what other incidents there had been involving the use of these weapons. The result of that survey drew attention to a number of unsavoury reports — for example, that deer had been injured in the Phoenix Park when struck by cross-bows, reports of their usage to shoot pheasants on a wide scale throughout the country, reports of animals such as dogs and horses having been injured either accidentally or deliberately by their usage, etc. Therefore, it is indeed welcome that the provisions of this Bill go some way toward outlawing the crossbow.

The importatation of stun guns and cross-bows will be rendered illegal except by licence granted by the Minister for Justice under the provisions of section 4 of this Bill. I should like to hear the Minister's views on the lawful use of such implements as stun guns and crossbows. Under the provisions of section 4 it will be necessary for an applicant for a licence to provide a certificate of fitness to the effect that he or she can use a stun gun or crossbow. Perhaps the Minister would inform the House to whom it is envisaged such certificates will be issued. My contention would be that the only lawful purpose to which a crossbow can ever be put or be intended for use is in the sport of archery. If I am wrong perhaps the Minister would enlighten me. Indeed, it might well be important that we consider an appropriate amendment to ensure that there are no other purposes to which a crossbow might be put.

It is envisaged under the provisions of the Bill that, in certain circumstances, stun guns will become legal. Otherwise I would ask the Minister why he did not consider a total ban on their usage. For example, is it envisaged that a certificate to hold a stun gun will be granted to people in the security trade, to women who may profess a need to equip themselves with a stun gun travelling late at night, or anybody who might be fearful from time to time of an attack on their person? Will such people be entitled to receive a certificate of fitness from their local District Court to the effect that they are entitled to use a stun gun? I would have grave reservations about that.

In the course of Committee Stage — when we come to deal with the specific provisions of section 4 — I would hope we can thrash out the Minister's intentions with regard to the issue of such licences. The Garda will have power to issue such a certificate and we must assume that there will be certain circumstances in which certificates will be issued. Assuming that certificates will be issued for the use of crossbows, I put it to the Minister that a certain tightening of the provisions of this Bill is necessary to ensure that a crossbow will not be used, for example, to kill a wild animal or bird, or domestic animal and that a firearms certificate issued to anybody for the use of a crossbow will have to carry a number of attendant conditions.

Considering that the crossbow will be legally owned by the person once he has the certificate, it is important that conditions as to its use are addressed. I would urge the Minister to consider an appropriate amendment to deal with the circumstances where a certificate has issued so that it will be unlawful for a person holding a licence to use the crossbow other than for sporting purposes. I wonder why the legislation refers only to crossbows. I would be somewhat fearful of longbows or staightbows and I see no reason they cannot be included in section 4 (1) (c) also.

I am again seeking information from the Minister on his reasoning behind section 4 (1) (c) which refers to a crossbow with a draw weight of at least 1.4 kg. I imagine every crossbow, no matter what strength or size, is a dangerous and lethal weapon. I would ask the Minister why he draws a line at 1.4 kg and perhaps he might allay my fears in that regard. I have mentioned the longbow or straightbow. The slingshot or catapult are other fairly offensive weapons that the Minister might address on Committee Stage. I will certainly be pressing for the inclusion of an appropriate amendment to cater for these fairly vicious and lethal weapons. When introducing Second Stage to this House, the Minister said he will be bringing forward some amendments so far as football matches and crowd control are concerned, which would be relevant to this legislation. He said he was waiting for a report on interim recommendations by the Committee on Public Safety. I hope, having regard to the fact that the Minister will be introducing these amendments on Committee Stage, he will consider circulating them at the earliest opportunity to give everybody an idea of what is intended well in advance of the legislation proceeding through Committee Stage.

This question is perhaps one that we cannot address at this stage because we do not know the Minister's intentions. I hope he will consider including weapons which, by definition, may not be inherently offensive. I can recall being in Páirc an Chrócaigh on one occasion in the late seventies when a couple of people not too far from me had weapons which had every appearance of a sink pipe. A sink pipe in a kitchen or in a carpenter's work bag is not an offensive weapon but at the back of the Hogan Stand in Croke Park it is a completely different weapon. I hope due consideration will be given to including weapons in public places, such as concerts and football matches, which are, by definition, innocuous but by virtue of their circumstances, without being adapted, sharpened or cut, can be offensive. In those circumstances, the holder of such a piece of lead pipe cannot be in a position to provide a lawful excuse for what he was doing. We will have to wait for further discussion until we see the amendments promised by the Minister.

As well as dealing with crossbows and stun guns, the other main purpose of the Bill is to prohibit the carrying of knives and offensive weapons in certain places. Considerable alarm must be shown towards a recent spate of fairly violent stabbings throughout the country involving knives and other offensive and dangerous weapons. It is high time we addressed this problem. Almost every weekend there appears to be a report in the national media of an unsavoury incident involving knives, particularly at late night dances and disco venues. There is a feeling in certain quarters that the carrying of a knife or an offensive weapon to a dance or a disco or when going out on a Friday or Saturday night is almost an appendage to dress. I am quite confident that the section contained in the Bill will adequately deal with this difficulty and in that regard I hope the legislation will move through the House as speedily as possible.

A recent report has shown a very disturbing trend as far as many of these incidents involving stabbings and knives are concerned. While robbery appears to be a substantial motive in most of these cases, hospitals and Garda stations regularly report incidents of serious assaults on people, with no particular motive other than to inflict nasty injuries. It is alarming that people are being stabbed with knives and other sharp instruments for no other reason than that the person wishes to pick a row with somebody and inflict a serious injury, not in furtherance of a robbery or of any crime against property. That is disturbing and it is important that we address ourselves to the matter.

Knives of a fairly reprehensible type are openly available in shops not alone in this city but throughout the country. There is a certain aspect which has not been addressed in the legislation and that is the proliferation in the last five to ten years of a store entitled the Army Surplus Store. These stores are situated in Dublin, Cork and Galway and recently one opened in Kilkenny. I wonder about the activities of these stores or what army surplus are we talking about. We are living in a state that spends 1.4 per cent of our gross national product on defence, the lowest in Europe apart from perhaps Switzerland. For a country with such a low spending on defence, we appear to have a very large number of army surplus stores, stores that are readily selling over the counter a range of knives, hatchets and swords, particularly Swedish army byonets, at varying prices. I would ask the Minister to consider addressing this matter.

I have no doubt that at present these stores are not licensed. There is a great need for them to be licensed and for the type of merchandise displayed and offered for sale to be restricted. I cannot understand why people would be anxious to purchase Swedish army surplus bayonets, but nevertheless they are on sale and are being purchased. There is no valid justification for using a bayonet other than to inflict injury on somebody. A bayonet does not have to be adapted or shortened, and by definition it is used to inflict injury on people. The Army Surplus Stores sell combat jackets, flak jackets, balaclavas, helmets and implements which can be used to break into houses. The Minister should seriously consider broadening the terms of reference of this Bill to include the registration and regulation of the merchandise being sold through Army Surplus Stores and the regulation of the operation of these stores. Not half a mile from this House a fairly vicious array of lethal weapons are being advertised as Christmas presents in Army Surplus Stores, and we wonder why there is an increase in crime and why so many of the young people who attend dances, concerts and football matches are armed with knives and other implements.

I want to leave any detailed discussion on the finer points of the Bill to Committee Stage. As Deputy O'Keeffe stated earlier, we will be putting down amendments which I hope the Minister will consider favourably. I welcome this Bill. Even though it was examined fairly thoroughly in the Seanad and subsequently amended, there is still room for improvement. I look forward to a thorough examination of the details of the legislation on Committee Stage.

Mr. Jacob

Like many Members I welcome the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on the introduction of this legislation. It is regrettable that we need to introduce such a measure to deal with the ever-increasing range of offensive weapons which are being used at present. I am particularly glad the Minister has seen fit to deal with the potential problems associated with the use of stun guns and crossbows before they become the next fad. Thankfully, the Minister will have dealt with this problem before many people have the chance to see a stun gun, let alone use one. I recognise the valuable contribution made by the Garda in the initiation of this legislation. I am heartened at the positive attitude of the general public and Members of this House to the Minister's initiative. Our colleagues in the Seanad also received this Bill with great relish earlier in the year.

However glad I am to welcome this legislation, I am nonetheless saddened at the range of weapons currently available on the streets, particularly in the hands of young people. Flick knives, knuckle-dusters and martial art weapons were once the sole province of television, the cinema and comics and they seemed very abstract and remote from real life. God be with the days when innocent children came home from the cinema on a Saturday afternoon burdened with the weight of imaginary weapons of all sorts with which they could save the world from the enemy, whoever he was, or exhibiting extraordinary fencing skills in support of Zorro or the Three Musketeers. They were all innocent then. Today we must awaken to the reality of life dealing with the consequences of the infiltration by evil influences in our society, the exposure of our children to films which portray the most horrific scenes of violence and television which shows the realities of war and other atrocities in many parts of the world.

The Minister must deal with those realities in this Bill. However, there are other aspects of society which contribute to this reality and which must also be addressed. We must seriously consider the censorship of films and videos which portray such violence and the contribution they make to the ever-increasing levels of serious crime which society and the Garda have to deal with. I know this is a different matter but this Bill must lay down markers on issues which have to be addressed in other ways and in other legislation. Indeed the Minister recently introduced such appropriate legislation in the House.

We, and more important, our children, are being conditioned to accept the annual round of Rambo or similar films which are followed in quick succession by the flooding of shops at Christmas of miniature models of these characters and their ever-increasing arsenals of offensive weapons. In the past we could excuse our innocence when we purchased guns, holsters and cowboy hats but we have no excuse for continuing to support multimillion dollar industries which annually condition our children to accept violence as a normal fact of life. If the case has not been made sufficiently in the past we must again exhort parents and adults everywhere to think carefully before they spend vast sums of money on replica guns and other symbols of violence this Christmas. I know that when the Minister had the question of replica guns and the like referred to him before he indicated that this Bill was not the appropriate vehicle for dealing with the matter but he shared the general concern about the proliferation of such items.

I should like to re-echo the sentiments expressed elsewhere in regard to the sale of these goods and to encourage the Minister to pursue any solution to this problem. If it is a violent act to threaten another then it is despicable to use replica guns which are indistinguisable from real weapons to threaten an innocent person who could not be expected to know the difference. I know the Minister is anxious to deal with this problem in whatever way he can and I believe he will receive the fullest support possible from Members of this House in doing so.

The Bill provides that some types of stun guns shall not be imported by a person if he does not have a licence issued by the Minister and their sale or ownership shall be unlawful without a fire arms certificate issued by the Garda Síochána. This is the correct approach and I cannot conceive of any reason which would justify a licence being given. By all accounts, the only reason one would have such a weapon would be to harm or incapacitate another person. I do not believe that such a weapon would be used for legitimate purposes. I ask the Minister to indicate how it is proposed to deal with such weapons currently held and whether details of their importation or sale are known to him and the Garda.

I accept that crossbows can be used for legitimate purposes, for example, archery, but I agree that because of their potential use as an offence weapon they merit inclusion in this Bill. I have not noted a reference to a long-bow in the Bill. While I know these bows are very different from cross-bows, I should like the Minister to indicate how and in what circumstances they are dealt with in the Bill, if at all.

I know other offensive weapons such as flick knives and the like present a very serious problem for the Garda and that is made more difficult by the capacity of those possessing them to conceal them. The media report many instances, and not just in large cities, where scuffles between youths using knives and other weapons have led to tragedy. I remember some years ago concern was expressed about the sale of steel combs which had long sharp handles. The Garda face great difficulties in trying to come to terms with this problem. I should like to congratulate the Minister on the balanced and realistic approach he has adopted.

Carrying knives and other weapons can become a habit for many youths. The initial intention may be harmless enough but it is the breaking of that habit that underlies the provisions of the Bill. We want to avoid circumstances where such weapons may be used. Equally, it is necessary to give the Garda the right to search for such weapons when there is a suspicion that they may be held or concealed. While there may be difficulty in some circumstances as to the definition of an offensive weapon or the legitimate possession of other items which might be used to harm another, I agree with the approach adopted by the Minister of putting the onus on the person holding those weapons to justify having them in his or her possession. Society must strike a balance between the rights of the individual and the need to maintain law and order. Equally, we must not lose sight of the innocence of ordinary people who have various items in their possession legitimately when challenged or searched. That balance will emerge over time as more effort goes into publicising the need for care and attention and the danger of carrying any potentially dangerous item. If necessary, the courts will ensure that all citizens receive fair and just treatment.

In County Wicklow it is a pleasure to see so many young people fishing along river banks and the seashore. They usually have in their possession various items which in other circumstances would be considered offensive weapons. We are capable of making an adult judgment in regard to those items. I suggest that nobody is more capable of or more experienced in doing so than the Garda. We must educate our people that there are circumstances in which it is right to carry or hold such items and when it is not justified to do so. There are places such as discos, football grounds and so on where, however innocently such items may be held, it is not acceptable to do so. It is a matter of educating people and of breaking the habit. Having done that it is legitimate to call on any person found in possession of such items to justify having them in their possession. In that regard I support the provisions of the Bill.

Wicklow, because of its great beauty, its mountains and valleys, attracts many visitors, particularly from the adjacent city of Dublin. Those people like to use the mountains, the valleys and forest trails. They enjoy walking, fishing and so on. Many of them, particularly the young people, carry knives as part of their equipment. They consider the knife to be as important as the shorts or the walking boots they wear. At the end of their day of adventure or walking many of those young people adjourn to local hostelries to enjoy a drink. I am in the booze business and I regularly cater for such people in my licensed premises. They are most welcome. I note that most of those young people carry knives in a scabbard. Some of the knives are of enormous proportions and are frightening. I have had occasion to approach those young people and ask them to check in those knives before they have a drink. To date my requests have not been refused and the knives have been left behind the bar.

There appears to be a widely held perception that acts of violence, often perpetrated with the assistance of some of the instruments referred to in the Bill are confined solely to our cities. I should like to assure the House that that perception is grossly inaccurate. Those occurrences take place in rural Ireland, in our towns and villages, in our rural pubs, hotels, discos and on the streets. As a public representative I have had complaints from decent and concerned citizens in my constituency. I have had complaints from Arklow, Wicklow, Blessington and its environs. Even in my home town to Rathdrum the decent and concerned local residents considered it necessary to call public meetings to discuss and highlight the increasing incidents of violence and general lawlessness. I have brought those complaints to the attention of gardaí at the appropriate level and to the attention of the Minister for Justice.

I hasten to add that the gardaí in County Wicklow, within the resources available to them, do a magnificent job in combating and containing this lawlessness but we continue to have difficulties. The Bill will be wholeheartedly welcomed by the Garda and will assist them enormously in their arduous task. I am pleased to note that the Minister has dealt with the paraphernalia attached to firearms such as silencers which will be deemed to be component parts of firearms. Like other Members, I can find no reason, other than the most seriously offensive one, why any person should have a silencer in his or her possession. I can understand the concern of the gardaí to have that item included in the Bill.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on putting the Bill forward. I am happy that such sensible and responsible steps are being taken in regard to such items as stun guns and cross-bows. The Bill reflects very well on the Minister, his Department and the Garda Síochána. The vigilance evident in the Bill is, unfortunately, a necessity today. We must do all we can to stem the tide against the use of offensive weapons of all sorts while at the same time maintaining a balance. The Bill has such a balance and its application will prove that. I look forward to the remainder of the debate on the Bill.

Dr. Fitzpatrick

I should like to thank Deputy O'Sullivan for permitting me to make a contribution at this stage. Deir-tear gurb é an scéal gearr an scéal is fearr. I welcome the Bill as one step in an effort to curb violence on our streets. However, what we are doing is trying to cure the effect rather than getting at the root causes. What are the causes? Why will a young man attack another with a knife? Why will a thief resort to unnecessary violence? Why will gangs of youths indulge in violence apparently for its own sake? I do not know the answers to those questions but it is a fact that that behaviour is common on the streets of many of our cities. There is some data on the probable causes in the United States. In the past, society has been able to control aggressive impulses through its basic institutions, the home, schools and the churches. In the United States they say that those moral pillars are crumbling. How do we see ours?

If we pass the Bill without concerning ourselves with the causes of violence we will be doing less than our duty. What can we do? I should like to give my recommendations. We should carry out a psychological study on young people in prison, people who have been convicted of violent offences, and produce a report to the Minister. We should consult psychologists and educationalists and produce a film or video for schools and youth clubs that will help young people understand the reasons for violence and how to combat it. We should ensure that the danger signals of psychological disturbance are noticed in the school, just as physical problems are noticed, and institute corrective action. We should encourage parents groups, and support them, to discourage violence and sex on TV at prime viewing times and have a coding for records and tapes that include songs with sex and violence as subjects. The entertainment media here and all over the world play a big part in establishing young people's moral and cultural values. We hear a lot about causes. Here is a real one. Let us find out what the causes of juvenile violence are and set out to remove them.

Debate adjourned.