Topical Issue Debate

Irish Language

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

The development of the gaelscoileanna sector has been one of the few positives in terms of the Irish language, even though we usually hear negative stories about the Irish language. Some 30,000 children attend gaelscoileanna, representing approximately 5% of the child population. According to a Foras na Gaeilge study, approximately 25% of parents would send their children to gaelscoileanna were any available to them. This is a significant issue. According to the English language media in particular, Irish is being forced on kids and parents. In reality, parents and children want more Irish language education. The Government is failing them and has previously stopped them receiving that education.

Many in the Irish language sector are struggling on a daily basis. They believe that, at best, the Government is oblivious to the Irish language as an issue or, at worst, is against the language and is rolling it back. Prior to the election, Fine Gael wanted to get rid of the Irish language as a core leaving certificate subject. Recently, Young Fine Gael repeated that call.

The Government does not seem to understand that this is an important issue. Given the research on the subject in recent years, there is a strong understanding that Irish as a spoken language has 15 or 16 years left. A couple of years ago there was an advertising campaign that read: "Ná lig dúinn a bheith inár nglúin dheireanach." Do not let this be the last generation of spoken Irish. The link could be broken.

The Government has a raft of opportunities. For example, there are a number of voluntary Irish language radio stations, but they have limited licences that prevent them from being professional and limit their geographical output. This situation could be changed. A number of mobile telephone licences are coming up for renewal. That the companies should provide customer service, Internet and billing services in the Irish language could be built into their new licences to provide for the 100,000 Irish speakers in line with their language rights. That would not cost the State anything.

The Government has a critical opportunity to allow 25% of schools to become gaelscoileanna in the context of the ongoing review of school patronage. This would allow approximately 150,000 children to voluntarily attend 700 gaelscoileanna, with a further 40,000 willing students pursuing secondary education lán-Gaelach. Such a reform would have a radical impact on the development and viability of the Irish language. I would like to hear the Government's plans for allowing this to happen.

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon)

I am taking this topical issue debate on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills. Primary education plays a pivotal role in the preservation and expansion of the first official language. The promotion of the Irish language has been an important aim of successive Irish Governments and its place in our education system has been consistently protected. This is reflected in the fact that in recent years a significant number of new gaelscoileanna have been recognised by the Department of Education and Skills. A total of 18 new gaelscoileanna have been established since 2005 and another gaelscoil is scheduled to open this September in Mulhuddart, County Dublin. These openings bring the total number of Gaelscoileanna to 141, with a combined enrolment of 29,675 pupils in the 2010-11 school year. In addition, there are 106 Gaeltacht all-Irish primary schools with a total enrolment of 7,302 pupils in the 2010-11 school year.

As the Deputy will be aware, the Minister announced in June 2011 that 20 new primary and 20 new post-primary schools are to be established in the next six years across a number of locations. The Minister also announced new arrangements for the recognition and determination of patronage of these new primary and secondary schools. The new arrangements published by the Department provide a balanced approach to allow applications to be made by prospective patrons for the establishment of schools. The criteria to be used in deciding patronage of the new schools place a particular emphasis on parental demand for plurality and diversity of patronage, which also includes preference for all-Irish school provision.

The Deputy will also be aware that the forum on patronage and pluralism in the primary sector, which is a key objective of the programme for Government, was officially launched by the Minister in April 2011. The outcome of the forum will inform him on the practicality of how transfer and divesting of patronage would operate for individual primary schools in communities where it is appropriate and necessary to take such an initiative. It will also inform him on how such transfer and divesting can be advanced to ensure that demands for diversity of patronage, including from an Irish language perspective, can be identified and delivered in areas where parental and community demand is greatest. It will be interesting to see how the actual identification of demand for all-Irish provision, both nationally and within particular areas, compares with the survey results to which the Deputy referred. The Minister expects that the report of the forum will also include recommendations on how demand for all-Irish primary education can be met in areas where demographic factors would not justify the establishment of new primary schools.

The advisory group appointed to convene the forum held a number of public meetings during June and November 2011. The group sought and received submissions from the education stakeholder groups and the public as part of its work. It is now finalising its report and the Minister expects to receive it shortly.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

The Government has to start recognising rights in regard to the Irish language. The fact that two new Irish schools will open in September reveals the contrast between the Government's actions and the level of demand that exists. Other European countries have managed to meet this target. In Wales, 23% of children attend all-Welsh schools, up from 18% ten years ago. In the 1980s only 5% of children in the Basque country attended all-Basque schools but the figure has since increased to 65%.

A considerable amount of debate takes place in the Irish language media on the development of the Gaeltacht and Irish in the Gaeltacht but as many of those in the commentariat or the Government do not have Irish, that debate remains invisible to them. In my local gaelscoil in Navan children are not guaranteed a place even if they are enrolled at birth because it has a waiting list of approximately 70 children. When I asked the Department to provide a second class, it issued a firm refusal.

Unless the Government changes direction and gives priority to the Irish language, it will become an impediment to its development. It is not the case that the Government is forcing Irish education on parents and kids. According to this research, it is suppressing demand for the Irish language. That is a sad indictment of a Government that could be creating significant opportunities for growth and development of the sector.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon

This Government has every intention of respecting people's rights, including the right to their language of choice. A considerable number of new all-Irish schools have been established in recent years on foot of parental demand. Ultimately, the expansion of Irish language education will only be driven by parental demand.

Deputy Peadar Tóibín

There are not enough places to meet demand.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon

Some of these schools are expanding and perhaps there are opportunities for other all-Irish schools to expand in future. When the report of the forum on patronage and pluralism is completed, there will be an opportunity to establish the patronage models for our schools. This will be driven solely by parental choice and if demand exists, whether in the heart of Connemara or in Athlone, I am confident that we will respond to it. It is open to the patrons and boards of management of existing English medium schools to consider providing some or all of their tuition through the medium of Irish, depending on the level of parental demand. There will be ample opportunities for parents and communities to make that decision and I am confident that many will do so.

School Staffing

Deputy Pat Breen

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the new regulations on allocation of resource hours and teachers in primary schools.

Investment in education is critically important, particularly at primary level. The education that children receive in their formative years is the foundation block for their future. While I recognise in the current economic environment that the Minister has to juggle scarce resources with an ever decreasing budget, it is important that we continue to provide a comprehensive support network to ensure no child is left behind in our education system. We have made considerable progress in reducing the barriers to education for all children and the benefits are tangible. This is recognised in the OECD 2012 report on equity and quality in education. However, the report also warns that there is still room for improvement. In reading, almost 17.2% of students in Ireland performed at below level two on PISA in 2009, compared similarly to the OECD average of 18.8%.

Despite our economic circumstances we need to continue our efforts to ensure that children leaving school are better equipped to secure employment opportunities and to reduce the number of children opting out of the education system at an early stage. Shortly before the Minister announced the teaching allocations for September 2012, I attended a public meeting in Ennis organised by the INTO which was attended by more than 600 parents, teachers and members of the local community. The meeting was very well organised and I listened attentively to the genuine concerns that were raised. I assured those present that I would bring their concerns to the Minister's attention.

There is widespread concern about the future of small schools. As someone who attended a small school which closed in the 1970s, I recognise the value and importance of small schools to their communities. I will be visiting a number of smaller schools over the next several weeks to discuss the situation at first hand.

I welcome the decision by the Minister to retain the 235 legacy posts in DEIS schools and I was glad to hear that two posts under threat in Kilrush will now be retained.

The biggest issue that has been raised with me since the teaching allocations were announced is the combining of learning support and language support, and the fact that schools are no longer able to combine resource hours with GAM hours. This is posing considerable difficulties for schools, particularly rural schools, with the fear that teachers will now spend more time travelling the roads than teaching in the class room, particularly given that a base school will now be required to have at least 15 RT hours to hold its base school status. I cite the example of Kilshanny national school, which is a base school in north Clare. In order to retain the resource teacher, it has formed a cluster with neighbouring schools in Doolin and Lisdoonvarna. While individually, Kilshanny does not have the 15 hours which is now required, collectively they have 24 hours between the three schools. The same situation arises in Moyasta national school which is another base school in west Clare and which also has a satisfactory arrangement in place with other local schools in the vicinity.

For many schools the problems are typical to those of Scoil na Realt in Kilkee which has an allocation of 20 hours. Instead of having two teachers to cover its needs, it might need to employ an additional teacher for a few hours which it will find virtually impossible given that the majority of these schools are in rural areas. If a school has an allocation of five RT hours and no school cluster available, what will happen? The majority of schools have very satisfactory systems in place and have already formed clusters with other schools close by which is working very well for them. The difficulty the new regulation poses is that they fear that there will be more teachers on the road than in the classroom, thereby losing valuable time with the children. At the moment, the teachers who are travelling do so during break and lunch times with no disruption caused. However, if they have to travel further afield, there will be some impact.

I seek an update on learning support and resource teachers' hours. I hope the Minister will meet representatives of the schools concerned in order to reach a satisfactory, cost-effective solution with the least disruption.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon

I am responding to this topical issue on behalf of the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn. I thank the Deputy for giving me an opportunity to outline to the House the reforms to the teacher allocation process that are being made and that will take effect from September. The overall objective of these reforms is to enable the teacher allocation and redeployment process to operate more smoothly and efficiently within the new climate of fixed ceilings on teaching posts. The detail of how the new arrangements will operate is set out in the Department's staffing circular which has now been published.

The new arrangements incorporate a long overdue updating of the GAM-learning support allocation for all schools. This inevitably involves changes to existing clustering arrangements whereby a teacher is shared between schools. A further change is that schools in any locality are being empowered to cluster and arrange their GAM resources in a manner that best suits their local needs. This should be completed by schools in March.

The new GAM allocations for schools are in five-hour blocks - equivalent to one school day - and are specifically designed to facilitate clustering arrangements between schools. Schools can operate their sharing arrangements in a manner that enables a teacher, who needs to travel to a neighbouring school, to do so from the start of the school day.

The new GAM arrangements treat all schools equally irrespective of size. A standard GAM allocation is given to all schools based on the number of classroom posts in the school in the current school year. Of the total overall allocation of approximately 4,100 posts, approximately two thirds will be in full-time, 25-hour, posts. This approach is the most straightforward and efficient method to ensure that the GAM allocation for schools reflects each school's requirements for teaching support. Given that the GAM is being updated through a redistribution of existing posts, there will inevitably be some changes in the GAM allocations at individual school level.

There are also new and separate arrangements for how resource hours for individual pupils are converted into teaching posts in schools. As part of the reforms, existing posts are being used to put in place a network of more than 2,500 full-time resource posts in close to 1,700 base schools throughout the country. These posts will be allocated on a permanent basis and the teachers in them will undertake NCSE approved, low-incidence, resource hours in the base schools or in neighbouring schools. This approach builds on the interim arrangements that operated in 2011, but in a more structured and transparent manner.

The requirement for resource hours in a school varies from year to year depending on the number, if any, of its pupils with autism, etc. Small schools generally have a lower requirement for resource hours. The new arrangements take account of the later timescale for the allocation of these hours necessitated by individual assessment by the NCSE.

Deputy Pat Breen

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive reply giving me an update on the reforms. The most important requirement is the education of children, particularly disadvantaged children. I hope that any changes that are made are made for the benefit of the children and are done in a cost-efficient manner. The learning support and the resource teachers to whom I have spoken expressed the concern that they would spend too much time travelling. In the past they could remain within the cluster but now might be required to travel to Ennis from west Clare, which is a waste of resource time. I hope in the new arrangement that each individual school's concerns would be considered and that the most efficient system would be introduced in the interests of all concerned.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon

I assure the Deputy that the Department will be working with schools and all our education partners to ensure these new arrangements operate as efficiently possible. As the process proceeds and we start to allocate the actual hours, the work can take account of any appropriate local arrangements that might be made to further optimise the travel arrangement between the schools.

Job Losses

Deputy Colm Keaveney

I recently brought an urgent matter concerning a forced, contested redundancy situation in Galway to the attention of several Ministers, including the Minister for Social Protection and the Minster for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. Rehab Enterprises plans to make 18 employees in its recycling centre in Galway redundant. Only a limited number of employees have indicated that they will partake in voluntary redundancy, with 14 or 15 employees to be forced out the door. Many of these employees have been on short time for the past two and a half years, despite the significant increase in the Rehab Group's operating surplus from €1.9 million in 2009 to €2.3 million in 2010.

Most of the employees affected are unskilled and some have a disability. Both of these factors will make it difficult for them to find alternative employment. Workers have contacted me concerning this case and are looking for ideas from the Government with regard to an attempt to engage with the employer to seek a positive outcome. Worker representatives have asked for a three-month pause in the redundancy process to allow for a working party from the community to attempt to find a way to maintain the viability of the Galway plant. To date, Rehab has not acceded to the wish of the workers to give them a window of opportunity to retain the jobs of the vulnerable people affected.

SIPTU has also asked or the accounts of Rehab to be opened in order that an open assessment may be made of the merits of the case for redundancy, but to date nothing has been forthcoming and unsubstantiated accounts of the company's position have been related.

On its website, the Rehab Group claims to be "a leading non-governmental organisation which works towards a world where every person has the opportunity to achieve their potential". It further claims that "Rehab enables people to make the most of their skills and talents, to take up employment or further education and to live more independent lives". It makes a virtue of "directly employing a further 200 people with disabilities in our commercial division". However, when it comes to determining who should be made redundant, it uses selection criteria that seem predetermined to be punitive on those with a low-skill base, which Rehab never sought to address over the years of its existence by offering vulnerable workers an opportunity for retraining or reskilling. Other selection criteria used were irrelevant to the skills needed for the job at the employment.

This approach was not appropriate in terms of the care of vulnerable workers where a genuine effort is intended to set out and to help to achieve their potential. They are entitled to have dignity in the workplace. To date all those affected by this proposal have been affected by poor communications from the employment. There is a lack of transparency with regard to the company's position in respect of their representatives. At most we are seeing an unpaid transition from employment to a process of support, possibly without as much as a curriculum vitae.

I call on the Minister to assist in some resolution of the redundancy situation in Galway for these vulnerable people. Some of these people have worked for Rehab for almost 20 years. It has been their life. Time must be given for a possible working group to give solutions to Rehab with regard to the long-term viability of the facility in Galway. I call on the Rehab group to actively participate in a discussion with the Department, which plays a critical role in subsidising vulnerable workers in society. It is unacceptable that Rehab would put in place corporate selection criteria based on people's skills and their capacity to be in work on time and to use their skill-set as an opportunity to retain or force them out the door, especially in light of the fact that we underpin this organisation and we support the hourly rate of pay. I call on the Minister to examine this situation carefully.

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton)

I thank Deputy Keaveney for raising this important matter. I heard about the redundancies in Rehab with great regret. However, I emphasise that they do not arise as a result of any reduction in funding by the Department of Social Protection. As Deputy Keaveney is aware, the Department of Social Protection has recently taken over full responsibility for the wage subsidy scheme since the former FÁS employment services division joined the Department of Social Protection with effect from 1 January last. The funding available to Rehab under the wage subsidy scheme from the Department of Social Protection has not been reduced in any way.

I emphasise that as a result of these redundancies the employment services unit of the Department of Social Protection will engage with the workers being made redundant to assist them to find alternative employment or appropriate training. I have been informed by the Department of Social Protection local team in Galway that in total, 19 posts have been made redundant. A total of 16 of these were supported through the wage subsidy scheme and local departmental offices are working with the wage subsidy scheme clients to provide them with ongoing support in what is, I realise, a most difficult time for the workers involved. I have been assured that the local office in Galway will work vigorously to ensure that as many of these individuals as possible are given the necessary further training, guidance and support that they may require.

I wish to give some context in respect of the wage subsidy scheme, which plays an important and valued role in supporting employers to provide job opportunities in the open labour market for people with disabilities. The objective of the scheme is to increase the numbers of persons with a disability in employment. The scheme provides payment of a wage subsidy to the employer to compensate for the reduced productivity of the disabled worker. The wage subsidies are designed to provide an incentive to employers to consider more closely the potential of disabled people to meet their labour force requirements. The wage subsidy scheme is applied to all commercially oriented enterprises in the State which provide employment to disabled workers. It does not include the voluntary sector.

The RehabRecycle group in Galway has 34 employees for whom it receives a strand 1 wage subsidy of €5.30 per hour, subject to a maximum of €10,748 per annum in respect of each employee. The company also receives the maximum 50% top-up subsidy under strand 2. Nationally, Rehab employs 192 people with disabilities, for whom it receives wage subsidy scheme funding. It is the only employer currently eligible to receive a strand 3 subsidy. This hourly subsidy rate of €5.30 per hour was originally index-linked to the minimum wage. However, the hourly rate was not altered when the minimum wage was last reduced. Subsequently, as Deputy Keaveney is aware, the minimum wage was reinstated.

Arrangements have been put in place by the Department of Social Protection in the event that an employee for whom a wage subsidy is payable can no longer continue in employment for any reason. If this arises, their income support payment will automatically be restored without the need to re-apply. I understand that SIPTU will meet the director of Rehab Enterprises on Friday to discuss the matter further. I hope these discussions will be positive.

I wish to restate that the Department of Social Protection will continue wage subsidy scheme funding to Rehab. I emphasise that the wage subsidy scheme continues to be available as an incentive for employers which provide jobs for people with disabilities. I look forward to hearing a report from the meeting on Friday. As Deputy Keaveney stated, Rehab is in receipt of considerable funding from various organs of the State in respect of its activities. I hope there is a positive outcome for the workers concerned.

Deputy Colm Keaveney

I am pleased that the Minister has expressed an interest in looking forward to the outcome of Friday's discussions concerning the affected workers. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that Rehab posted a surplus of €1.9 million in 2009 and a surplus of €2.3 million in 2010. I note the commitment by the Department of Social Protection to the wage subsidy scheme. However, I am at a loss to understand how these redundancies could be legitimate in the first instance if the State is subsidising €5.30 per hour of a €9.10 hourly rate based on €10,700 per annum. I call on the Minister to bear this in mind when she receives her report on Friday. How authentic are these redundancies? These are vulnerable people forced out the door. They have not volunteered for this process. I call on the Minister to take a particular interest in this situation.

I welcome the Pathways to Work initiative launched last week. It is a great policy innovation for the Department and the country. However, I hope it does not afford opportunities for organisations such as Rehab to consider shedding vulnerable workers and shift the liability of how people with disabilities are supported and maintained in employment. They make an invaluable contribution to employment. The organisation does not pay for raw materials. It is paid to take in raw materials and sell them on with an hourly subsidy of €5.10 per hour. I call on the Minister to give as much attention as possible to the outcome of Friday's discussions.

Deputy Joan Burton

I await with interest the outcome of the discussions between SIPTU and the Rehab director. I take the points made by Deputy Keaveney. We have just taken over the wage subsidy scheme since the relevant division of FÁS joined the Department on 1 January. Recently, I launched the EmployAbility Service, which provides job coaches and other supports to individuals with a disability seeking employment and employers. This includes a range of possible subsidies. Currently, we are re-advertising this scheme to employers. As the Deputy noted, the subsidy is significant and helpful, so I hope there will be a positive outcome to the discussions. Rehab has been a trailblazer with regard to the employment of people with a disability and I would be concerned by any redundancies within that company. I expect to receive further reports on the situation and hope the outcome of the discussions will be successful for the workers involved.

Householders’ Rights

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

This has been an issue for some time and relates to the unfortunate situation in the context of householders who react aggressively when their homes are burgled. In the particular case to which I refer, a householder and his wife woke up at 5.30 a.m. to find a burglar walking around and inspecting the bedroom. He did not indicate why he was there, but it can be presumed he did not come to read the meter or to check the air conditioning or the like. The householder presumed he was there with felonious intent and reacted accordingly. He pursued the individual for some time and, as a result, the individual who had intended to commit a crime suffered injuries for which he received considerable compensation, an amount of €175,000 from the householder's insurance company, by agreement.

Fortunately for the householder, he was acquitted of having assaulted or caused grievous bodily harm and was not penalised. It is ironic and strange, however, that the burglar received a suspended sentence. Every so often issues arise that challenge the imagination and credulity of the public. If there was ever a case that illustrates beyond shadow of doubt that it is profitable to become involved in crime, to break into somebody's house and lodge a claim against them in the reasonable expectation of winning the claim, this is it. Why would anyone work in legitimate employment? Is it not easier for burglars to go off and rob a few houses from time to time and if they get injured while doing so, make a claim against the insurance of the householder or factory owner? They cannot lose. They will get an award and will only end up with a suspended sentence. What could offer them more encouragement?

The time has come to say enough is enough. This kind of nonsense goes on from time to time. I remember a case some years ago when a burglar who broke into a warehouse was injured and he sued the owner of the warehouse successfully in court. In the case I mentioned earlier the case was taken against the insurance company. Therefore, there are two issues. The first is the readiness and willingness of insurance companies to pay out in situations of this nature when it is quite clear the person has no authority to enter the householder's home. In the case I mentioned, he did not have the householder's permission and was not there to paint the walls, the ceiling or any other part of the property. He had a different intention. He had entered the house with the intent to commit a felony, which is something for which a person should not get a suspended sentence. He was breaking the law with intent. Furthermore, the victim then found that he could have been charged with committing a crime by defending himself. The Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011 has already been passed and should have applied in this case, but it does not. I will have more to say on that in my short response.

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter)

I thank Deputy Durkan for raising this matter which is a concern for him. As the Deputy would know, legislation that is enacted does not apply to events that occurred in the past. Therefore, the Deputy is wrong to say the legislation to which he referred should have applied to this case.

As the Deputy is aware, the Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011 came into effect on 13 January 2012. I consider this an extremely important piece of legislation. There had previously been a lack of clarity on the rights of a householder when confronted with a burglar in their home, but this Act in one piece of legislation sets out what those rights are and makes it clear that a person may use reasonable force to defend themselves in their home. The Act recognises the special constitutional protection which applies to a person's home under Article 40.5 which states: "The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law."

It is important to clarify that the provisions and protections in the Act only apply when a person is in their dwelling or curtilage and does not apply to a public place. The Act allows a householder, where they believe a trespasser is entering the dwelling to commit a criminal act, to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in order to protect people in the dwelling from assault, to protect property, to prevent the commission of a crime or to make a lawful arrest. The Act explicitly provides that a person is under no obligation to retreat from their home. A person who uses reasonable force, as provided for in the Act, cannot be sued for damages by a burglar. I emphasise this in response to Deputy Durkan's comments.

It is also important to remember that other laws also deal with the issue of burglary and in particular the penalties which apply to those convicted of such offences. Burglary is a criminal offence which carries serious penalties. The law in this area is governed by the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. Section 12 of that Act provides:

A person is guilty of burglary if he or she—

(a) enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser and with intent to commit an arrestable offence, or

(b) having entered any building or part of a building as a trespasser, commits or attempts to commit any such offence therein.

A person guilty of burglary is liable to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or both. I note what the Deputy said about the particular case he raised. The courts are independent and it is for the Judiciary to determine the appropriate sentence to impose in any particular case.

Section 13 of the 2001 Act provides:

A person is guilty of aggravated burglary if he or she commits any burglary and at the time has with him or her any firearm or imitation firearm, any weapon of offence or any explosive.

A person convicted of aggravated burglary is liable to imprisonment for life. In addition, section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 provides that a court may make a monitoring order for persons convicted of aggravated burglary. The court may also make a protection of persons order. Such an order prohibits the offender from engaging in any behaviour that would be likely to cause the victim of the offence fear, distress or alarm or would be likely to amount to intimidation of any such person. The same Act provides mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders.

It is not a matter for me as Minister for Justice and Equality to comment on the particular circumstances of any settlement made in a private civil action. The settlement of any individual claim is a matter for the relevant parties to decide on. In the case mentioned by the Deputy, it seems the claim made by the person convicted of burglary was addressed by the insurance company of the person against whom the claim was made. Insurance companies are free to make settlements for pragmatic reasons in any given case. However, as Minister, I regard the reported level of settlement reached and compensation paid in this case surprising.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I thank the Minister for his reply and I am glad to hear he is surprised by the settlement. I assure him I was surprised and I am sure everybody in the country was surprised by it. I note the Minister's comment with regard to the retrospective application of the law. It is unfortunate that the court case only took place in recent times, since the passage of the legislation into law, because in the people's minds it looks as if the legislation should apply. If other cases of a similar nature are pending, we must ask whether the relevant legislation is strong enough to deal with those cases. I am not sure it is. It should be clearly indicated to all and sundry that if a person enters another person's house with the intention of committing a felony, there should be no recourse to the law and no insurance payment nor compensation payment if that person falls and break his neck or if someone else injures him. That is the way it should be.

Much debate has revolved around the definition of "reasonable force". I can never understand how in the calmness of the courtroom it can be decided that perhaps a victim used excessive force in repelling a burglar or intruder. That decision is made in the calm of the courtroom, whereas the unfortunate householder who may have been woken up in the middle of the night had to respond in the heat of the moment and in the absence of calm. He or she may have been motivated by fear, which is the greatest motivator of all. We should be cognisant of that at this time. I emphasise that regardless of the legal niceties of a particular case or whether we like it, the message being given to the public is not the right one at any time, particularly at this time.

Deputy Alan Shatter

The message being given to the public by this Government is the right one. After many years of promises by previous Governments, this Government has put into effect a law covering this issue - the Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011. The clear position now is if someone burglarises someone else's home, the home owner is entitled to use such force as is reasonable based on the threat that he or she perceives resulting from the circumstances that have arisen. It is not simply a question of the threat as it is perceived "in the calm of the courtroom". It is a question of the subjective threat that an individual believed he or she faced in the circumstances in which he or she found somebody unlawfully in his or her house. We cannot legislate for past events. The legislation that has been enacted applies to any burglary that takes place as and from 13 January 2012, which is the date on which the legislation came into effect. There is no particular reason the public should take any wrong message of any nature from that.

The Deputy mentioned a recent case in which a prosecution was taken against a home owner. As he is aware, the individual in question was found not guilty by a jury. Those criminal proceedings took place because the events that gave rise to the prosecution occurred substantially prior to 13 January 2012. We now have an entirely new legal position. Individuals are now protected against being sued by those who unlawfully enter and burglarise their homes, where the actions taken by such individuals to protect themselves, their family members or their properties was reasonable in the circumstances as they perceived them. This major change in our law is very important. I hope it will ensure that in future, no burglar will successfully sue any individual who took reasonable action to confront the burglar in order to protect himself or herself, his or her family or his or her property. I emphasise that the actions taken by such individuals must be reasonable, based on the circumstances as they perceive them. That is very important.

As I always say in these circumstances, although there is no obligation on one to retreat when one's home is burglarised - one can take reasonable action to protect one and one's family - I urge that one should contact the gardaí if one has an opportunity to do so and, where possible, try to avoid confrontation. It is of crucial importance that ordinary citizens do not unnecessarily put themselves or their family members in harm's way, even when faced with unlawful conduct by others.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 29 Feb 2012