Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Feb 1989

Vol. 122 No. 3

Firearms and Offensive Weapons Bill, 1989: Second Stage.

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

As the law stands there is no effective control on offensive weapons other than firearms, save in limited circumstances where they are employed to commit a crime. I believe there is general agreement that that is not satisfactory and that the law should be tightened. The purpose of this Bill is to provide comprehensive controls on stun guns, crossbows and other offensive weapons.

The Government have been very concerned about the advent of weapons such as stun guns. Also of concern has been the availability of crossbows which are becoming ever more sophisticated and are potentially lethal. As well, incidents involving what I might term the more traditional type of offensive weapons such as knives have become more frequent. It is against this background and with these concerns in mind that the Bill has been introduced.

In broad outline, the Bill seeks to deal with the problem in the following way. Stun guns and crossbows ar being brought within the ambit of the Firearms Acts. The possession of knives, or articles which can be misused in a similar manner to knives, is being made an offence in places of public entertainment or resort. The possession of flick knives and weapons made or adapted to cause injury in a public place is being made an offence, as is the carrying of any article with intent to cause injury or intimidate. To have an offensive weapon while trespassing on private property will be an offence.

It will be an offence to produce any article capable of causing serious injury to intimidate in furtherance of a crime or during a fight or dispute. Also, power will be conferred on the Minister for Justice to make regulations to prohibit the manufacture, importation, sale etc., of weapons which he considers particularly dangerous or objectionable and for which there is no legitimate use or need. What is in mind here is weapons such as flick knives, knuckle-dusters, certain martial arts weapons etc. Finally, the Garda will be conferred with the necessary powers of arrest, search and seizure to enforce the provisions of the Bill.

Before dealing with the detailed provisions of the Bill, I would like to make some general comments about its format and the background to it.

In framing the Bill I took cognisance of the need to provide adequate legislative controls on the possession and availability of offensive weapons while, at the same time, avoiding any unnecessary or unreasonable interference with people's right to possess and to use articles which, while they may be employed as offensive weapons, have legitimate sporting, recreational and other uses. The Bill aims to achieve a balance in this regard. This is why the various weapons encompassed by the Bill are subject to different and varying degrees of control.

I believe we have got the balance right but I look forward to having the benefit of Senators' views on this and other aspects of the Bill during the course of debate. I invite and will welcome any constructive suggestions which might improve the Bill.

In the context of achieving the balance I referred to, each of the categories of weapon dealt with in the Bill was considered separately in terms of what controls could best be applied to it. First, there is the question of stun guns.

A stun gun is a device designed to emit a high voltage electric pulse to interrupt voluntary muscle control and temporarily incapacitate a person with whom it is brought in contact. There is no doubt that it is a dangerous weapon and open to serious abuse. Stun guns have been on sale in this country for some time under different brand names. They have been openly advertised as a self-defence weapon. This has been possible because there is uncertainty as to whether a stun gun is encompassed by the existing definitions in the Firearms Acts. The legal advice available to me is that they probably do already come under the Firearms Acts but until the courts have had an opportunity to decide the matter we cannot be certain.

The Garda authorities have advised me that they regard stun guns as dangerous weapons which are open to abuse, particularly in the hands of criminals. I have no doubt, therefore, that this weapon should no longer be available.

The Bill provides that stun guns will be firearms for the purposes of the Firearms Acts. This will make their importation illegal, except under licence granted by the Minister for Justice, and will make their sale, ownership etc. unlawful without an appropriate firearm certificate issued by the Garda Síochána. Given the nature of this weapon I do not envisage that any licences or certificates will be granted in respect of them. The only use to which a stun gun can be put is to incapacitate another person and I can see no case for licensing a person to keep a weapon for this purpose.

It might be argued that there is a case for allowing stun guns for self-defence. I could not agree that people should be allowed or encouraged to arm themselves in this way. There is also the very practical concern that if these weapons are available at all they will eventually find their way into criminal hands. I am satisfied, therefore, that there is no justifiable case for the availability of stun guns in this country.

The next item I considered in framing the Bill was crossbows, Here again we are concerned with a dangerous weapon with lethal potential in the wrong hands. However, unlike stun guns, crossbows do have legitimate uses. They are used by persons engaged in the sport of archery and by members of archery clubs. I am told, in fact, that they are particularly suitable for disabled people wishing to participate in that sport. It would, I believe, be unreasonable to totally prohibit them. I think the correct balance is achieved by what is proposed in the Bill. They will be designated as firearms under the Firearms Acts. This will permit their strict control while, at the same time, allowing them to be used for legitimate sporting and recreational purposes.

Next I had to consider the problem of other offensive weapons. We are all aware of the extent to which offensive weapons are being used. Particularly frequent are stabbing incidents involving young people. These cases can be particularly unfortunate as they often arise where drink has been taken, a row develops outside a public house or after a dance, a knife is produced and the episode ends in tragedy. What needs to be done is to dissuade young people in particular from adopting the practice of carrying knives or other offensive weapons, particularly at dances, discos, concerts, football matches etc. What is not acceptable and what we must try to prevent is young people being led to believe that carrying knives will establish them as "hard men" or give them a "macho" image.

In the recent Intoxicating Liquor Act I have tried to tighten up the law on under-age drinking. In the Video Recordings Bill, which was recently debated in this House, I am endeavouring to ensure that children and young persons will not be exposed to the pernicious effects of the video nasty. I hope the provisions of this Bill will dissuade young people from the practice of carrying knives or other weapons.

The question of legislative controls on offensive weapons was a matter considered by the Law Reform Commission in their report on vagrancy and related offences. To the extent that the Commission made recommendations in this area these have been incorporated in the Bill with one exception which I will explain later when dealing with the relevant provisions of the Bill.

I will now deal in brief outline with the provisions of the Bill. Section 1 (2) provides that the Bill will come into operation on the date it is passed, except for Part II which contains the provisions extending the Firearms Acts to crossbows and stun guns and which is to come into force two months after that date. The period of two months is being provided to allow persons who are in possession of crossbows either to dispose of them or to obtain a firearm certificate or, in the case of those who are in possession of stun guns, to dispose of them.

Part II brings crossbows and stun guns within the definition of "firearms" in the Firearms Acts. As I have already explained why this is being done and the practical effects for persons who have either a crossbow or a stun gun, I do not think there is any need for me to say anything further on this Part of the Bill.

Part III relates to offensive weapons. The basic difficulty in framing proposals to deal with this problem is that many ordinary household articles can be used as offensive weapons and, to put the problem in concrete terms, we obviously should not prohibit the sale or possession of kitchen knives, screwdrivers, chisels or many other articles simply because they can be used as weapons by persons so inclined. It would also, in my opinion, be going too far to impose on the citizen who has possession of these articles in the ordinary way the onus of showing that he has them for an innocent purpose.

The proposal in the Bill is that the problem should be dealt with in stages so to speak. First of all, it refers to such places as dance halls, cinemas, discos and the like and sets down as the basic rule that, when people are likely to be resorting to these places, nobody should, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, have with him any knife or any other bladed or sharply pointed article other than an ordinary folding pocket knife. This is covered by section 5 (1). In this type of case, the onus is being placed on a person if he is found to be carrying a knife or other specified article — pocket knife excluded, as I say — to show that he has lawful authority or a reasonable excuse.

Section 5 (2) deals with flick knives and other weapons made or adapted to cause injury and extends to any public place. It prohibits a person from having, in a public place, again without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, any flick knife or any article whatsoever made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person. Apart from flick knives, on which we need not spend any time, the subsection deals with articles "made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person". What is in question here is mainly home-made weapons such as the filed steel comb or the razor blade embedded in some holder, or the piece of bicycle chain attached to a handle. Anybody found with a weapon of that kind in a public place will be committing an offence under the subsection unless he can show that he has lawful authority or a reasonable excuse.

What constitutes "lawful authority" or a "reasonable excuse" in terms of the offences created in subsection 5 (1) and (2) will depend on the circumstances and ultimately would be a matter for the court. It would not be possible in the Bill to specify all the situations in which these defences could be legitimately raised.

There is one further point I would like to refer to in relation to subsections (1) and (2). This is the burden of proof. In both of the subsections a person who is found with a knife etc. in circumstances which come within the scope of the subsections will be required to prove that he had lawful authority or a reasonable excuse for carrying the article. In accordance with the general rule as to where a burden of proof is cast on the defence, the burden will be to prove lawful authority or reasonable excuse on a balance of probabilities. While the Law Reform Commission in their report on vagrancy and related offences recommended the creation of offences along the lines provided in the Bill they took the view that it would not be desirable that a burden such as proposed should be placed on the accused. They considered that, provided the accused adduced sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue as to whether he had lawful authority or reasonable excuse, the burden of proving the contrary should be on the prosecution.

After careful consideration the Government have concluded that the burden of providing lawful authority or reasonable excuse should be placed on the defence as the relevant subsections propose. This is because they consider that otherwise there would be too great a danger that a guilty person would escape conviction by putting forward a false defence which the prosecution might be unable to refute, with the results that the provisions would be unduly weakened.

In subsection (3) it is proposed to make it an offence to carry, in a public place, any article intended by the person unlawfully to cause injury to or to intimidate another. This will, of course, include any type of knife etc. What is important is the intent of the person having the article and not the nature of the article itself. Criminal intent is an essential ingredient of the offence and the onus of providing such intent will be on the prosecution. However, in establishing whether such intent existed, the courts will be entitled to look at all the circumstances — the type of article, the time of day or night and the place — and, if the circumstances so warrant, to draw its own conclusions as to the person's intentions in the absence of any adequate explanation by him.

Section 6 provides that it will be an offence for a person to trespass on private premises with a dangerous knife, a bladed or sharply pointed article or weapon of offence as defined in the section. This provision is designed to deal with the situation where a person trespassing on premises is found with an offensive weapon in his possession. It is very likely in such circumstances that the person involved has criminal intent, including very possibly intent to use the weapon if need be. While it would be reasonable to assume that intent from the circumstances, it could be very difficult to prove. Therefore, this provision wil not require proof of intent. It will be enough to show that he has been found trespassing with a weapon.

The purpose of section 7 is to deter the use of weapons or dangerous articles to intimidate. It will make it an offence to produce any article which is capable of causing serious injury — and this could be something other than a weapon per se such as a pick, a hammer, a plank of wood etc. — while committing a crime or appearing to be about to commit one or during a fight or dispute in a manner likely to intimidate another person.

Section 8 gives the Minister for Justice power to make regulations prescribing weapons other than firearms, which are dealt with in the Firearms Acts, which may not be manufactured, imported, sold, etc. The types of weapons that will be prescribed in the regulations will be decied in consultation with the Garda authorities, but it is envisaged that flick knives, knuckle-dusters and certain martial arts weapons will be so prescribed.

Section 9 provides for the forfeiture of an article where a person is convicted of an offence in respect of that article under the Bill. It would obviously be wrong if a person could be convicted for carrying a flick knife in a public place and could demand the return of his knife once the criminal proceedings had been concluded. Hence this provision.

Sections 10 and 11 provide powers which the Garda Síochána will require to enforce the new legislation on offensive weapons. A power of arrest without warrant is being provided in relation to offences under section 5, 6 and 7. In addition the Garda are being empowered to obtain search warrants to search premises in respect of offences under section 8.

Section 12 provides the Garda with power to search persons under specified conditions. The powers conferred by the section would not permit a garda to search a person on mere suspicion of carrying a weapon. An outright stop and search power or what, in a neighbouring jurisdiction, became known as the ‘sus law' is not, I think, required in this country.

Section 12 provides that where a number of person are gathered in a public place or a place of public entertainment or resort and a breach of the peace is occurring or a garda has reasonable grounds for believing that a breach of the peace has occurred or may occur, the garda may search persons whom he reasonably suspects to be carrying offensive weapons. The important feature of the section is that it gives the Garda power to search for weapons in crowd situations where trouble is likely. In terms of searches to be carried out under the section, frisking is all that would be required.

Section 13 confers certain powers on the Garda to search vehicles and persons in vehicles in respect of offences under section 8 — manufacture, sale, etc. of weapons prohibited by regulations made by the Minister. This provision is designed to deal with the situation where a person may be trading in prohibited weapons from a vehicle or transporting them for the purpose of trade.

I commend the Bill to the House.

In welcoming the Bill I also commend the Minister. It is apparent to us in this House that the volume of legislation emanating from the Minister's Department in recent months is probably equal in volume to that of several Departments combined. The Minister is to be commended on the energy he is showing in his Department. He is keeping us busy but he is also producing some very worthwhile legislation. This Bill will essentially be a Committee Stage Bill because it is not just a Bill to deal with stun guns and crossbows and other offensive weapons. It is a Bill which confers some very far-reaching powers on the Garda which might well extend into other areas of crime also. It is a Bill which will need very careful and detailed attention on Committee Stage and it is our intention to give the Bill that type of examination at that point.

I want to make a few general observations. This is in many ways commonsense legislation. It comes into existence against a background of increasing violence at all levels in society. Most of us in this House are of an age to remember a time in Ireland when a murder was something which hit the headlines, stayed in the headlines for days on end, when a murder would be known to virtually everybody in the country and when the circumstances and details of it would often be a part of the daily conversation of people throughout the country. When a person was eventually brought to court the country, or a large part of it, would follow the case with great interest. That day is certainly gone.

Today, murders, serious assaults, serious offences, crimes which are so unspeakable that 20 or 30 years ago we would never think they would be possible in a country like this, are now all too frequently a commonplace occurrence. Crimes against old people, unspeakable crimes against old, defenceless people have now become so much a part of the pattern of Irish life that it must give us all very serious cause for reflection and for concern. Crimes by able-bodied young men against pensioners, against old people living alone in remote areas, crimes which involve not just robbery but an enormous degree of gratuitous violence, cruelty and sadism, are something which, as I say, have become much too common.

This general coarsening of our way of life and the increase in violence has many reasons. Some of it may very well be the overspill of trouble from Northern Ireland, the general cheapening of life in that part of our country. Again, all of us can remember those who died in the early stages in Northern Ireland, but very few of us can remember who was killed last week or the week before so inured have we become to this new state of affairs. Of course many of the reasons can be found in social factors, in unemployment, in poverty, in deprivation but undoubtedly part of the problem also lies in the easy availability of weapons. The purpose of this Bill today is to tackle that particular problem. I think, in seeking to ensure that, we move away from the example of the US and towards a point in which offensive weapons are very tightly controlled, indeed to a situation where they should not be available to all. I believe that is something which most of us would support.

As I said, I will be devoting most of my attention to the Bill on Committee Stage but I would like to comment on a number of aspects of the Bill. I believe that on the question of stun guns the Minister has got to the heart of the problem here. There is no way in which a stun gun can be seen as a sporting weapon. There is no use for a stun gun other than to incapacitate some person. It is in every sense an offensive weapon. Given the state of technology, it is probably only in the early stages of development. We are probably into the stage when stun guns mark two, mark three and mark four will appear, each more lethal, each more effective, than the ones which are now being imported. For that reason the Minister is wise in this legislation to ensure that future developments in technology can be catered for in dealing with this problem. There is no way a stun gun is a sporting or recreational weapon. There are no stun gun championships, no firms are rushing in to sponsor a stun gunner of the year and I am not sure, if that were the case, how the prizes would be awarded. I am glad that the Minister is moving in this way on stun guns.

I am slightly concerned, however, about the question of self-defence. There is a very real fear on the part of many of our older people for their own safety, especially people living in remote areas. Many of them probably have guns on the premises, perhaps for sporting purposes, but which are kept under the bed or close at hand in the event of the house being broken into. It might well be argued in a case like this that a stun gun is less likely to do permanent damage, that a stun gun could be a more effective weapon in self-defence. It is a very difficult question and I am not sure where the balance is. The Minister may have got the balance right in the legislation, but it is something I would like to ponder over between now and Committee Stage. In some ways there may well be an argument, in the case of persons living alone in a remote area who feel they need some weapon to defend themselves, that a stun gun is the lesser of two evils as between it and a normal shotgun or sporting gun. I would like perhaps to have this point teased out a little bit at a later stage.

On the question of crossbows, I think there is a problem here because, as the Minister points out, crossbows have an honourable history as a sporting weapon. There are competitions. There are law-abiding people who have reached very high levels of proficiency and have got great pleasure from the use of crossbows in this way. We also have seen in recent times in other countries the way in which crossbows can be used as a particularly offensive weapon. Perhaps the Minister is getting it right — and I think he may well be — in bringing the crossbows under the same control as other firearms, making them part of the Firearms Act. I have spoken to gardaí and others about this and I have not met anybody who disagreed with the line the Minister is taking on this matter.

In his speech the Minister talked about the two-month amnesty period. I just wonder if it is long enough. There may well be a case for extending this slightly to ensure that the message is got across, but that is really a question of judgment more than anything else. The Minister also spoke about other offensive weapons. Clearly, it would be unworkable if any attempt was made to define what might be an offensive weapon because every single article of everyday use would then simply fall under this heading. Clearly, for any of these items it would be unrealistic — in fact, it would be draconian — to put on the citizen the onus of proving they were held for normal use. I think the Minister has moved the Bill in the right direction in defining the places in which the carrying of these weapons may be construed as being for illegal or unlawful purposes.

There is one point, and perhaps the Minister could elaborate on it. This Bill, first of all, refers to such places as dance halls cinemas, discos and so on and sets down as the basic rule that when people are likely to resort to these places nobody should, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, have with them any knife or other bladed or sharply pointed article and so on. This does not include sporting venues. One of the very pleasant things in this country is that when one is going to a football match, whether it was the international match last week or to an All-Ireland or a football match, there is a great sense of people being up for the day, out to enjoy the match. But we have seen occasions, say during European football, when supporters from other jurisdictions have sought to start trouble, riots, fights and so on. Perhaps sporting events are included. I am raising this point now, however, and I would welcome some clarification on it.

In the Bill there is one area where I think I may find myself in some fundamental disagreement with the Minister and it is a point I would like to tease out on Committee Stage. I refer to the part of the Minister's speech where he comes out against the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission on the question of the burden of proof. It is a very difficult question. Up to now in this country we have generally taken the view that a person is innocent until proven guilty. To a certain extent this legislation will now put the burden of proving innocence on the person found with the alleged offensive weapon. I understand why the Government are moving in this direction. I understand the frustration which many law enforcement agencies have in trying to prove a case like this, where they are certain, and the probability is, that the item was intended to be used as an offensive weapon, but there is often a difficulty in proving that this was so. From now on under this legislation the person found with the weapon must prove that it was for an innocent purpose. I understand the frustrations and reasons behind this but it is something which I would like to see teased out in much greater detail on Committee Stage because it does have enormous implications.

On the question of persons found trespassing with a weapon, I can recommend this section wholeheartedly. In the case of a person found illegally on premises with an item or instrument which can be construed as an offensive weapon, I think in that case the burden of proving innocence should lie fairly and squarely with that person. I welcome this part of the Bill.

There is one further point which I would like to make. This comes under the section on the power to make regulations. As I have mentioned on the question of stun guns, we are probably at the beginning of this development and new and more sophisticated varieties may well appear where it is important that there is the capacity to react quickly. I would like also to raise the question of imitation firearms. Many of these today are very sophisticated in the degree of imitation. They may appear to be the real thing. Many of them are used in robberies. Perhaps we should be grateful than those involved in the robberies only use imitation weapons, but I would like to ask the Minister if it is intended to bring imitation weapons within the scope of the Bill.

I welcome this Bill in principle, although I have reservations about a number of parts of it. I think it may well be improved in other areas, but it is a piece of commonsense legislation which will be welcomed generally and which has a very clear purpose which would be welcomed by almost everybody in the community.

I also welcome this Bill, which will prohibit the use and purchase of stun guns, crossbows, flick knives or to have any article in a public place with intent to cause injury or to intimidate or to trespass on any premises with a knive of any offensive weapon. The law at present has no effective control over offensive weapons other than firearms. Therefore, the purpose of this Bill is to provide comprehensive control of stun guns, crossbows and other offensive weapons such as knives, etc. I am quite sure that the general public will be delighted that this Bill has been introduced. It is timely. I maintain it should have been introduced many years ago. I would like to congratulate the Minister on having it introduced now. The general public will feel much safer on the streets, in dance halls, discos, pubs and in attending football matches. Even though it has not crept in in this country, offensive weapons are used at all types of football matches. They are not being used here, but they are used fairly extensively in Europe and we have read a lot about them. That possibly could creep into this country. We have been free of it up to this and it is important in future that any offensive weapons such as knives etc., will not be allowed to be used on any of our football pitches.

I notice that the Bill has two main sections — that stun guns and crossbows are brought within the Firearms Act. The use in a public place of entertainment or resort of knives, flick knives or any other article which can be misused in a similar manner to knives is being made an offence. The Bill also empowers the Minister to prohibit the manufacture, importation and sale of weapons which are dangerous or objectionable. There is no legitimate used of the flick knive, knuckle-duster or any other such article which could be described an an offensive weapon.

The stun gun is a new weapon which came on the market just a number of years ago. We did not hear of it in Ireland up to three years ago. It emits a high voltage electric shock and temporarily incapacitates the person with whom it is brought into contact. It is a very dangerous weapon and should be no longer available here. The crossbow is also a very dangerous weapon. As the Minister stated in his speech, and in the Bill, this is also going to be banned from sale to the general public. I accept that there are exceptions and that the crossbow is used in the sport of archery. As the Minister stated in his speech, the crossbow can be covered under the Firearms Act and this is to be welcomed. It will allow crossbows to be used for legitimate sporting activity and recreational purposes.

Other weapons which are prohibited under the Bill are flick knives. It is disgraceful the way some young people today use flick knives. They can cause injury to people and often death. It is timely that this legislation was introduced to ban the use, sale and manufacture of flick knives and I welcome it to prohibit the sale of any of those offensive weapons.

I would like to say to the Minister that there is a factory in my county which manufactures knives, mainly penknives. I am just trying to safeguard an industry for my own county. The knives that are manufactured in this factory are mainly for export. I phoned the manager of the factory today when I knew this Bill was coming up and I asked him about the type of knives that were manufactured there and if they would be prohibited by this legislation. He informed me that they manufacture knives for skinning deer and that they are for export. They also manufacture a knife which is a straight knife for filleting fish. I would like the Minister to look into this matter. I hope he will forgive me for raising this issue but this is an industry that has been in one of our towns in County Kerry for the past 12 to 15 years. It has been a very good industry and I would not like to see them prohibited in any way.

(Interruptions.)

I can assure the Senator they are not manufacturing knives for the purposes we have been speaking about here today. It is a very reputable firm and I thought perhaps I might mention it here, especially in view of the fact that we are talking about the manufacture of knives and prohibiting their manufacture. Possibly I will bring the Minister a sample and let the people in his Department have a look at it. Anyway, these knives are in general for export: they are not sold in this country.

I welcome the Bill. It is about time we prohibited the use of offensive weapons such as knives and stun guns in this country. I suppose in places like County Clare or County Kerry we do not experience the use of flick knives and of most of those offensive weapons mentioned in the Bill, but those weapons are used fairly extensively in the cities. We read a lot about them and it is time that this legislation was introduced. I congratulate the Minister on having introduced it. I am quite sure that everyone in the country will welcome this legislation except probably the very few who use those offensive weapons.

I think it would be remiss of me to let the occasion pass without noting the fact that the output of legislation from this Department has been by any standards impressive over the past period. It is important to put that on the record. I am not pointing a finger at any Department, but there is a tendency to funnel legislation too tightly through one person from a Department. I certainly get the impression from the Department of Justice at the moment that there seems to be a free flow of the drafting of legislation to the different sections of the Department. It would appear to me that the different sections are preparing and have prepared legislation over the past period. All the signs are of that, as I see it. To my mind, that certainly is the kind of organisation of a Department which leads to a prompt response to the needs of the community. I said recently it was not enough to say that a Government is elected simply to pass laws: a Government is elected to pass laws which will reflect the needs and the times of the community. This can only be done if there is an effective way of responding and that, by its nature, means a fairly rapid response. Therefore, it is nice to see this legislation come through.

We are dealing with a topic which really is a new topic. We are dealing with matters here, particularly the part about stun guns and to a lesser extent the crossbows, that would not have been discussed five, six or ten years ago. It is a very rapid response to a need and it is important that we should put that on the record.

The other point which the Minister made in his speech and to which I would like to advert at this point — I am sure it was not put in there without some consideration — is the fact that the Minister believed he had got the balance right but that he looked forward to having the benefit of Senators' views on this and other aspects of the Bill during the course of the debate. I welcome that kind of an open attitude in respect of legislation. I certainly know the Minister did accept on a previous occasion a minor amendment from me on legislation and I intend drawing his attention to two aspects of this Bill today which I believe need tidying up. I hope they will be taken in the spirit in which they are offered. I will come to them in due course.

I would also like to reiterate the point mentioned earlier about this whole question of the martial arts. I do not know enough about the martial arts, particularly the newer ones in the last number of years which have to do with the using of staffs and sticks and other things. I am not even sure if they can be legislated for; I suspect they cannot. I would certainly like to get the benefit of the views of the Department, who I have no doubt have considered this matter, to know what can be done. We know, in fact, that the side of a person's hand can be more lethal than a flick knife. I am not saying that we can have legislation for that — possibly we cannot — though in other countries it has been attempted, perhaps not very satisfactorily. I would, however, like to raise the matter and to hear the Minister's response to it.

It is also timely that we have this legislation because it re-emphasises once more for us the escalation of firearms-related offences, offences against the person, over the last number of years. I remember every murder case in Kerry when I was a youngster; I could discuss every one of them. I am not taking Kerry for any particular reason except that I am from the county. I recall, like Senator Manning, that a murder made national headlines. Kerry, of course, was a particularly passive and law-abiding county and there were very few murders in it anyway. Perhaps that is the reason why I would remember the few.

The "cá bhfuil sé" case.

Indeed, I remember it well. As I recall it, it was whether they called the nephew before the uncle. The first to give evidence was the key point in that particular case.

To come back to the Bill, I would like to refer to section 4. That section defines "firearms" to mean certain things. I have raised this point in previous legislation and I have never succeeded, but I am certainly going to raise it again. I would always prefer the word "includes" rather than the word "means" there. That is because I do not know to what extent people can design new items of abuse that can offend or attack the person which we have not thought about yet and in respect of which it could be given as a lawful excuse or defence that they were not covered under the Act. I would like to hear the Minister's response on that point, whether or not we could say in the Firearms Act that a firearm includes A, B, C, D etc. down along. Remember, I would be speaking from the point of view of protecting our civil liberties. I believe civil liberties are a two-sided thing. You try to achieve the common good without encroaching too far on the rights of individuals. I do not believe it would be a grievous offence against the civil liberties of anybody to change the word "means" to "include" in that particular case.

I recognise that the Minister explained that using the 1.4 kilo cut-off point for a crossbow was something that was well looked at by the Department. I have no doubt that there is the best possible reason for arriving at that but out of pure interest I would like to know how it was decided that a crossbow with a draw weight of less than 1.5 kilos was not a firearm and that above that figure it was a firearm. I would like to know why the cut-off point was picked and how it was picked. To save me reading through the Firearms Acts of 1925 and up along, I would also like it clarified by the Minister that all previous firearms are now covered in this and that what we are doing today is adding to them. I suspect that is the case, but I would like it clarified for the record. In many ways we have covered in section 4 those particular items that are of importance.

Section 5 is the section of the Bill which deals with the possession of knives and other articles. Here is a case that, no matter which way you do it, people are going to be unhappy with it. I am not sure I am 100 per cent certain of my own arguments about it and I want to tease one point out. The section states that a person shall be guilty of an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse — the onus of proving which shall lie on him; I will come back to that — he has with him any knife or any other article which has a blade or which is sharply pointed, other than a folding pocket knife. I have thought about why "other than a folding pocket knife" was put in there. I am sure it was put in for the most rational considerations. It was an attempt to be pragmatic in responding to points such as Senator McEllistrim has raised. Many law-abiding citizens will carry with them a folding pocket knife for the purpose of cutting tobacco or a bit of string or whatever but here is the question that has not been adverted to. I will be proposing that those words be taken out because I think it actually weakens the rest of the section. I want to explain the reason.

This is a matter which arose in other legislation where the Minister took the other side of the argument. Once you start including you also start excluding. In this case we are excluding folding pocket knives, for the very simple reason that a folding pocket knife can be used for a wide variety of other purposes. Why did we not also include table knives or cutlery or a lot of other things which, if the humour took somebody, could be used very definitely as an offensive weapon? In this legislation we are excluding folding pocket knives and the only reason we are doing that is because they are one form of knife which can be used for purposes quite clearly other than the things seen by the Bill. In other words, why exclude one type of knife and not any other type of knife? Could anyone give me a reason why we exclude folding pocket knives but do not exclude table knives in that section? I do not think that has been addressed.

I am being very serious about this. It weakens the subsection; it adds nothing to the legislation. I am talking about interpretation. It may be said that when this Bill was being drafted, it said "other than folding pocket knives", that there is something special about those which does not obviously apply to table knives and a myriad other forms of knives. I think Senator McEllistrim mentioned a few of them which might be made for perfectly legitimate purposes but any of which, including the folding pocket knife, could be used for the kind of purposes we are trying to eliminate by passing this Bill.

In the same section we find "the onus of proving which shall lie on him". That is twice in the Bill and is a major change in what we have come to expect, to recognise and to know in Irish law and legislation. When I read it first I was quite happy to leave that stand because the guy can say: "I was just going to fix a fuse or change a bulb or straighten the door on its hinges or there is a difficulty with the safety doors"— a million other lawful reasons ran straight into my mind — then I looked at the Minister's reasons. I really have difficulty. It certainly seems quite reasonable to ask that a person would explain why he or she has an awl or something in his or her possession. They could say: "Well, we were just doing a bit or artwork with a bit of leather over here" and explain what it is, some reasonable excuse, but I do not think the Minister's reason — that a guilty person would escape conviction by putting forward a false defence which the prosecution might be unable to refute — is acceptable. That really worries me. What is the guilty person? I think the Minister knows better than anyone what a guilty person is. A guilty person is a person who has been convicted, I believe at the end of the day.

I know it can be looked at in different ways but I would just like the Minister to develop that point in his response. I do not intend to put down an amendment to that section but I want to have it very clearly put on the record that I think the prosecution must be able to refute a claim. I would much prefer if that statement had not been made. I believe it has no place in the Minister's speech. It worries me and it is the kind of a statement that, in other circumstances, I would latch on to and point out as a move in the wrong direction in terms of intrusion on civil liberties.

I welcome the position created later on in section 5 (4) where the Minister is proposing to legislate that a person in possession of one of the named articles covered by the earlier section of the Bill in this particular set of circumstances can be deemed to have been in possession with proof, and that once it has been proved that this person was carrying a gun and that it is in a private property or is in some set of circumstances where there is no possible reasonable excuse for having it, therefore it can be deduced that it is proof of intent to cause injury or to threaten people, I have no difficulty with that. I think that is positive and progressive and it is something we must have in our legislation at the moment in order to protect the common good in many different ways.

Later on in that section of the Bill in subsection (7) there is an area which deals with flick knifes and it goes on to define a flick knife. I have looked at it very closely. It seems to cover every possible type of mechanical instrument that could be seen as being a flick knife. It refers to a knife which has a blade which opens when hand pressure is applied to a button, spring, lever or other device in or attached to the handle. I do not think it is necessary to have that in. Many weapons nowadays are based on infra-red or sensitisers or something like that. I would just like to have it made clear that if somebody invents a flick knife that is operated by electricity or a battery that would be critically important.

I want to move on to the two items which have caused me most concern in this legislation. I am looking particularly at section 8. That section gives power to prohibit the manufacture, importation, sale, hire or loan of offensive weapons. It says that any person who manufactures, sells, hires or offers or exposes for hire or sale or has in his possession for the purpose of hire or sale or puts on display or lends or gives to any other person a weapon to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence. I want to raise with the Minister a point on this section which I believe has not been adverted to and it is simply the type of excuse that can be given in a court of law for possession. A person is charged with having something in his possession "for the purpose...". The Minister has said the purpose of possession is to sell, to hire — and this deals with all the people who are supplying the criminals around the city — to put it on display, to lend or give to any person...". I put it to the Minister that it covers all the circumstances bar one and the one that it does not cover is this: "I am not selling the weapon, I am not hiring it: I am not lending it. I am not displaying it; I just had it because I was repairing it for my brother" or "I was servicing it for somebody else".

It does not cover the very critical area of repair and service of weapons. I believe it has to cover that because it would be a clear loophole in the legislation if somebody says he had the weapon for one of these purposes. Once we talk about manufacture we will also get into the area of repair and service. I am talking about the home-made mortar bombs and including many other things as well. I would ask the Minister to respond on that point. I certainly intend putting down an amendment to the Bill to include "any person who manufactures, sells or hires, repairs or services". I think the Minister will accept that this would be a sensible tightening up of precisely what he is trying to do here. Some years ago I read of that excuse being put forward by a smart lawyer. I do not think we need to have that kind of weakness in the Bill.

I will move on very quickly to section 11 of the Bill. Again, I will be coming back to these issues on Committee Stage. Section 11 deals with the issue of search warrants for the searching of premises. As it stands, to my mind it covers much of what is being seen as necessary in the Bill but there are two things which are missing. Through detective work, investigation, information or whatever, the Garda identify a house where they believe firearms are being kept and that section 8 of the Bill is being contravened and they seek a search warrant for a particular house.

I notice that in an earlier section, section 6, premises are also defined. They would seek a search warrant to cover a premises. As I understand it, premises are "any building or part of building or any land ancillary to a building"— I presume that means part of the plot or site on which the building is sited. If the Garda then go to the house to search for a weapon and the person runs out the back door or side door and into an adjoining or adjacent house, not on the premises, not covered by the definition of "premises" in the earlier part of the Bill, we are therefore thwarted, we are stymied.

What is necessary here is the power of authority to pursue from a premises for which a search warrant has been issued, and search in another premises, if a person runs from the first. Unfortunately, I did not get enough time to check this. I believe the Criminal Law Act, 1976 which deals with search warrants is wider and allows the person with the search warrant, for instance, to take other items which he or she considers would be useful in evidence. In other words, it is not so specific, it is somewhat broader. There is a discretion left to the person searching the premises to decide: "That is not a gun or a firearm but it could be put together in such a way as to make a firearm". I think I have made the point. I do not want to spell it out in too much detail. I think the section needs to be broadened to the extent I have mentioned.

The section provides that you may issue a warrant so that a person can enter, if need be, by force, to search "the premises specified". Therefore, it is confined to the premises and there is no right of pursuit if somebody leaves the premises carrying the property for which the search warrant was issued or to seize anything found there which is believed on reasonable grounds may be required to be used in evidence in any proceedings for an offence under section 8 or an offence under the Customs Act. Is it necessary that it should be confined purely to section 8? In other words, if the garda searching the premises came across something which he felt would be useful or would be part of the evidence in prosecuting and if at the end of the day it was decided the prosecution should be brought, let us say, under the Offences Against the State Act, could it then be argued in court, that this evidence must be ruled out of order because the search warrant was issued on the grounds of contravention of section 8 of the Bill but no prosecution was brought under section 8 of the Bill and, therefore, the evidence cannot be entered. I am paraphrasing what I believe could be a complicated legal argument. One of the things I find about this legislation is that there is no such thing as simple legislation. As soon as you get into it it becomes very complex. I think that is quite complex and I would ask the Minister to respond to that.

We discussed here last year the Misuse of Drugs Act. It did not come from the Department of Justice, it came from another Department. At that stage I recall speaking at length on the Drugs Act of 1984 which gave pretty wide-ranging powers to the Garda which were not available under other legislation. I would like to feel that the same power was being extended in section 11 of this Bill as is at present included in the appropriate section of the Drugs Act of 1984. I am sorry I cannot give the precise reference there. There are two references of which I am aware of; the Drugs Act of 1984 and the Criminal Law Act of 1976. Section 9 of that I think deals with search warrants. I am afraid the evidence produced or found or discovered through the application of section 11, if it were not to lead to a prosecution under section 8 of the Bill but if it were to lead to prosecution under another Act, such as the Offences Against the State Act — which regrettably is over-used in this type of thing — would not be appropriate. I would ask the Minister to reply on that point. If that is the case, and if my arguments stand up — and I want to say immediately this is a hob-lawyer speaking; I am not putting it forward as gospel — it would mean simply the deletion of the last sentence or some changes in the last subordinate clauses in that particular paragraph.

Another point I want to make is this: the rights of the searching person, or the person holding the search warrant or to whom the search warrant has been issued, to demand the names and addresses of persons on the premises. The Drugs Act gave the person who had the search warrant power to hold persons found on the premises for the purposes of further searching. This, particularly in the Drugs Act, referred to items being secreted or perhaps hidden in the orifices of the body. There could be specific reasons under the drugs legislation why this would be the case. I am making the point that in my recollection, the issue of the search warrant under the Drugs Act of 1984 went further than just simply the discovery of physical evidence; it led to perhaps further powers attaching to that.

In this case, I think it would surely be very reasonable for the garda with the search warrant, to have the right to demand the names and addresses of any persons found on that premises. I would not see that as an intrusion on civil liberties. I think it would be a reasonable thing to seek. It makes the job of the Garda easier and it does not infringe in any way on people. I know that perhaps it could be tied to the right of silence but I do not think it would be read that way by those people who would be opposed to getting rid of the right to silence. Even in Army terms name, rank and serial number has a ring about it that people accept even in the worst circumstances. I believe it would be quite reasonable to ask that if, under section 11 of this Bill a search warrant is issued to any officer of the State, that officer would have the right to demand the name and address of any person found on the premises.

My last point could be divided into two parts. The Minister might feel that provided we discover there is something we want to take in evidence, in other words that we have proof which will lead to a charge being made, then we should take the names of people found on the premises. People might say that might be the break point. I certainly think that under some circumstances, if there are people on the premises, there should be authority for the Garda or the officer with the search warrant to demand the names and addresses of the people on the premises. The Minister might feel that this should only be done if gardaí come across what they consider to be evidence, something they intend presenting as part of a case to go further. In that case they should be able to demand names and addresses. Equally, the Minister might say we issue a search warrant and with it the right to demand names and addresses of any people on that premises at the time of the search. I have put forward a case and I ask the Minister to respond to it.

That would lead obviously to consequential changes in section 10 because if we give the Garda powers to demand names and addresses we also have to give them the power to arrest any person who refuses to give their name and address. That is simply consequential. It is no use giving them the power to demand if we do not also give them the authority to back that up within the law. That would mean a consequential change in section 10 giving the power of arrest or detention of any people who refuse to give names and addresses.

On section 11 there are two issues. First there is the power to pursue to another premises. In suburban areas particularly very often the attics of adjoining houses are interlinking or interconnecting. The attic is a favourite hiding place for people with guns or for guns. If they were under pressure and the house was being searched and they had the material which would be deemed to be illegal under this Bill and if they were simply to run across the attic, without being outside at all, they would be in a different premises. It is adjoining but I do not believe it is adjoining for the purposes of the definition of premises in this Bill. Premises here means any land ancillary to a building; it would not mean an adjoining building. It would not cover that. It would be a case of: "sorry, do not cross that line now; I am in a different building: you have no search warrant to come in here". I just feel that there should be a power of pursuit in such a case.

Those are the main items to which I want to advert in this legislation. I have raised a number of points and they are there for the Minister to respond to. To my mind, they are substantial points, points which, I think, the Minister would agree deserve a response. However, having said that, I am always conscious that it is easy to take a piece of legislation and to pick holes in it. That is not my objective at all, I can assure you. I think it is fine legislation, I have raised four points, three of which I consider to be points of substance to which I hope the Minister will respond. I do not want to take from the fact that this Bill meets the needs and the demands that are being put forward by many groups in our society, people who care about the health of the nation in a very serious way, people who want control and regulation of this kind of equipment. We have seen what has happened in the US with the proliferation of hand guns and other firearms.

I welcome this Bill. I will support the legislation in one way or another but I put forward the suggestions for the best possible reasons, in the hope that the Minister will respond to them and take them on board. Perhaps when I put down amendments he will indicate to me whether the Department have better ones or whether he can take mine on board.

I would like to commence by reiterating the words of Senator Joe O'Toole when he said that we are fortunate to have a Minister who is open to discussion on these matters and whose Department seem to be so active in trying to bring the whole show together gradually in the area of crime, deprivation and prevention of crime. I have no doubt it is a gradual process. If we consider the time it takes for example, to change attitudes to smoking and to reduce the smoking habit, then I think we would have some measure of the time it is going to take to turn the tide against the use of weapons of violence either by the individual, a gang or a group, the paramilitary outfit or the syndicate or what have you, until we find that public opinion which is totally against these in general has some effective way of dealing what is at the moment an epidemic of random violence.

Senator O'Toole has done us all a great service here today. As a person who defends civil liberties — I think that was the significant thing about his contribution — as a person about whom there could be no doubt in any one's mind as to where he stands in relation to matters of civil liberties, he gave this Bill his wholehearted and enthusiastic support with some very constructive reservations. I think that while some of us who might have wished to make points he has made, he has made them in such an eloquent manner that it would only be repetition to raise them again. I hope and trust that the Minister and his colleagues will take into account the recommendations which Senator O'Toole has brought forward.

I have one minor reservation on his reservations which I will draw to the notice of the House before the conclusion of my short contribution. If Senator O'Toole has left this Chamber in any doubt as to the horrific nature of the weapons and the very urgent need to control them and for us to give committed support to what the Minister is endeavouring to do, I would like briefly to say as a surgeon who has worked for a long time in Ireland and in other countries that there is another side of the picture. You read in the newspapers about the tip of an iceberg — that is all. If you go into the casualty department of any hospital in this island, particularly at the weekend, you would be appalled at what you see.

In 1966 I had been practising as a surgeon. I was a student of surgery for 22 years and I had never seen a stab wound or a bullet wound in Ireland. That is not to say there was not an occasional report of one. The first stab wound I remember was at the time of the Malvern Street murders in Belfast. Shortly after that I went out to South Africa and I worked in Soweto and, as I have said here before, in the urban ghetto of Soweto I witnessed in one year 1,500 stabbed chests, 1,000 stabbed necks and 1,200 stabbed abdomens. I had one thought: this was Africa; it would never happen where we live. If you look at what has been happening in Ireland since the late 1960s until today we can see that it could all too easily happen here. There has been an importation into the minds and the conscience of people — I think that is the important thing to acknowledge — that these weapons are usable, that they are being used and, if they are being used, then you get the reaction that we must protect ourselves against them.

A whole sub-culture has grown up in Ireland, and particularly in urban Ireland, which uses this type of weaponry as part of its day-to-day expression. When you go to the casualty department and you see people coming in with stab wounds, the end results of knuckle-dusters and flick knives, and when you appreciate not only how lethal these are but also the devastating, sudden, blow to the recipient's psyche, to his morale, his well-being and his family sense of belonging to a secure citizenship, then one can wholeheartedly support what the Minister is trying to do. If in the process there is a marginal infringement at the end of the spectrum in relation to the very tightest interpretation of civil liberties then all I can say is "so be it".

We have got to stem this tide of physical and psychological destruction, of old people in their homes terrified, youngsters going to a disco to enjoy themselves coming out of it and being set upon by five or six of their own age group with the most fiendish of weapons. It is no longer one man against another with fists. It is a group in a gang armed with steel, or armed with weight, determined to thump, short of death if they can manage it, anyone they pick up for the most lame of excuses. Therefore, I think Senators would be very hard put to find it possible to do other than give their full support, albeit with some qualifications, to what the Minister is offering us.

I just say in passing that while I would like to support practically everything that Senator O'Toole said, I feel the Minister might be better disposed to do what Senator O'Toole was somewhat equivocal about, that if there is a warrant given to the Garda to search a premises which is under suspicion, it is a bit much if you find there is nothing there to ask for names and addresses of all the persons found in the premises.

We will get opportunity on Committee Stage to go through this Bill bit by bit and we can take up aspects of it which have already been raised and develop them, but this legislation on its own will not deal with the problem. Fortunately, we have a Minister who is aware of that and a Department who are addressing it in the much wider spectrum.

It is all very well for those of us who live in privileged circumstances, whose children can enjoy an outlet for their aggression in sport, in group activities, in outdoor pursuits, but we have also got to address ourselves to — and I am sure the Minister is well aware of it — the reconstruction of urban Ireland, to give to the youngsters some focus for the natural aggression which they feel towards a society which at the moment is not giving them an adequate outlet.

The other side of it, is to look at the prisons. Only this week we heard that in England there will now be an opportunity to redesign the prisons to make them a place of rehabilitation in the widest and most imaginative manner, where skills will be developed much more than they have been heretofore, where opportunity for education will be enhanced, where the slopping-out system, living in the cell for 22 hours a day and so on, will gradually become a thing of the past.

We do not have the resources in Ireland but we have an imperative necessity to look at the social conditions in which crime exists, to do something for the young people and also to look at our prisons. Because when these people are put into prison — they will not all be able to pay the £1,000 fine — they will come out more determined, with more anger, more bitterness and better trained, because the present prison system can be used as a university of further training for more sophistication, to come out with more angry feelings. I am sure the Minister's Department are indeed looking at these other aspects of the whole problem. I thank the Minister for waiting.

I think it was Senator Robb who said that Senators would be hard put to it to oppose this Bill, I certainly give it a broad welcome. Like other Senators, perhaps I may have more to say about it on Committee Stage. I am tempted to ask the Minister whether he considered the possible inclusion of croziers as a prohibited weapon, except when carried for authorised liturgical purposes of course.

I hope the Senator is referring to no one person in particular——

I am thinking of my own safety in the months ahead. A rather less facetious observation I have to make, although it is still not in the realms of high seriousness, is that the Minister said: "The only use to which a stun gun can be put is to incapacitate another person". There are other uses of stun guns which were brought to my attention in the United States. Postmen, who are sick and tired of being harried by dogs, carry a form of stun gun and apparently this is quite acceptable. As someone who is much given to country walking, I feel I am unduly put upon on all kinds of vicious animals and I often wish I could use some kind of pre-emptive strike, as it were.

More seriously, I echo the support which other Senators have given to the Bill. Senator Manning pointed out that in Ireland we now live in an age of sometimes horrific crime. It is only in the past 15 years we have become accustomed to seeing the Army deployed in the streets. Suddenly a building is surrounded on what may be quite a mundane mission of cash lodgment or withdrawal by a bristling Army detachment. That is a sign of our times. Senator Robb referred to his own experiences. As always, what he has to say has the ring of personal experience and of the man's directness and honesty.

Still, given the degeneration of the times and the awfulness of violence, it is remarkable how sheltered we still are in this State and how fortunate we are, putting it very selfishly, that the spill-over of violence has been so contained. Most of us — perhaps we live in sheltered circles — never see a gun in the normal course of our activities as we go around. We should be glad about this, we should be glad that we still have an unarmed Garda and that our great sporting occasions — perhaps it is no great tribute to us, it does not make us anything special — are, by and large, unstained by the virus of violence which has so infected sporting associations elsewhere. For all that we are grateful.

We are considering the Bill at a time when the United States is once again torn by controversy about the free availability of offensive weapons and the horrific consequences of that availability, as evidenced, for example, by the attack on the school at Stockton, California, some few weeks ago. Nevertheless, Americans are still divided on whether there should be free availability of weapons. I quote from an issue of Time magazine, dated 6 February, a cover story, “Armed America”, which Senators would do well to consider reading to see it in a comparative context. It states:

Fifty to 60 million United States households, about half the total of all American households, have at least one gun. In 1984 and 1985, the last two years for which statistics are available, the number of people in the United States who died of injuries from firearms was something like 63,000, more than all the casualties in the American involvement in Vietnam.

These are the dimensions of the problem. It stems from the American preoccupation with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, to quote the Second Amendment, a phrase about which, in turn, there is much discussion and much ambiguity.

This insistence on the right of the citizen to bear arms goes back I suppose to the origins of America as a frontier society and to the fact that they have never quite outgrown the 18th century frontiers, as it were, of the mind because it was a commonplace of political thinking, let us say, in the 18th century that a gentleman had the right to bear arms. Indeed, one of the great grievances of our ancestors, Irish Catholics in the 18th century under the Penal Laws was that they did not have this right and they were forbidden to have this right under the Penal Laws.

In America the idea is that not alone do you have the right to have the gun in order to defend yourself against the marauder of your home but in case also that the whole authority of the state of the federal union turns to oppressive tyranny. This was the thinking behind the Second Amendment, that in the end the citizen has to have recourse to arms to defend his freedom from the State as well as from the marauding prowler, robber and so on. We realise how much of an obsession all this is when we remember that President Bush himself is a life-long member of the most powerful lobby, the National Rifle Association and that he has quite recently stated that free men and women have a right to own a gun to protect their home.

I recall teaching in a small American town in the Shenandoah Valley about ten years ago for an idyllic three months. It was the best kind of rural American experience. Yet, in that small town the normal kind of squabble that would be on in a home or between neighbours or between alienated friends and which in Ireland might result in a couple of thumps, or at worst perhaps a stabbing, in that small and otherwise peaceful town, because people had guns in their homes, there were these unbelievable quarrels that turned immediately to murder because of the availability of firearms. That is the kind of scene then with which we are contrasted in this Bill, and it is to stop that kind of drift that the Bill is rightly considered timely.

The corollary is that in denying ourselves the right to bear arms, in recognising that in Ireland it is no longer timely that every individual citizen has the right to bear arms, we have in effect surrendered that right to the State but thereby we make an act of faith and an act of trust in the State to fulfil responsibility, its function as the monopolistic user of legitimate force. The State has to discharge that with the utmost and most solemn responsibility. The more you restrict a citizen's right to carry knives, flick knives and so on, the more incumbent it becomes on the forces of the State to discharge their duties responsibly. In effect, this means the Garda — the Army is hardly involved in this argument since it does not impinge on the liberty of the citizens because of the welcome loyalty of the Army to the civil power. When we pass this Bill I would like the Minister and the Government to realise that it imposes an additional onus on the Garda Síochána to behave with even greater responsibility.

Last week we discussed sending a Garda detachment on the peacekeeping mission to Namibia. Many of us praised the gardaí very highly. I recall afterwards that when Thomas Drummond in the 1830s, the Under-Secretary of State in Dublin Castle and perhaps one of the first enlightened English governors — a Scottish governor in fact — of Ireland under the Union, reformed the police force he boasted that he had now established a popular constabulary. That was a large claim. It is doubtful if any police force is ever popular in that sense. It is incumbent on the Garda, if they have to retain the trust of the community, to behave at all times with propriety and responsibility.

I suggest to the Minister that if we give to the State these additional powers, the Garda have all the more responsibility to do two things more thoroughly. One is to protect the citizens. One Senator had reservations about old people or isolated people being totally unprotected, totally without any weapons to defend themselves. If we take away that from them then, the responsibility is on the Minister, on the Government and on the Garda really to protect the citizens and citizens should be reassured about that.

Secondly, in their dealings with people suspected of crime, the Garda must not leave themselves open to the accusation they are guilty of brutality. In other words, their behaviour must be all the more unimpeachable because of the extra powers, in effect, that we are giving to them in this Bill. I ask the Minister to note that when we pass this Bill the police in this State will get more power and, therefore, they have to exercise all the more responsibility.

First, on a lighter note I reciprocate entirely the feelings of Senator Murphy when he spoke about the dogs and doing something about them because during canvassing for the last local government elections I was bitten not once but twice. Whereas the physical wounding was not great, the psychological wounding was excessive because they were both Fianna Fáil dogs.

However, on a more serious note, I welcome this Bill. Again, as I have said on previous occasions recently, it is typical of the progressive legislation which the Minister has been bringing forward since assuming office. He said in his introductory speech:

I believe we have got the balance right but I look forward to having the benefit of Senator's views on this and other aspects of the Bill during the course of the debate. I invite and will welcome any constructive suggestions which might improve the Bill.

He has manifested this attitude on other occasions to willingly accept any modifications or to adopt amendments which are realistic. It is typical of the Minister's fair-minded approach in most cases.

One of the very important provisions in this Bill is that it is an offence to carry an article with intent to cause injury or to intimidate. The word "intimidate" there is very important because these weapons can often be used to intimidate people without actually having been used.

The Minister refers to stun guns. The problem of stun guns are that they are a relatively new arrival to our shores. They come from the United States and Sweden and Britain, along with ourselves, are about the only countries where these are on public sale. Senator McEllistrim said they arrived here about two or three years ago and since that time over 2,000 of them have been sold. The Minister said he cannot see that there is any case to be made for allowing stun guns as self-defence because there is a danger that these weapons may fall into criminal hands. This is a view that is reiterated by the international association of chiefs of police. A spokesman for that association said that there are growing instances of these weapons falling into the hands of criminals who use the stun gun to incapacitate their victims and that these stun guns are also being used in cases of attempted rape.

Some people have said that they see these stun guns as fantastic and the ultimate lethal defence weapon. What happens in many cases in the United States is that when some of these stun guns are used in defence against drunks or drug addicts or whatever to incapacitate them, they do not incapacitate them but rather shock them and make them even more angry and more aggressive. I welcome the banning of these particular weapons. It is interesting to note, too, that there has been a call for the ban by the Garda. The Garda Representative Association at their 1988 conference carried a motion which asked for the introduction of legislation for the control of offensive weapons such as crossbows, sling shots and stun guns. It is good to see we are responding to that call early in 1989.

The banning of crossbows here or making them weapons that need licences is, again, to be welcomed. We have only to recall an horrific killing done by a crossbow in our neighbouring island recently to see how deadly these weapons can be. I welcome the fact that the Minister does not ban them altogether but allows them to be used for sporting purposes. In fact, they are very suitable for people who are disabled and there have been notable successes in this field for Irish disabled people who are archers.

In section 5, the Minister deals with flick knives but he also deals with articles made or adopted for use for causing injury to the person. I hope he also deals with these martial arts weapons or so-called weapons. These are sets of deadly metal spikes specifically designed to mutilate and tear the muscles of the body. While they are only bought through magazines in Britain and other countries, they are freely available here in so-called sports shops. A spokesman for the Garda Karate Club said that these weapons were used by members of the Ninja who were nothing better than armed assassins or hitmen. The weapons are weapons of offence and are taught to be used in no other form except as weapons of offence. There are horrific weapons on sale, for example, spikes and claws but there are also things like a knife which has an angle at the bottom and a sharpened hook at the end of a 12 foot chain. One can buy a key ring which is nothing more than a spike to be grasped in the fist with two further spikes protruding between the fingers. One can easily buy a belt buckle for £5 which converts into a throwing star and a variety of throwing stars, bronze or black for concealment. These stars have different edges on them which are deadly sharp. I was glad that Senator Manning mentioned sports grounds because some of these stars have been used as throwing implements at Irish soccer matches. Most martial arts clubs, karate clubs, aikido clubs and so on are law-abiding and these particular martial arts instruments of war have no value whatsoever. They are purely offensive rather than defensive weapons and I am glad to see that the Minister intends banning them.

I would like to see included in the legislation — some other Senators referred to it — the increasing number of very realistic replicas of firearms. It should be mentioned that an imitation Uzi submachine gun which had been adapted to fire live bullets was taken from the kidnappers of Jennifer Guinness at the scene of the siege in Waterloo Road. I saw one of these for sale in Blackrock market on Sunday last: it is horrifyingly realistic. The Garda ballistics section said that many of these weapons can be adapted with very slight modification to fire real rounds of ammunition and, while in many cases the replica might explode when fired, imitations have the capability, when tampered with, to shoot live rounds. After a robbery and shooting incident earlier this year at a Dublin bus station an imitation semi-automatic pistol was recovered. The Garda have recovered many of these very realistic imitation weapons and have taken them from people at various venues.

The only reservation I have about the Bill is the section which places the burden of proving lawful authority or reasonable excuse on the defence. The Minister may have a good reason for this. Having questioned him before on other Bills and certain sections I know his reasoning is very logical. I will ask him about this on Committee Stage.

I welcome the Bill. It is very important legislation. Anything that protects the public is to be welcomed. Any legislation that serves to help the Garda in their fight against crime is to be welcomed. The Minister mentioned last week that there is very high morale among the gardaí and I believe that to be so. It also has to be mentioned that gardaí come under some vicious attacks and the fact that 16 of them were awarded Scott Medals in recent times shows the bravery of this force. Anything that can help them in their fight against crime and against the thugs or terrorists who are sometimes let loose in the country is to be welcomed.

Senator Robb mentioned the bad influence of weapons as depicted on violent television programmes and so on. This is a very important observation. We have seen in recent times an erosion of values with regard to the use of weapons on television, and indeed on video nasties which the Minister has banned. The old dictum is as true now as it was in ancient times, that "he who lives by sword shall perish by it". Anything that removes from our society weapons that can be used to hurt, kill or to maim is very welcome. I hope the Bill has a speedy and successful passage through the House.

I will be extremely brief. This is a very necessary legislation. I have read it. I do not agree with Senator Lydon about section 14. It is quite right that people in possession of frightening weapons of destruction ought to have an onus placed on them to justify why they hold them. I do not think we as a society have to indulge them. I say that even though I believe strongly in personal freedoms.

I want to raise an issue with the Minister about weapons and weaponry which has to do with our values. I was sitting at home watching television when an advertisement for the latest Rambo film burst onto the screen. It crossed my mind that we have a peculiar sense of values. If somebody attempted to advertise mild pornography by the use of an undressed woman that would not be permissible because it would be an offence to public morality but one can have a film advertised by a man carrying so much weaponry that if in reality he carried it he would not be able to walk. We have a distorted set of values, where one image is regarded as obscene when I would regard it as relatively harmless, though offensive to women.

I said to the Minister on a previous discussion on video nasties that I judge a lot of these things by the offence they would give to my children. The slightly unclothed woman will not do my children much harm but the huge muscular man carrying guns with very little intelligence is a profound insult to humanity. He is a challenge to our values. There is a whole cult of violence which manifests itself in cheap films glorifying the martial arts and in a frightening list of weapons that I was aware of but had not thought of until Senator Lydon listed them. We really have a problem about what we believe in and what we value in our society.

We should take a few steps further. There is the question of toy guns in general and little boys and guns. Other countries like in the United States, have let personal liberty be used, to the extent where it is very difficult to regulate the ownership of guns. We have a very strong duty to preserve what is one of the most valuable things in our society which is a fairly low level of violence to the extent that we can still justify the existence of an unarmed police force. That is one of the most precious possessions this country has in terms of our attitude to violence and to guns. We do not give guns to those who are given the job of enforcing the law and protecting the rule of law in this country except where they need them and, secondly, the vast majority of them still do not want to carry weapons. It is extremely important that anything that would chip away at that profoundly important value in our society, as in glorification of even romantic violence in films, ought to be challenged, and questioned.

The Bishop of Cork is one of the bishops I admire and he had an interesting pastoral last Sunday on violence, where it comes from and why. We should all think, reflect and challenge all the manifestations of violence, not just the extreme things we are talking about here but anything which suggests it is a good thing, that people who are big and carry loads of guns are somehow better and braver people. The bravest people in our society are the unarmed gardaí who go about dealing with all sorts of problems without weapons. Anything which devalues the bravery of somebody who does not carry a gun is a threat to something very fundamental in our society. I support this Bill enthusiastically and compliment the Minister on it.

I am delighted to be present in the Seanad and to support enthusiastically this important Bill. I am not going to talk about toy guns, I am going to talk about real guns. Senator Murphy said he felt he was rather sheltered in that he seldom sees a gun but, unfortunately, that is not so in my case. This legislation is not just about keeping tidy records. It is fundamental to the health of the nation and its importance cannot be over-emphasised. I fully understand what the legislation is trying to do and I refer in particular to the military-type weapons that are held in the country. There are quite a number of illegally held military-type weapons. We now have very modern and sophisticated methods of recording. Tests are carried out on the barrels of weapons and records of those tests are kept. We have come a long way in controlling weapons and keeping records. It is fairly well understood that the State has a good method of keeping computer records and the average person fully understands that.

We hear daily about small workshops where weapons are made. It only takes one or two individuals to decide they can dismantle a weapon, copy and reproduce it. A number of weapons can be produced before the source is discovered. That is an area for which it is difficult to legislate.

I am one of those people who could claim to be a fanatic about guns, going back to the early days when I learned how to use one. There must be special emphasis put on the control of ammunition. Most of the ammunition that finds its way to the paramiliaries has come through those who have licences to purchase it. They act as godfathers and allow the ammunition to drift into areas where it is used to kill innocent people.

What sort of ammunition?

I am talking about military-type ammunition. I am talking about nine millimetre ammunition and the various types of ammunition that finds its way into paramilitary hands. The little workshop that produces homemade weapons to fire ammunition is very difficult to uncover but it takes a major factory and a highly organised, sophisticated manufacturer to produce ammunition. It should be much easier to control that. The Minister said he would welcome suggestions and I make one suggestion: that we concentrate on the sources of the ammunition because that military ammunition cannot be readily produced in small workshops. This might not be the complete answer but it would go some way towards eliminating the problem.

When I turn on my television and see the Minister for Justice after having attended a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference I am very pleased because I know of his ability to put across the case effectively. I would suggest to the Minister that when this new legislation is implemented he should ask, through the Anglo-Irish Conference that the records in Northern Ireland, where the laws are no less strict, be put on a par with the records in this part of Ireland. If we get that and if we get as strict a control of ammunition as we have in this part of Ireland, I am satisfied we will have taken a major step forward. It is time we asked why anybody outside the Army set up by the State wants a military-type weapon today. If I want a military-type weapon——

The Senator is specifically referring to Northern Ireland?

Yes, exactly.

I hope the Senator has read the explanatory memorandum because he is going a bit outside the Bill.

I am responding to the invitation of the Minister.

I do not know about that. I am just firing one of the crossbows.

I take the point. I do not think the Senator needs to elaborate further.

I was just completing a sentence and with the Chair's indulgence, I would like to complete it. It is that anybody, North or South, who holds a military-type weapon and asks for a licence for it should have to show great cause why he needs it. Very often we are told that young people find it easy to get a licence. I am talking about shotguns and .22 rifles. These are available to young people of under and over 18 years of age. The Minister should look closely at this area.

I was enthusiastic about guns in the early years of my life, but I believe now it is a luxury we cannot afford. I say this with certain reservations. There has to be strict control and the character of an individual who gets a gun licence must be examined. There is another aspect and that is that a young lad of 17 or 18 years of age does not need to have any experience of guns to get a licence. It has been said to me often that a young person can walk in and buy a .22 rifle and 100 bullets and walk up the road and yet he could have a lot of difficulty getting a licence to drive his father's tractor across the road. That case is put to me fairly often and it is time that we looked at the suitability of young people to own a gun. The number of accidents on record will show that there is justification for requesting that the matter be looked at. Last week a young man lost his life as a result of the accidental discharge of a .22 rifle.

I would like to see a review carried out every three years. It is important because, as in the case of drugs, if one is deprived of a certain source, one will compromise and get something else. The area of weaponry control should be looked at regularly. We should also try to influence EC countries to have the same strict laws as we have in this area. Our laws are more strict than those of any other country in Europe. I ask the Minister to encourage the rest of Europe to tighten up on gun control.

Those of us who would be enthusiastic about having a gun and who are now deprived of doing so are entitled to press for tight legislation. In March 1972 I bought a very nice gun without any difficulty. I bought it in a shop in New York. I have the docket with me on which is written "pick-up". That is the description of the mode of delivery.

That could be a dangerous description.

It was used by the person who sold it. I have a receipt for it, a licence and proper documentation allowing me to import it prior to my purchase. I also have a receipt where I surrendered that particular weapon on 4 August 1972.

There is a matter which has been outstanding for 17 years and that is where many weapons were collected by the State. Some of them would be obsolete and others would be quite good. Those who owned and surrendered the weapons initially should either be told that the weapons are now no longer their property or the State should make up its mind and finalise the matter. I am not suggesting that the State should compensate them. The Minister might consider making an order to resolve the situation which has been in limbo for 17 or 18 years. We had hopes that the difficulties we have would disappear and that people who were enthusiastic about weapons would be given them back but that is now beyond our expectation. I ask the Minister to consider resolving that situation.

The matter of stun guns, knuckles, chains and so on has been adequately covered by other speakers. My intention was only to speak about military-type weapons. The Minister has the enthusiastic support and backing of 99 per cent of the people. He is doing a good job and should keep it up. It is fundamental for our health, success and future.

I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on having it brought before us. I am one of those who does not agree, as a Northern Secretary said once, that there is an acceptable level of violence. I do not believe any level of violence is acceptable at any time. Unfortunately, it is probably endemic in our society at present. One would have to question the lack of respect for life, for the person, property or authority. Perhaps we should try to establish the reason. I would be inclined to go back to the home and school and see where the lack of authority began. Is there law and order in these areas? However, that is not part of what we are discussing.

This is a timely Bill introduced to deal with some of the difficulties that have arisen with regard to weapons, offensive weapons in particular. I welcome the idea that flick knives or any type of knife being used as an offensive weapon should be prohibited. We have waited too long for them to be prohibited. In a way, the Bill does not go far enough. It states that a person has to prove he had a weapon without lawful authority or a reasonable excuse. Granted the onus is on the person who is caught with one of these weapons to prove his innocence, but I am always afraid that when these cases come to court very good lawyers can come along and plead various reasons for people possessing these weapons.

If a person is caught in a public place with a flick knife, he has it for one reason and one reason only. What I would like to see is some kind of summary justice — confiscation and penalty, and that penalty being enforced. I am not sure whether we are capable of doing that. It is welcome that these people can be brought to justice and I hope that when they are brought to justice they meet the full force of the law. In other words, there should be no special pleadings for them. The penalties stated in the Bill — £1,000 fine or 12 months imprisonment — should be enforced. If this is not done the law will fall into disrepute, people will get off and the whole saga will start off again.

There is one section in the Bill which may give rise to difficulties for some people and that is section 10 which states that a garda may arrest without warrant. I welcome that because any person caught in a public place with flick knives or stun guns has them for an unlawful purpose: they are to injure people. We had a case like that very recently in Limerick where after a very good disco in a respectable hall two people went berserk outside and five students ended up in hospital. I have no compassion whatsoever for the people who inflicted those injuries on the students. All my sympathy is with the injured party, the students in that case. The same thing applies to people who rob or injure old people. As Senator Manning said in his introductory speech, we have had some horrific cases. Things we would not have thought about 20 years ago are happening now. Perhaps belatedly we are beginning to realise that our sympathy should be with the injured party rather than thinking about the liberties of the people causing this injury. Therefore I welcome that section. I would go further and say that if any garda had a suspicion he should be entitled to hold a person and confiscate whatever offensive weapon he had.

With regard to stun guns, I have one query. I agree that no kind of weapon should be used. On the other hand, stun guns are said to be protective weapons. Of course, I agree with the Minister that a protective weapon can be an offensive weapon in the wrong hands. I wonder if there would be any possibility of granting a licence for a stun gun to a person for the protection of that person in his or her own home. Again, it is very difficult to license a person for the use of an instrument of arms in the home itself, but we have the licensing of guns and it would not be beyond our human wit to license stun guns in the same way, with an added restriction that they could not be taken outside the home of the individual. It would be preferable for a person whose house is raided to have a stun gun rather than a revolver, shotgun or something like that where the injury to the intruder could be far greater. I have no great sympathy with the intruder and violence of any sort is not to my liking. I ask the Minister to see if it is possible to introduce an amendment that would confine the use of a stun gun to people in their own homes as a means of protection. I know it is probably riddled with difficulties but he might be able to look at it.

There is much in the Bill with regard to flick-knives and then there is the difficulty of other knives, be they kitchen knives or whatever, even including Senator McEllistrim's pocket knives. I am suspicious of anybody, especially young people, going around with pocket knives. At one time pocket knives were used for cutting tobacco. Very few young people smoke a pipe. The Minister did not smoke pipe tobacco when he was young. There would be awful difficulty there. Screwdrivers that are honed down to give them a point are catered for in the Bill and I hope the legislation will be really enforced.

I welcome the Bill, especially the ban on the importation and manufacture of these things. I am not quite sure from reading the Bill whether confiscation is allowed. If not, it should be provided for. Anybody who has one of them should have it confiscated. If he has 1,000 of them they should be confiscated, with no compensation whatsoever, and be destroyed. The same thing should occur with regard to people coming in through the airports. Anybody carrying a flick-knife should have it confiscated immediately by the customs authorities and no compensation should be made.

There should be much publicity when this Bill is enacted by the Houses of the Oireachtas and brought into law. There should be wide publicity given to it so that nobody would have the excuse of saying he or she was not aware of it and there could be no special pleading that it was not an offence two or six months ago. People will be 100 per cent behind the Minister and the legislation.

There was a reference to the martial arts in one part of the Bill. The Minister cannot legislate for what a person will do with his hands. The hand could be as lethal as a gun or a flick-knife. Maybe this is the time to set up some licensing authority for the various groups involved in martial arts. Anybody can set up in a premises, call himself an expert on X, Y or Z, bring in and train people, while having no licence or authority from anybody. It is time for the Minister to look at this. It is not part of this Bill, though some of the instruments used in the martial arts could come under this Bill as being offensive weapons. The whole question of the martial arts should be looked at and there may be a need for legislation another day.

I welcome the Bill and I wish it every success. I hope it will help to prevent crime and help to stop the awful violence that is taking place. Somebody mentioned that the cities were the worst affected, but at Christmas, 1987 we had a spate of rural violence, the like of which we never had previously.

I thank Senators who have contributed to the debate. While there may be matters on which Senators require clarification and certain points which require further debate, I want to say, firstly, that I am very heartened by the response given to this Bill and the welcome it got from everybody who spoke this afternoon. I agree totally with Senator Manning when he says that this by its very nature is a Committee Stage Bill. Everybody agrees with the principle of the Bill. Everybody approves of what we are trying to do, but there are areas which must be teased out very carefully and fully and this will be done on Committee Stage.

I have a number of amendments myself. I will welcome amendments but I cannot say now whether I can accept them. If the case is made that they should be part of the Bill, from experience in this House Members will know that I am open to be convinced in practically everything. I am being quite open in that. I have accepted amendments. I have no hang-up whatsoever about not taking amendments because they are not mine. I welcome every effort that can be made to improve the Bill. In the event that I cannot accept an amendment, I will give my reasons and it will be open for discussion. I am very open and free about that. I have had a raft of legislation in both Houses in the past two years. In actual fact, I have four Bills on the Order Papers in both Houses this week.

And there is not even a junior Minister.

No. If we could have somebody nominated from this House I would certainly welcome that, if we could work out some system. Perhaps Committee Stage may be taken in two weeks' time, or perhaps even three weeks' time. If amendments are to be properly framed people require time. If they are to be accepted and if there is a good case to be made for them, I would like to give Members the opportunity of getting whatever help they can to draft amendments so that if they are properly drafted and the case being made for them is good enough they can be accepted, rather than finding myself in a position whereby, maybe for technical reasons I might not be able to accept them. I am not going to hurry or rush this. Give it two or three weeks and then it can be arranged by agreement of the different party Whips of the House.

There is, I believe, widespread public support for what is being done in this Bill. At this stage I would like to say to Senator Bromell that of course it would be very important that we would get maximum publicity for this Bill when it is enacted, so that its provisions would be fully and clearly understood by everybody and, in particular, by those who probably would be the last to hear what it is all about and who are probably most in need of being told what is in it.

We are all agreed on the need to control the availability of offensive weapons. I do not think it is necessary for me to go over the ground I have already covered in my opening statement. The Bill represents a positive and effective response to the problem. I have no doubt that if the proposals in it are implemented they will considerably strengthen the hands of the Garda in tackling crimes involving offensive weapons. In addition, the Bill will help to protect the ordinary citizen from interference and attacks by persons who might otherwise carry such weapons. I hope also that the provisions of the Bill will have a deterrent and preventive effect in so far as the habitual carrying of knives etc. by some people is concerned.

When we sat down and talked about this Bill in the Department of Justice, one of the first things that struck me was that if this Bill was to succeed we had to be very careful to strike the right balance and not go too far one way or the other. If it is one or the other, you lose out. You cannot win. You cannot succeed. We gave a lot of serious thought to trying to strike that right balance and I believe we have done that. I accept that Members will have legitimate concerns and doubts. I have doubts every day about every piece of legislation I am involved in. It is quite an experience. It is an art in itself to satisfy yourself you have struck the right balance, bearing in mind the rights of the individual as against the good of the community. I am as much a civil liberties man as any Member of this House and I mean that quite sincerely. I do not think there is any need for me to say it.

I am sure every Member will value the rights of the individual and will always be watchful and careful of them. I do not care what group a particular Senator belongs to, we all have concern for those rights. It is something that is built into every Irish person: there may be historical reasons for that. I believe we have got the right balance, but if we have not I am open to suggestions. We all want to do something for the benefit of the community and in particular to help the Garda to protect our lives. They are our gardaí, they are protecting our properties, our lives, and in particular the older people. We must give then that extra little bit of help that might be of use to them in protecting old people. We are going the right way in that, too.

Senator Manning is not sure the two month delay in Part II is sufficient. I am open to suggestions in that. I have no hang-up about it but I am advised that it should be. We can tease that out and perhaps come to a consensus on Committee Stage; it could then be handled on Report Stage. There are ways and means of doing it. I am quite prepared to look at the matter again between now and Committee Stage and listen to views on Committee Stage. It is not necessary to contemplate an amendment since it can be discussed on the section itself. Senator Manning also asked if football matches should be covered in section 5 (1). Sports fixtures are included.

Senators Lydon, Manning, Bromell and McEllistrim queried the reason the Bill does not prohibit imitation firearms. Senator McGowan also queried the point. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between an imitation firearm and a toy gun for the purposes of legal definition. That is what the problem is. Our law already provides severe penalties for the use of imitation firearms in the commission of crimes, including up to 14 years' imprisonment for possession of an imitation firearms with intent to commit an indictable offence. This, I believe, is the way to deal with persons who misuse imitation firearms. My problem is in distinguishing between an imitation firearm and a toy gun for the purposes of legal definition.

I, like Members of the Seanad, am aware of the type of instrument that we are talking about. They are so realistic as to be frightening. I would not claim to have any great personal knowledge of guns but I saw imitations placed side-by-side with real guns because it was my job to see these things and to find out what the problems were and from a distance I do not think I could genuinely distinguish between one and the other. Yet, these are toys and are being sold as toys. My problem is with regard to the legal definition. We have given the matter some thought. The law as it stands provides very severe penalties for the use of these imitation firearms. A 14-year term of imprisonment is a very severe penalty for possession of imitation firearms with the intent to commit an indicatable offence. I will welcome during the course of Committee Stage the views of Members on this.

In reply to a comment made by Senator O'Toole, it behoves every member of every Government at every level who comes to our two Houses with legislation to give every consideration to the views offered by Members. I will repeat publicly if the occasion ever arises that it was a discussion in this House that made me decide to go to Government with proposals to establish the Charities Commission which is now in operation under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Declan Costello. Views were expressed here just before Christmas regarding allegations of abuses of charities. I did not get an opportunity of saying it was due to this discussion. I said it publicly at the time of the launching of the Charities Commission and I said it on a television programme. I have nothing but the highest regard for people such as Members of the Seanad and the Dáil who come forward with their views and let us have the benefit of their experience. Nobody here should think I am doing anybody a favour when I say I am open to suggestion. I am the person who benefits if it is in the interests of the community. It also gives me an opportunity of giving reasons why things are not always possible, such as the difficulty in coming up with a legal definition on the question of imitation guns.

I want to say to Senator McEllistrim that I recognise his concern for the very successful cutlery factory in Listowel. He need have no fear. They will not be affected in any way. These knives are being manufactured for legitimate purposes but, of course, they cannot be carried in places referred to in section 5 (1) of the Bill. The Senator did say that there is a very fine hunting knife and a very fine fish filleting knife being manufactured in Listowel primarily for export. I am sure there is a good market for such products, but everybody would agree we would not want them in discos and at football grounds and places like that. I am sure we will not.

Senator Lydon partially answered Senator O'Toole on the question of martial arts weapons. This is being catered for in the Bill by way of regulation. This is something on which I will be advised by the Garda authorities. I understand we have a draft list of such weapons which any Member may see it, perhaps we might have it here for Committee Stage. It is something we would take into account when making the regulations. These are so new, but the items described by Senator Lydon are now a fact of life that we have to contend with in the interests of protecting people. It is early days yet for firming up this list. It is a draft list that will probably be open-ended because these things are coming on the market practically on a daily basis. I thank Senator Lydon for doing my job for me in that respect and for showing the depth of knowledge which he has on such matters.

Senator O'Toole was trying to seek clarification that all previous firearms were covered. The answer to that question is yes, they are. He asked why we should exempt the pocket knife. Senator Bromell also asked that question. A pocket knife in my view is something a smoker, perhaps, would carry habitually and I felt it reasonable that it should be exempted as a result. As regards other knives such as kitchen knives, filleting knives, fishing knives and deer-skinning knives, these would not be carried into dances and public houses in the normal way that a pocket knife might.

I am sure Senator Bromell, during the course of Committee Stage, will argue that people who carry knives in the present day are pipe smokers and that pipe smokers are on the decline. I hope so, from a health point of view. I have never managed to master the art myself. There is also the question of young people carrying pocket knives. This is something that can be further discussed on Committee Stage. Youngsters carry a pocket knife for one reason or another; they have some yen for them. The Swiss army pocket knife is the dream of every youngster from about the age of ten onwards and there are different versions of it. I think the Rolls Royce brand of the Swiss pocket knife costs about £50 or £60. There are about 14 or 16 different parts in it. All that is missing is a Swiss cuckoo clock. Practically everything else is in it.

I am open to help and guidance from Senators with regard to pocket knives during the course of Committee Stage. I felt we should exempt the pocket knife in an attempt to strike a balance. The kitchen knife and the butcher's knife are things that nobody should have in their possession if they are going to football games or going to the sort of activities we have been talking about in the Bill. It is something we can discuss.

Senator O'Toole specifically asked in relation to section 8 if repairs and services would be included. I will have a look at the point and consider the arguments he made. We will deal with it on Committee Stage by way of an amendment, if necessary. It is a good point and is one that certainly requires examination.

A number of Senators mentioned the issue of the burden of proof. It is considered that to place only an evidential burden on an accused could make the securing of a conviction very difficult and would, therefore, greatly weaken the effect of the subsection. For example, if a person were to be charged with having what is commonly called a Stanley knife in a dance hall, he might say in his defence that he was using it at work that day and had forgotten to take it out of his pocket and this might discharge his evidential burden. Somebody else could say he had a fishing knife or a hunting knife which he had forgotten to take out of his pocket and this could very well discharge his evidential burden. It would be very difficult for the prosecution to disprove his statement. That is the problem. This is what I am trying to deal with. With a persuasive burden to discharge, if he raised this defence he would be obliged to produce enough evidence to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that his excuse was true — say, the testimony of a colleague who had seen him at work with the knife that day. That is basically what I am trying to do. I will leave it to the Senators on Committee Stage to tease out the matter fully.

I do not think any of the Senators differ with me in what we are trying to achieve with the Bill. It is a matter we can tease out for as long as we like in an effort to try to improve the situation and, above all, to ensure that as far as possible we keep the balance right with regard to the rights of the individual and the good of the community.

A number of Senators, and Senator O'Toole in particular raised the question of the wider power of search. The power to search premises under warrants issued under section 11 should be extended to allow the Garda to seize evidence which could be used in the prosecution of other offences. I have noted this point and it is something we can discuss on Committee Stage. I would like to think about it. I am not taking away from anything the Senator said, but I would like to examine the matter in real terms. I am not, for instance, convinced about somebody hiding something in an attic and while searching the house one could cross from one house into other houses because of free access through the attics. I do not know if that sort of thing went out at the beginning of the last century. I am not too sure. I would be terribly worried if I was living in a housing estate where somebody at one end of the estate could come through each attic.

Consult the builders.

Senator Murphy is right. Not only would you consult the builders but you would have very serious questions about refunds from him. You could not have that sort of situation. There may be something in what the Senator said: we will have a look at it and we will see where we go.

Senator Robb certainly did not support Senator O'Toole's point of view with regard to the widening of the scope of search warrants. I want to say to Senator Robb that I fully appreciate and value the contribution he made. I can see a lot of personal experience coming to the fore in that contribution. That is something that is to be welcomed in every debate, particularly in matters such as this because this is what laws are meant to be all about. Laws should be made by people for people. We have to get legal help, but it is people like us who have the responsibilities. It is we who should make the laws. Laws should reflect our experiences and our recognition of the difficulties and the problems that have to be dealt with for the good of community and to uphold the right of the individual. Then we call in the legal experts, technical persons to help us define these things and put them in legal terms.

Every Member who spoke was able to contribute something from his own experience in this area, the protection of people, the worry we all have for the person's right to defend himself, if the worry of old people not able to defend themselves, the question of whether, as Senator Bromell mentioned a while ago, people should have stun guns for self-protection. The old person who had a stun gun, even if it were for self-defence, would have to hold it in physical contact with a person for three seconds. An intruder would be much stronger, tougher and much more aggressive and one could see the difficulties that would lead to. It would probably be totally ineffective. I would like to have a system — I am sure we all would — whereby people who might feel threatened or in danger would not even have to think about resorting to the use of a stun gun. I do not think society would want to see that developing.

Senator McGowan made a number of very important points, some of which are certainly matters that can be looked at. Because of the value of that contribution, I have a number of questions I can discuss with colleagues with a view to seeing that these questions are put where they should be put, namely, at different levels of operations of the Anglo-irish Conference. I value very much what the Senator has said. I will discuss this with him at another time with a view to getting further information from him on it.

With regard to the comment by Senator McGowan that controls on ammunitions are not tight enough and that shot guns and .22 rifles are too easily available — not any more. The Senator was quite correct in saying that in the early seventies the Garda at that time requested everybody who had guns other than .22s and shotguns to hand them in and they revoked all the licences issued at that time for various guns people had, some probably from the War of Independence of the Civil War or that came their way through the 30s and the 40s. All these were taken up and they are still in Garda custody. I have not got the number but it is surprisingly high. Later on there was another amnesty and more guns came out of the woodwork, because people realised there was little point in keeping these things and many of them did not have any ammunition for them. They were more of sentimental value rather than anything else. The Garda have not made any clear decision as to what is going to happen those guns and I take the Senator's point that perhaps it is about time people were told. I can say one thing for fact, and that is that there is no way these guns are going to be given back to them in the present circumstances. I can say that for definite. It would be a recipe for disaster, because those who are known to have guns have the great responsibility of minding and keeping them. People who want guns know who have them and then you can see the sort of situation we are getting ourselves into. We cannot have that.

It is very likely that if I were pushed to give a decision now on what the future is with regard to guns in Garda custody and which were voluntarily given when the people were requested to do so, 16, 17 or 18 years ago, it is that I am terribly sorry but there is no way we could consider returning them now, although I hope that the time might come when we could do so. We would have convinced people that they could live on this island as one people and we would have succeeded in getting people to agree to share the island with each other having regard to the differences that are there at present, whether they are religious or political. That is the day we all want to see, when people can say, "this is our island, all of us can share this island, and all of us can live and get on with each other". If we reach that stage, which, please God, we will, then the question of giving people back old antiques they may have inherited from their grandfathers or even their great great grandfathers, old Fenian guns and that sort of thing, will be easy. I would love to see that, as I am sure every Member would. We will have a great celebration when that day comes.

You could make them defective.

That we can do, Senator. That is quite so. They can be made defecitve. I know of a .303 rifle which was rendered defective. It was given up in the thirties and was used in the training of the LDF. Eventually it was returned to the owner, who never forgave the authorities of the day because his .303 that he used in the War of Independence and in the Civil War was rendered useless. Not alone did they take the bolt out of the rifle, but they actually drilled a hole through the barrel and destroyed it. If you want to see it sometime, I will show it to you with pleasure. The man who owned it was very closely related to me, but I still have it.

With regard to the guns that are licenced, the Garda, as Senator McGowan knows full well, did call in all the rifles that are licensed. They are practically all of .22 calibre. Only in very limited instances are higher calibre guns available and these only under very special circumstances for deer shooting and the like, and people are not even allowed to keep them in their homes. All the .22s were called in a number of years ago. They were all ballistically examined and recorded and it is now possible to say from the computer records what gun fired a particular bullet of that calibre if that information is required.

In regard to shot guns, even with licensed shot guns there a serious problem there for us, because people are careless about shot guns and they get stolen. I used to do a bit of hunting myself at one time and I know people can become careless about shot guns after a while. They are stolen and then they turn up with the barrels and the butts sawn off and, unfortunately, they get into the wrong hands. I have to say with regret that consideration had to be given on more than one occasion to the question of recalling all shot guns. Again, one must have regard to the rights of the individual and everything else and the good of the community and it was decided not to recall them. It is regrettable that these shotguns are stolen and that they are being misused.

I also have to say with regret that sometimes when guns are missing, and must be presumed to be stolen, the matter is not reported to the Garda. This does not help either. It makes it more difficult to try to deal with situations that arise when the Garda are trying to trace guns and to investigate crimes.

Senator McGowan suggested that we should encourage the tightening of gun controls in the EC and, to the extent that we can do this, I would agree with him that we should do everything we can about it. Certainly, I would encourage anyone in the EC from this country to help us in that matter.

I think it was Senator Murphy who mentioned the lobby in the United States that has successfully defeated different adminstrations over the years who were trying to do something about controlling guns. There were occasions in the States, going back to the time of the assassination of President Kennedy, where the pendulum had swung one way after that outrageous event and people tried to do something about it, but in a short time the pendulum swung back the whole way. It is part of the character of the American citizen but undoubtedly the availability of guns there is frightening.

I read some reports recently of a case in the United States where youngsters just crashed their jeep car into the shop window of a gun store. There was only ordinary glass in the window. They got over 100 Uzi machine guns and a lot of heavy military-style equipment out of that store that was just displayed in glass cases. With such guns available, and particularly in a country where drugs are used to the extent they are, you can see the difficulties. Until such time as the authorities seriously address themselves to that question in the United States their problems will be of major proportions. We have nothing like that in this country. We have tightened up considerably and we are going to tighten up more. I think there is agreement on what we are trying to do. As I say, I am satisfied we are going in the right direction. I cannot say what we can do in the EC in connection with the matter. Even those who are licensed to carry guns on the European scene should be shown how to use them.

The point has been made that people of 18 years can buy a .22 or buy a shot gun. If they have whatever number of pounds it is for a licence — I am not sure what it is; I think it is £12, not very much — they can then get a gun and buy ammunition for it. The point has been validly made here this afternoon that they are not even shown the basic rules of ownership of a gun, how to treat a gun, how to clean it, how to use a gun and how not to use a gun, how to keep guns out of the way of children. All of us can recall some tragedy, perhaps a family tragedy, caused by the misuse of guns.

I was reared in a home where even toy guns were not allowed, there was such a distaste for guns in my family. That was because both my parents were involved in the early 20s and they saw too much of what happened at that time. Now youngsters a little over 18 years of age who have enough money, £50 or £100, to by a gun — and that is not big money in this day and age — they are given a gun. I have already asked the officials here with me to remind me that we should have discussions with the Garda and see if we can do something about that. If a youngster is to be given a gun at least he should be told how to use it. We will work out something. Before you drive a car you must go and take lessons and you must pass a test before you are allowed out on your own. Even to drive a tractor across the road — I think that phrase used by Senator McGowan — you have to get a licence and you have to know how to drive such a vehicle. It is a matter I will certainly look at because there is a lot of sense in it.

The last point was the one made by Senator Bromell, whether stun guns should be allowed for self-protection. I gave my viewpoint on that. I think the reasons I gave were reasonable and logical but, again, at a later stage we can tease out the matter.

I think I have covered as many of the points as I could. I am very thankful to the Members for their approach to this legislation. I feel that in the interests of having a good Act eventually two or three weeks are required, before Committee Stage for the Members to have a look at the Bill. I have a problem, too, in that we have some amendments that will require drafting. We will come back when the Whips are ready and we will take the matter further. I am quite sure that what we are doing today is a worth-while step in the interests of the people we are all here to represent. Go raibh míle maith agaibh.

Before we conclude Second Stage, I beg your indulgence to seek assurance about a very important point in which I am interested. The Minister, understandably, was engaged in conversation while I was trying to make it. It is this: the meaning of this Bill is that we make a further act of faith and a further act of trust in the State to act on our behalf. We give to them what is left, if you like, of what is in many cases a legitimate desire for self-protection. That being so, it is evermore incumbent on the State — which, in effect, means the Garda Síochána — to implement properly their duties, to be most scrupulous in the implementation of their duties, not alone in the protection of the citizens but in their dealings with suspects. The more unarmed every suspect is, the more entitlement he has to proper treatment at the hands of the Garda Síochána. I hope the Minister will convey that to the Garda chiefs as this Bill progresses.

Very briefly in reply to Senator Murphy, I, too, very strongly hold that point of view. I think the Senator will appreciate that over the years I have said that at times when it was difficult to say it. As far as I am concerned, everybody is innocent until proven guilty; everybody has a right to be treated as such and to be treated in accordance with the laws of this land. I hold to and value those sentiments very dearly, Senator Murphy. If I did not, I would be talking in a much different way.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 8 March 1989.

Will the Acting Leader indicate when it is proposed to sit again?

The House will sit again at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 March 1989.

Top
Share