I want to make it clear that I heartily endorse the effort to tighten the law to limit the availability and in particular the use of offensive weapons such as knives. From that point of view the approach adopted and the thinking behind that approach finds great favour with me. I have no doubt that the ready availability of knives of all kinds is a cause for great concern. I am very anxious to limit that availability and in particular to limit the carrying of such offensive weapons in public places. I indicated in my earlier remarks how appalled I was to read in the Irish Independent on Monday the article outlining the ready availability of these knives, the broad range of such weapons and in particular the very cheap cost of such knives, running to as low as a couple of pounds.
I can say directly to the Minister that I am very much with him in his thinking here. In the proposal as it is drafted at present I want to ensure that the new provision will result in good law and will not leave any openings for lawyers in defending people who carry these awful weapons. From that point of view I am anxious that the Minister would deal with the following points. The proposal is that a person who has with him in any public place a knife or any other article which has a blade or which is sharply pointed shall be guilty of an offence. Subsection (2) provides that it shall be a defence if the person so charged shows he has good reason for carrying such a weapon. I wonder whether it is necessary to give some outline of what a good reason would be. There is no such definition in the Bill. Will it be a matter for the court to adjudicate or will it be left to the Garda Síochána or the DPP to decide what would be a good reason? Another defence would be lawful authority. Again, there appears to be no definition of "lawful authority" for carrying these knives in a public place and it is important that such a definition be given.
The next subsection provides that it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he has the article with him for use at work or for a recreational purpose. The question that arises here is whether somebody who might use such a knife in the course of work, such as a fisherman, would be entitled to have the same knife in his possession in a public place, for instance, at a football match on Sunday. There is no definition of what is a recreational purpose. Is this a loophole? What has the Minister in mind in including this particular phraseology? The House would wish to be satisfied about the points I have raised. I emphasise I am not nit-picking. I am anxious to ensure that the Minister's thinking, which I heartily endorse, results in good legislation appearing on the Statute Book.
I will give an example of the type of query that can arise. I carry a penknife. I do not carry it for a work or recreational purpose; I normally use it to pare tobacco for my pipe. Will I be guilty of an offence for carrying my penknife in my pocket from now on? If that is the intention of the House, I will find some other way to pack my pipe. It is important that law abiding people should be aware of the scope of the provision in this Bill as drafted.
There is one further point on which I would like clarification. The three new subsections, as far as I can see, will replace the existing subsection (1) because the proposal is to delete lines 31 to 42 on page 6 and also to delete lines 1 to 4 on page 7. That means that the old subsections (2) and (3) still stand. Is that the intention? The old subsection (2) deals with any flick-knife. Is it the intention that that provision will stand or is the intention that it would be covered by the new omnibus provision because, of course, any flick-knife would be covered by "any knife or any other article which has a blade"? The amendments do not suggest that the existing subsections (2) and (3) be deleted. Does the Minister intend letting subsections (2) and (3) stand? If so — and this is a very minor point — they would need to be renumbered because we are including new subsections (1), (2) and (3).
In the light of the fact that this is a new ministerial amendment on Report Stage, I am very much behind his thinking but this would need to be teased out further and explained more fully so that the House can be happy that the end result will be good law.