I thank the Chairman and members for giving us the opportunity to present to the joint committee. I almost feel slightly redundant because Mr. Kelly has delivered as much of our input as he has his own. If members remember nothing else of today's meeting, the important point is that any deliberations from any committee or the Law Reform Commission should send two very clear messages which I do not believe we have yet managed to do. First, if someone has broken into one's home or is on one's property, they should not be there and their level of rights should be diminished considerably. Second, the victim needs to know he or she will be protected by the institutions of the State, irrespective of what has happened because he or she was not the initial perpetrator. He or she should not feel afterwards that he or she will get into huge trouble. In some of the more unfortunate cases highlighted, the common reality, particularly in the feelings expressed by victims, is they had incredible fear. As a result, at times they simply did not report the initial intimidation because they felt that, somehow, they were wrong.
It is interesting that Mr. Kelly was pleasantly surprised by our agreement on the matter. This should inform the committee of how difficult it is from a rural perspective to talk about the message of fear because straightaway one is hit down as looking for a licence to kill and to have a go. Most rural groups, including Irish Rural Link, have never stated they want to have a go. Unfortunately, that message is confused with doubts about the level of force to be used, etc. Most people living in rural areas have come to believe, rightly or wrongly, that they are the ones who will come out the wrong side of an incident.
The message must get across strongly that the person trespassing has diminished rights. Those who are affected by that trespasser should be given the confidence to believe they will be protected by the State. The committee is aware of the rural issues, so I shall not waste its time as regards rural isolation and so on which are well documented. We are making it clear that we are not in favour of the "have a go" viewpoint, but we are talking about the fear and intimidation that is being experienced.
The second real point IRL is making in clear terms is about whether the level of resources in terms of community alert programmes and dialogue generally between the community and the Garda has been examined. Have we examined at all the effects some cutbacks will have? We welcome yesterday's press release to the effect that there is another €60,000 available for community supports. That is enormously welcome and that is the way we should be going, since those schemes, because they are embedded in and dependent on the community, bring a great deal more confidence and support to people living in rural areas than virtually any single initiative can achieve. Even though the McCarthy report says more or less all of these should go, the fact is they bring comfort and physical help to people and that is as it should be.
In other words, we may well talk about the legislative frameworks and argue about minimum levels of force, what retreat means and how the law interprets it, etc., but if the community is not involved at local level with the Garda and other agencies, meeting the difficulties at the pass, then none of the legislative initiatives will work. In dealing with the highlighted cases, such as Nally, if one looks at what happened beforehand, so much could have been done to avoid that situation, but it was not. One can blame resources and everything else, but that is where the key work, in terms of security in rural areas, must be concentrated. More older people than ever are now dependent on their neighbours and because of unemployment fewer younger people are living in the community. We really have to focus on how we deal with the question of security in rural areas.
The recommendations of the Law Reform Commission are excellent. Mr. Kelly gave two examples of the right to defence of property, etc. Perhaps we might not agree on that, but there is room for discussion at least. If one walks in on a person living on his or her own in a rural area, there may be no other houses around. If somebody breaks in or is in the driveway looking for the keys of the homeowner's car, he or she does not have much choice, not being aware what the intruder will do. To try and interpret a ruling on that type of scenario is extremely difficult. Again, this is the confusion. If I live alone and somebody enters my property, is looking for the keys of my car and I have the means to disable him or her — which could give rise to a serious situation — that is where the confusion lies. Does the law say, in effect, "No, you can't", which puts me in an horrific situation, or does it allow me to do what I have to on the basis that the intruder should not be there and therefore his or her rights are diminished?
I welcome discussion with the ICCL or any other grouping on this issue. Rural communities would be very anxious to have such discussions, but I end as I began, with two messages. The trespasser has no rights or at least diminished rights in being there and the person being attacked should have much greater rights and far more protection from the statutory agencies.