asked the President if he has any statement to make as to the withdrawal of certificates for firearms; if he will state the number of firearms collected; the number proposed to be collected; and the number proposed to be left uncollected.

All certificates granted in respect of revolvers and pistols have been withdrawn or revoked. I am not in a position at present to give the other information asked for in the question.

That is to say, the Minister is not in a position to make any statement on the subject.

I do not propose to make any statement.

I had not the advantage of hearing the question but, arising out of the Minister's reply, could he tell the House roughly how many permits have been revoked, and what is the total number involved?

All permits have been revoked. I do not think it is in the public interest to disclose the number of small arms that were subject to permit.

Does the Minister consider that there is any objection to giving the reason for this remarkable act? The primary purpose for which a Government exists is for the protection of the community. The Minister knows that certain people condemned a very large section in this country to death and that the only thing that prevented that being carried out was the unsafety of people who might attempt to carry it out, and that up to two months ago a great many people were protected by the Government, presumably for a good reason. Now the Government carefully removes the last possibility of defence from these people while, as far as we are aware, the Government takes no action whatever against lawless bodies whose career during the past ten years has been nothing but one of assassination.

Is the Deputy asking a supplementary question?

Yes, I am asking that the Government should give some statement explaining the grounds upon which this extraordinary action was taken.

The Deputy should not make a long statement when purporting to ask a question.

Very well, I will put it in an interrogative form. Will the President give us an assurance for the public that all adequate protection will be given to every person whose life is in danger, and to banks whose property is in danger, when this step is being taken? Will the Government give an assurance that action will be taken against every illegal body in this country, whether associated with the Government or not, to make these illegal bodies incapable of carrying out the policy proposed some years ago by members of them, namely, assassination of people supporting this State?

The action the Government is taking is perfectly lawful. All protection considered to be necessary for the protection of the citizens will be given.

The Minister says that the action taken by the Government was lawful. The Minister is aware that certain sergeants and various other people went around demanding guns from people who had permits. That was contrary to the law, as far as I understand the law, in this country. I presume the Minister is aware that the action of the Government last Saturday night was an illegal action and that they only tried to mend their hands when they were told they were acting illegally. Is the Minister not aware that, as the law stands, these permits can only be collected by the superintendent who issued them, and that the permits could only be withdrawn for one of two reasons: either that the man who had the permit was unfit to have a permit or that the reason for which the permit was given no longer exists?

The method in which the police acted was perfectly legal. As regards the procedure that has been adopted, there is nothing illegal whatever about it.

Arising out of the Minister's reply, I should like to have my mind made more clear on this matter. Is it the situation in this country now that, in accordance with the President's declaration in this House, those who do not apply for permits, but who acquire guns in defiance of the law, may retain them, but those who do apply for licences and would decline to carry guns except within the law will not be allowed to retain them? If that is the situation in this country now, I think a clear, explicit statement should be made by the President or the Minister for Justice to that effect.

Might I ask the Minister to reconsider, if not immediately, in his own time, his decision not to tell us the number of permits involved? I will ask him to consider whether it would not be much easier for the House and the country to form a judgment on the action the Government have taken, if they knew the numbers.

My information was that the Opposition desired to have time to debate this question. Do they want that time or do they not?

I was going to ask for an early adjournment to draw attention to the uneasiness caused in the public mind by the action of the Government in withdrawing firearms certificates from law-abiding citizens to whom they had been granted for the purpose of the protection of life and property. In view of the hasty and precipitate action of the Government, in the first place, in taking this decision and, in the second place, in view of their refusal to make a statement on the matter, I think I am entitled to know whether an opportunity of this sort will be afforded.

We have no objection.

With this sort of conversation going on, we cannot hear what is being said.

What time do the Government propose to allow?

Under Standing Order No. 27 the hour would be 9 p.m., except there was agreement that the debate would begin earlier.

Let us say 9 o'clock. I want no compliments from this Government and I do not expect any.

You might want their protection.

You can take any protection you like. I am well able to protect myself. I was never on the run from my own fellow-countrymen, and there are Deputies on that bench who cannot say that.

No permits required.