This summer Irish audiences are watching with new eyes a dark and divisive chapter in Irish politics. It has been described as spellbinding, heart-rending and harrowing, and has pitted brother against brother, sister against sister, friend against friend. That is the Progressive Democrats Party's contribution to the summer of politics in the letter from its trustees. I understand that "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" is also packing them in.

The Taoiseach might wonder what that has to do with Leaders' Questions and I will tell him. Last night, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, proposed a simple Bill dealing with home defence to do three things, namely, to remove any question of home owners having to retreat, to prevent intruders to a household from suing a home owner who acts reasonably, and to create the presumption that force used by a home owner in defending his wife, family and home is reasonable.

The Government refused to accept that Bill because the feud in the Progressive Democrats camp sparked by the writing of a Bill for a Progressive Democrats Senator by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been carried into the heart of Government and is affecting its work. The Taoiseach has effectively mollified the sweet 16 people on his own backbenches, at least for the moment, but the recent rumpus within the Progressive Democrats is affecting the work of the Government the Taoiseach leads.

I have three questions for the Taoiseach. Does he believe that a home owner should have to retreat if his home is invaded or subject to intrusion? Does he believe that a home owner should have to prove that the force he used in defending his home is reasonable? Does he think that a home owner should be liable to be sued by someone who breaks into his home by day or night? Does the Taoiseach believe that is reasonable? These are simple questions arising from Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's home defence Bill.

The use of force must be proportionate and that is the issue. Obviously a person has the right to defend himself, his property and family, but it must be proportionate.

People do not have that right now.

That is the point.

That right is in the law. The objection of the Government and others to the Fine Gael Bill as drafted is that it goes too far. A gate-crasher into a party——

The Taoiseach should not listen to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

He is worried about a gate-crasher in the Progressive Democrats Party.

I ask Deputies to allow their leader, Deputy Kenny, to hear the reply.

I must tell the Fine Gael backbenchers that everyone who has read their Bill considers it to be over the top legally.

Did the gang of 12 tell that to the Taoiseach?

It is not a suitable Bill to put on the Statute Book. While the issue of somebody defending his property must be proportionate, the Fine Gael Bill is not.

I agree that the use of force must be proportionate, but the point made in Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's Bill is that the home owner should not bear the onus of proof of the use of force. In response to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform's advice on gate-crashers at parties, recently a perfectly innocent young woman attending a party was shot dead. There are 500 burglaries a week where there are no parties.

At 2 a.m. tomorrow, when a house in this city or any other town is burgled, does the Taoiseach believe that the owner of that house should have to retreat? Does the Taoiseach believe that the owner of that house, in defending, inside his house, his wife, family and property, for which he has paid taxes, stealth charges and so on, should be liable to be sued by somebody who breaks in and trespasses with the intent of evil-doing or stealing or whatever? Does the Taoiseach believe that the home owner should have to prove that his defence of his property and his wife and family was reasonable?

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is no stranger to changing Bills that he publishes and presents to the House. For instance, he has tabled 352 pages of amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill that he published. The Taoiseach and the Minister say that in the autumn, or sometime in the future, the Government will bring forward a Bill to deal with these issues.

There are people watching us this morning whose houses were burgled last night, where there were no parties, where the only gate-crashers were the thugs and criminals who broke into their property with evil intent, stealing to feed cocaine habits or whatever else. The Taoiseach meanwhile tells me that Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's Fine Gael Bill goes too far. I will repeat the three questions. Does the Taoiseach believe that a person is entitled to defend his home? Does he believe that the person should have to prove the defence was reasonable? Does he believe that somebody should or can be sued for defending his wife, children and property?

If the answer is "Yes", he should bring the Bill to committee and argue on the merits of the Progressive Democrats-Senator Bill written by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and whatever weaknesses or strengths there may be in the Fine Gael Bill. The legal advice we have received is that the Bill is constitutional, does not go over the top and puts back the pendulum slightly so that priority is given to home owners rather than thugs and criminals who break in to violate a person's property which, according to the Constitution, is supposed to be "inviolable" in this country.

The Minister for zero tolerance is muttering.

The Deputy has asked me three questions. He asked me whether people have the right to be safe in their homes. The answer to that question is "Yes". He asked me whether people can use force to protect themselves. That is defined as reasonable force and is currently in the law. People who are attacked in their houses by intruders or others are entitled to use reasonable force.

Yes, but the presumption is not there.

That is the law. The Deputy also asked whether it is right that a person who defends himself or herself has to make his or her own case. He should know that the presumption of the criminal code is that the accused is innocent. The law is based on that presumption.

So there is no need for the Bill proposed by the Minister, Deputy McDowell.

No. The Deputies opposite should not try to change legal principles which have been in place for hundreds of years. The presumption of the criminal code is that the accused is innocent. We can refer to all the circumstances we like, but we know we must have the law of the land. We cannot allow people to feel threatened or intimidated in their homes.

We do.

The Deputies opposite know my views on these things. If we do not have clear and good law, people will start to take the law into their hands.

We need to improve the law.

There are 500 burglaries a week.

We had a controversy about that last year, when an intruder who was retreating from a property was shot in the back with impunity.

That was outside the property.

Is it all right outside the property?

That was different.

Is the Deputy saying that one should wait until intruders leave one's property before one shoots them?

That has nothing to do with the Fine Gael proposal because the incident took place outside the property.

We had that debate. How can one write a law——

We have written the home defence law.

——that allows the occupant of a house to wait until the intruders have gone out the door and then it is all right to shoot them in the back? Let us be sensible.

That is not fair.

I remind Deputy Kenny, who seems to want to make this a populist issue, that people are entitled under the law to use reasonable force.

Is the Taoiseach siding with the thugs and criminals who commit 500 burglaries a week?

Fascism.

We cannot have a situation in this House whereby Deputy Kenny can ask his question in silence, but the member of the Government who responds is not allowed to be heard.

Gabh mo leithscéal.

The Taoiseach, without interruption.

The Taoiseach is not responding to the points which have been made.

I will be brief. I do not intend to stand up and just say populist things.

That is a new one.

Every Monday.

If Deputy Kenny wants to achieve a position in law whereby, when a person walks into a house, the defence of reasonable force cannot be used any more, or there is no longer a presumption of innocence——

Nobody is saying that.

——or one is allowed to blast away one's gun at anyone——

Rubbish.

——that is not the way the law works and I oppose that.

Hear, hear.

That is nonsense.

The Taoiseach's comments are a fig leaf.

What about the Progressive Democrats Bill?

This is the wind that could shake the Bertie.

Fascism.