I welcome the Minister of State.
Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024: Second Stage
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I thank the Acting Chair and welcome the opportunity to introduce the Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024. This Bill introduces a number of very important reforms in the law across a broad range of areas. These amendments reach across many aspects of people's lives and have the potential to make a real difference. They include increasing the number of judges in the Court of Appeal, increasing carrier liability fines as part of our ongoing reforms to strengthen the immigration system, amendments to the Judicial Council Act 2019 to address issues relating to personal injury guidelines highlighted by the Supreme Court in the recent Delaney case, and provisions to increase the maximum penalties for a number of knife crime offences. Finally, the Bill amends a number of Acts on the Statute Book relating to superannuation provisions for public servants with the aim of increasing the mandatory retirement age for uniformed public servants.
I also wish to note that I hope to bring potential amendments to this Bill on Committee Stage in the Dáil relating to the status of officials of the Judicial Council and Judicial Appointments Commission; amendments to the Broadcasting Act 2009 relating to the powers of Coimisiún na Meán and the Terrorist Content Online Regulation, EU 2021/784; amendments to the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956 to correct procedural issues identified in the Damache judgment and thereby re-enabling the revocation of certificates of naturalisation in serious cases; amendments to the International Protection Act 2015 to address procedural issues with the process for designating safe third countries and inadmissibility procedures identified in a recent High Court judgment. This House will have the opportunity to examine these amendments in due course.
The Bill comprises 12 sections laid across seven Parts. I will now highlight the main provisions of each Part. Part 2 amends section 1A of the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act 1961. Section 2 provides for the amendment of section 1A(2) of the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act 1961 for the purpose of increasing the maximum number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal by one, to 18. The increase in the number of judges in the Court of Appeal is to maintain the number of judges available to sit on the court while Ms Justice Power acts as sole member of a tribunal of inquiry examining matters relating to the Defence Forces.
Part 3 amends the Immigration Act 2003. Section 3 amends both sections 2 and 3 of the Immigration Act 2003. The amendment to section 2 of the Act has the effect of increasing the fine payable where an airline or ferry company is found guilty, on summary conviction, of allowing a person to board a vehicle destined for the State without the proper documentation. One example of where a prosecution might be sought in this regard is where an airline allows someone who requires a visa for Ireland to board a flight to Ireland without the required visa. This Bill amends the maximum fine so as to increase it from €3,000 to a class A fine maximum of €5,000. This more closely aligns the fines payable in Ireland for an offence with fines in other European countries.
Section 3 of the 2003 Act provides that a person accused of committing such an offence may make a payment within 28 days so as to avoid prosecution for that offence. The amount payable under section 3 to avoid prosecution currently stands at €1,500. The Bill will increase that amount to €2,500. The Bill maintains the current ratio of the amount payable being equivalent to half the maximum penalty on summary conviction. There was a period of stakeholder engagement in advance of this proposed change being introduced to this Bill, and my officials will communicate this increase in fines in good time with stakeholders before commencing the revision of this Bill.
Part 4 amends the Judicial Council Act 2019. Section 4 in Part 4 introduces a number of changes to the Judicial Council Act 2019. The changes being introduced were necessitated by the findings of the Supreme Court in the Delaney case. In that case, the personal injury guidelines which came into force in April 2021 were challenged. As Senators will be aware, the Supreme Court upheld the guidelines. This was really good news as we believe the personal injury guidelines are key to keeping the cost of insurance down. The Supreme Court also identified a particular deficiency in the underpinning legislation, the Judicial Council Act 2019. Part 4 of this Bill rectifies the matter. The changes being made in the Bill reflect advice which I obtained from the Attorney General.
Section 4 introduces new procedures in respect to future amendments to the guidelines. Any future amendments to the guidelines will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and may only be adopted by the Judicial Council after a positive resolution has been passed by both Houses.
The additional level of scrutiny attached to the new procedures for amendment to the guidelines reflects the important role of the guidelines in seeking to standardise possible awards in personal injury actions.
Section 4 also introduces a provision which puts beyond doubt the legal efficacy of the existing guidelines adopted by the Judicial Council and which subsequently came into force in April 2021. The provision clarifies that the guidelines remain legally robust until amended in accordance with the new procedures introduced in the Bill. The changes made by this Bill should ensure that the guidelines achieve their objective, which is to ensure the delivery of fair and consistent personal injury awards.
Part 5 refers to the amendment of the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act in 2019. Section 5 amends the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 to increase the maximum sentences for the more serious knife-related offences under the Act. A number of extremely serious and, in some cases, fatal knife attacks in recent years have caused a valid increase in public concern about the criminal possession and use of knives. Official figures also show that over the same period, there have been gradual but significant increases in knife seizures, prosecutions for knife crime offences and the treatment of knife attack injuries in our hospitals. In response, the multi-stakeholder antisocial behaviour forum, which I chaired, established an expert subgroup on knife crime. This subgroup, comprising various criminal justice bodies and civil society groups, recommended raising several of the maximum penalties under the Act. I thank the subgroup for its valuable consideration of this issue. I fully agree with its recommendations and these amendments will give effect to them.
Under the 1990 Act, the maximum sanction for simple possession of a knife in a public place is five years imprisonment. The subgroup did not recommend increasing this penalty and neither do I believe it needs to be increased. However, five years is also the maximum penalty for several more serious knife crime offences under the Act, namely, possession with intent to cause injury or intimidate, trespassing with a knife and producing an article capable of inflicting serious injury. This is an anomaly in the law. Unlike simple possession, these offences involve a clear and significant degree of criminal intent. They represent a significant threat to community safety in their own right because they can be precursors to serious and sometimes fatal assaults. As recommended by the subgroup, I am, therefore, proposing that the maximum penalty for these more serious offences be increased to seven years. I also propose to increase from seven years to ten years the maximum penalty for manufacturing, importing, selling or hiring offensive weapons, which is an even more grave offence.
I believe these amendments represent a necessary rebalancing and strengthening of the penalties for knife crime under the 1990 Act. They reflect the true gravity of the offences in question and will ensure that, in the most serious cases, the courts can impose a sanction that fully matches the crime. I am, of course, aware that Deputy O'Callaghan previously introduced a Private Members' Bill relating to this issue which recently underwent scrutiny by the justice committee. I am grateful to both the Deputy and the committee for their work in this regard. It is clear we share a common goal in responding to this serious issue.
Part 6 deals with miscellaneous amendments and, in particular, the amendment of section 23 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003. Section 6 of the Bill corrects a typographical error identified in section 23(5) of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003, as amended by section 16(a) of the European Arrest Warrant (Amendment) Act 2024. The words “of a person" in section 23(5)(b) are extraneous and unnecessary. While the typographical error is minor in nature and does not materially affect the operation of the Act, this amendment is prudent and necessary to ensure that the wording of the implementing measure correctly aligns with the EAW framework decision.
Section 7 deals with the amendment of section 38 of the Criminal Justice (Mutual Recognition of Custodial Sentences) Act 2023. There is a typographical error in section 38(1)(h), where it states “not less than.” rather than “less than 6 months”. Accordingly, there is currently no power for our courts to refuse to recognise a sentence on the basis that the period of imprisonment of the overall sentence or the period of the sentence remaining to be served is less than six months. While there is a requirement on the High Court to interpret the 2023 Act, in so far as possible, in light of the wording and purpose of the framework decision, this amendment will correct this typographical error to ensure there is no ambiguity and that the 2023 Act properly implements the discretionary ground of refusal set out at Article 9(1)(h) of the framework decision.
Part 7 deals with superannuation. It makes the necessary amendments to facilitate an increased mandatory retirement age for members of An Garda Síochana and the Permanent Defence Force, as well as prison officers and firefighters. These provisions enhance the options available to members and allow them to remain in service for longer if they choose to do so. Following analysis undertaken by the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform to examine the issue of mandatory retirement age increases and fast accrual pension terms in these sectors, a policy framework was established.
Under this framework, fast accrual pensions terms will be facilitated until age 60. If an individual remains in employment beyond that age, their pension accrual reverts to the standard basis from that point until their retirement.
I assure the Acting Chairperson that I will not use the bell in terms of what I have to say. While I welcome the Bill on behalf of the Fine Gael group and it does important things, there is a lot of technical stuff in it. Let us be honest: there is nothing sexier than superannuation when it comes to passing legislation.
I will start with the Title, which I am sure could be snappier, but Courts, Civil Law, Criminal Law and Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2024 is probably an unnecessary mouthful. I am afraid we are going increasingly in the direction of putting everything into the Short Title, and even more into the Long Title, than is reasonable. I do not know whether the Minister of State would give consideration to possibly a pithier Title for the legislation on the next stage.
As I say quite regularly in this House, this Bill is not legible for ordinary people because it does not refer to the import of the amendment being made. Let us say that an amendment is being made to section 3 of the Immigration Act 2003. Somebody who knows what the Immigration Act states in section 2(7) and section 3(1)(b) might understand the import of that change. One of the things I have suggested is more consolidated legislation on the one part, although I recognise that is cumbersome and time-consuming. However, it would be very simple to repeal the whole section that is being amended and reintroduce the amended section. That way at least it would be slightly more legible to people coming to the Bill - or Act, as it will be - without reference to all the other legislation. The reality is that in many Bills or Acts, when you sit down to read what an amending Act does, you need four, five, ten or 20 other Acts to hand o understand what it does.
There are a number of provisions in this, although they are put succinctly in terms of amendments, that will have great input. I absolutely welcome the increase in the number of judges on the Court of Appeal. It is one of the areas where the Government has been quite strong in the aftermath of the McManus report, in acknowledging that we need more judges to deal with the load that courts have. That goes all the way up to the Court of Appeal. It will only be a positive to have an extra judge there to help them deal with the workload they have.
Regarding the carrier fines, I welcome the amendment provided for in section 3. It is probably a reasonable measure, even in keeping up with inflation as well as recognising the importance of these fines. It is also important to recognise two issues. First, airlines are generally compliant with this. We do not have a difficulty with rogue airlines that are not carrying out their duty at the point of embarkation of people coming to Ireland. Second, it is important to also contradict the misapprehension that some people expressed at the time there was a discussion in the media about this provision that somehow we were denying people an opportunity to seek asylum here. That is not the case. What is most important is that this legislation or any other legislative provision would not place a burden on an ordinary staff member of an airline who does not have the training to make assessments about people’s bona fides or otherwise at a check-in desk in a foreign airport. Those people cannot be held responsible. They would not be held responsible personally, but it cannot be their duty to verify, for example, whether an identification document is real. That is not what is provided for and it is in the case of a flagrant breach that these fines would apply. However, where a document is presented, even if it is a false one, the reality is that only members of the GNIB at the point of entry into Ireland in the passport booth will be equipped to decide whether it is a fake or invalid document for any reason.
I welcome the amendments to the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act that are provided for in section 5 in Part 5. This is a forward step in recognising the seriousness of the possession of firearms and offensive weapons, and not just the possession of them, as the Minister of State said, but the possession of them with a certain intent. I worked for many years in the District Court as a criminal barrister, and people would be charged with very minor firearms offences under section (9)(1) for possession of a knife. It could be a penknife on a key ring, and that is not what the section is addressing.
We are talking about much more serious situations where people are carrying weapons with a view to using them. They are the people we specifically need to send a message to that this will not be tolerated. We know the damage it does. We know how many people have been injured and also how many lives have been lost because a row erupts, or a targeted conflict arises, and somebody has a weapon and something, very often unplanned, happens. More than the life of the person is lost, because the person responsible for the loss of that life also faces consequences for the entirety of his or her life, very often.
I welcome the fact that legislatively, as Houses of the Oireachtas, we are putting down a marker for judges and for courts that the possession of those offensive weapons, including firearms, for that purpose, needs to be marked more significantly by the court with an increase in sentence. The increase from five to seven years is absolutely proportionate. In fact, I would even have considered going further in terms of perhaps grading it in relation to the particular article and the nature of that article as well. However, I welcome the increase.
Superannuation is a tremendously interesting, engaging and sexy element of the Bill, which I am going to gloss over now. However, I want to talk about retirement because it is an important issue. It directly affects people at a certain point in their service to the State. The kind of people we are talking about in this regard could be described as uniformed public service. They comprise gardaí, prison officers and firefighters, people who are absolutely vital to the proper functioning of our society. There is a broader point to be made regarding mandatory retirement ages. We have people who burn out. The kinds of jobs these people are doing cannot be done for decades and decades, such is the impact on a person’s personal life, physical health and emotional health. It is appropriate that there would be a sunset for those people, from the point of view of their length of service.
At the same time, for somebody who joins those services maybe later in life, there should also be an opportunity for them to go beyond a certain age if they are capable and willing to do so. Many people face retirement age in their 50s when in fact they could continue to do another five or ten years and want to do another five or ten years. Why would we throw away the institutional knowledge, the experience and expertise of those people and not allow them to serve for longer, as long as they are capable of doing it? There is a simple way of ascertaining that, through management or medical reviews, to ascertain that they are capable. If they are capable of doing it, let us let them do it. God knows they are contributing hugely to the State and to the functioning of society. If it is desirable that they would continue, for both them and their employer, being the State, then let us let them do it. Why would we necessarily provide for a mandatory retirement age? An age at which a pension might mature is fine, but the mandatory retirement age is a myopic provision. I very much welcome any extension of that.
It does not just apply to the people covered by Part 7; it also applies to other sectors. We have set a mandatory retirement age for judges, for example, of 70. Many judges reach the age of 70 and we lose their institutional knowledge, a whole lifetime of experience and understanding they have of the law simply because they turn 70. Many of them would happily continue on and we would benefit from their continuation. However, because of the way the law is phrased, that is it, 70 comes and the shutter comes down. That is again a real shame and a myopic approach to retirement.
Of course, there are people who want to retire at retirement age and even people who want to take early retirement and they are entitled to do that. However, there are those who fall into the category of being capable, willing and wanting to continue and we should allow them to do that. That is a progressive thing to do, particularly at a time when in other spheres we are saying that we need to look at the general retirement age and the age at which people become eligible for the State contributory and non-contributory pension. It seems contradictory that, on the one hand, we are saying it should increase but, on the other, we are setting retirement ages for people at a level where they can still continue to work. Thankfully, due to modern medicine, we have a situation where people can be productive at a much greater age than they might have been 20, 30 or 40 years ago. I welcome the extensions in the Bill in terms of retirement ages. However, I wonder whether that could be a broader provision. Given the very broad title of the Bill, and what it covers, there is no reason such an amendment could not be accepted on Committee Stage, for example, to apply to the Judiciary. I am just floating that idea at this stage. On behalf of the Fine Gael group, cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille agus roimh na hailt agus na rudaí atá laistigh de. Is maith an Bille é agus táim ag tnúth go mór leis an Acht atá le teacht. Gabhaim míle buíochas.
I propose to share my time with Senator Craughwell, if that is agreeable to the House. I will speak for eight minutes and he for two.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I welcome this legislation. It is kind of a mixed-goods wagon in railway parlance. I accept the proposition that the Title looks a bit clunky but the Bills Office would insist the Title has to reflect the content of the Bill. When changes are being made to criminal law, civil law, retirement law and the courts' structure, it must be outlined in some identifiable way, otherwise no one would have any idea as to what the Bill was about, even at a cursory glance.
There are a couple of things about which I wish to ask the Minister of State. I welcome the appointment of an extra judge to the Court of Appeal. As for the amendments of the Immigration Act 2003, I note the fines in respect of documentation are being increased from €3,000 to €5,000 and from €1,500 to €2,500, as provided for in the 2003 Act. Will the Minister of State indicate how many prosecutions have taken place and how many fines have been imposed heretofore under any of those provisions in the last two or three years? I get the impression the law has fallen into desuetude. I say that advisedly because I have constantly heard feedback from people who are witnesses to the immigration process at immigration desks who say these fines are not being imposed on carriers. I note, from the Minister of State's speech, that a period of grace is provided for before this section is commenced. I really wonder whether the amount of the fine is the issue or whether the whole problem lies in determining who should and should not be responsible for policing people who get on planes to come to Ireland.
In that context, there is a general belief people flush their identify documents down various apertures in planes to conceal their identify when they are coming to this jurisdiction. The reality is probably that they conceal their documentation by handing it to another person who is in collusion with them, possibly a people-smuggler-type person. They obviously must have some type of documentation to get on board a plane and yet their documentation ceases to exist when they present themselves before an immigration officer. The problem in this regard is not that the documents are being destroyed or lost, but rather they are being concealed, either on the person or on someone else's person in those circumstances.
The second thing I wish to say concerns the Judicial Council Act 2019. The Delaney case was an instance in which the legislation on personal injuries guidelines survived by the skin of its teeth. Almost by an accident, something had happened since the original Act was brought into operation and the original guidelines were promulgated. There was a parenthetical reference to the guidelines in subsequent legislation, which the Supreme Court said was sufficient legislative authority for the guidelines to survive. Otherwise, there would have been a very embarrassing debacle. Nonetheless, I welcome the new provisions which will, in fact, insist these Houses of the Oireachtas validate and authorise the guidelines and that it is not simply a matter for organic activity by judges alone.
As regard to the remaining provisions, I have very little to say, except on the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act and the amendments being made to it. This is to increase the penalty from five years to seven years. The Minister of State has referred to the origin of this proposal. To be honest, in the context of the carrying of knifes, machetes and those kind of implements, it was really frightening to see, for anyone who watched "Crimecall" on television last night, the raid on a pub near Navan, County Meath, in which machetes were on full display on CCTV coverage.
I do not believe that the people who are carrying them are going to study this Bill and decide they had better stop doing that because the sentence has gone up from five to seven years. That is a bit fanciful. It possibly does underline to the Judiciary, who are imposing, on indictment, punishments in these circumstances, that they do not have to regard the gravest crime as a five-year crime anymore. The gravest is now seven years. Therefore, medium to serious penalties could go up to five years without incurring the wrath of the Court of Appeal. However, I make the point that the use of knives and weapons such as machetes is on the increase. There is one better cure than increasing the sentence for it and that is much more engagement of policing. The number of gardaí engaged in front-line policing is, unfortunately, at the same level it was after I managed to increase the Garda strength from 12,000 to 14,000, almost 20 years ago. We have an expanding population. It is going to find its way into prison accommodation and into increased criminal activity on a per head basis. We have to face up to the fact we need more policing as well as more severe penalties.
On sentencing, and I do not want to climb on any bandwagons, there is a provision in place for appealing of unduly lenient sentences. That should be allowed to happen without political interference. I have no objection to people expressing outrage or their own opinions on particular outcomes of particular cases, but we have to remind ourselves that an independent and responsible Judiciary is something which we should not cow into being in a state of fright. There are proper safeguards which are part of our laws. The independence of the courts is very important. Regarding calls for the Department of Justice to be somehow censured, the Department of Justice is not at all responsible for the sentences imposed by the courts. Laying at the doorstep of the Department any dissatisfaction with any particular sentence is misplaced.
I want to address the superannuation side of the Bill. There has been a tendency to believe that one size fits all when it comes to superannuation in the public service, and it does not. Where we have people on accelerated pensions because of the nature of the work they do, we have failed to recognise the impact the legislation has had. We are now finding that members of the Garda, the Defence Forces, the Prison Service and the fire service are leaving because of the impact of the pension. There is no pension for them worth talking about by the time they finish. The post-2013 pensions are the most problematic ones but the pre-2013 ones are also problematic. Before we come to Committee Stage, will the Minister of State engage with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and with the representative bodies of the Defence Forces, the Garda, the Prison Service and the fire service in order that we can undo some of the damage that has been done and that is costing us highly experienced people who are walking out of the services? We could go into detail but I do not think that would help. What would help is if the Minister of State agreed to meet the representative bodies, hear their case and perhaps introduce some amendments when we look at this legislation on Committee Stage. It is vitally important we stop the drain out of these services. Otherwise, we will finish up with serious problems when it comes to experienced people taking on significant roles of authority in the Garda, the Defence Forces, the Prison Service and the fire service. Perhaps the Minister of State would do that.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I apologise for not being present for his speech, but I have read it and the briefing note in advance. I will not rehash what is in the briefing notes because he has outlined all of it clearly and comprehensively.
I want to touch on airlines, as a member and vice chair of the transport committee. I have raised this with the Minister, Deputy McEntee. Since then, it seems apparent that most of our illegal immigrants are coming across the Border, if the figures are right, rather than through the airports. I do not know of any airline that does not check documentation, with, perhaps, the exclusion of travel to Britain which does not look for or want a passport and does not want to be subject to a fine. The question is what happens when people get to the other end of their journey or on a plane. There may be somebody on a plane collecting six, seven or eight passports, bringing them back to wherever they came from and reusing them with other people by changing the photographs or other information.
There are a lot of planes coming in to Dublin where we know every single person on them is an Irish citizen or the citizen of another EU country or Britain. On that basis, they are all entitled to be here. There is no issue in terms of checking those flights. I have been on a plane where people were checked at the door. Is there scope for doing a bit more of that?
Michael O'Leary came before our committee last week and said Ryanair is now taking photographs of passenger IDs as they board or check in. It can then say it has documentation when a passenger claims it was lost, flushed down a toilet or was given to somebody to bring home again, which is not the fault of the airline. How would we police the system? I take the point on visas and people being allowed onto aeroplanes with a particular piece of documentation, but not the right visa.
The clue is in the Title. This is a miscellaneous provisions Bill. It includes courts, civil and criminal law and superannuation. Much of what is in the Bill is welcomed by Fianna Fáil. We welcome the debate and the Bill.
Senator McDowell outlined very clearly the sections of the Bill pertaining to firearms. I did not see the television programme last night and might watch it. Nobody should carry knives or large weapons anywhere. There is no need or requirement for it. They are not needed in hostelries, restaurants or the public domain. They are not needed for people who are not cutting down trees or carrying out part of their job. I welcome the relevant provision in the Bill. The Bill also includes an increase in the number of judges, amendments to the Broadcasting Act and various other provisions, all of which are welcome.
I ask the Minister of State to respond on how we work with ferry companies and airlines on getting more data so that we know everybody entering the country has some form of documentation. It is hard to determine whether such documentation is fraudulent by having somebody at a check-in desk look at it. Some documents are high-quality forgeries, but at least people have documentation.
Some may have genuine documentation, but do not want to show they are from a particular country when they arrive here because it has been deemed to be a safe country. They lose that documentation down the toilet or whatever and then arrive here and say they are from a different country. How do we tell the difference and deal with that? That may not be the biggest problem at the moment, given the non-border on the island where people are coming from Britain and then down here. It seems there is very little we can do at the moment to deal with that.
I welcome the Bill. A lot of it is very palatable. I do not want to repeat what the Minister of State has said about the European arrest warrant and so on. I will allow Senator Gallagher to touch on the superannuation measures.
The Minister is welcome to the House. I too welcome this broad-ranging Bill which covers a lot of areas, as Senator McDowell outlined. I welcome the appointment of extra judges. It is important that we have a Judiciary that operates in a timely manner. There is no doubt that the appointment of extra judges would be beneficial in that regard. I also welcome the provisions on firearms.
The retirement age is probably a debate for another day, but I welcome the fact that the retirement age for uniformed public servants will increase from 60 to 62. That is very much welcome. Senator Ward outlined the provision.
As Senator Ward outlined, it is a fair point that on one hand we are extending the State pension to 66 years of age but we are asking people when they reach the age of 60 or 62, as it is now going to be, to retire. That is something we need to look at in more detail. Where somebody is in a fit capacity and wants to remain on in their job, there is no reason that retirement age could not be extended further. I very much welcome that.
Regarding the superannuation end of it, I know both ICTU and uniform sections have some concerns regarding that. I too would welcome if the Minister of State, or indeed, the Minister, Deputy McEntee, would meet with them to discuss a number of proposals they feel would be beneficial to this legislation. They would like an opportunity or a platform to discuss those with the Department. I would be grateful if the Minister of State would initiate that on behalf of those people. Again, I very much support this. I have one final question regarding the retirement age of 62 which he might be able to answer. Have we a timeframe as to when the legislation will be invoked for the retirement age to go up to 62? Is there a date or a timescale that the Minister of State can outline to the House this afternoon?
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. There are a number of sections which he has outlined in his initial speech which I would like to discuss with him here. A very helpful note was sent out to us by the Library and Research Service, which informed us that this Bill amends a number of Acts to facilitate the following changes. First, it is to allow an increase in the number of ordinary judges in the Court of Appeal by one to 18, which is something I am sure we all welcome, as all Members contributing this evening have. However, I bring to the Minister of State's attention the number of judges we currently have in the Circuit and District Courts. The vast majority of cases in this country are heard at this particular level. I know it is something we have previously debated in this House through the Courts Act 2023 but it is an issue that has been brought home to me in a number of discussions I have had with senior members of An Garda Síochána in recent months. There is an ongoing issue about the number of gardaí who have to attend a court sitting on the day. This obviously removes them from their daily duties but also forces them to remain in court until the case with which they are involved is called. This could mean - I am told - more than ten gardaí waiting on their cases to be called. Due to the workload of these judges at Circuit and District Court level, many of the gardaí may have to come back another day, removing them from further service because their cases were not called. I know this may not be the case around the entire country but in certain parts of the country, including my own county of Kildare, it is the case. I ask the Government to comment on this particular important matter, on the plans it may have to address the issue and the progress it has made through the Courts Act 2023. I know we have all said in the House that we need the gardaí back on the streets but if we do not address the workload of these Circuit and District Court judges, and appoint more of them, then we are just going to see gardaí waiting around outside court houses in certain parts of the State when they could be carrying out other important, and indeed, urgent duties.
As others have, I also welcome the increase in the maximum penalty for conviction for knife crime from five to seven years. As the Minister of State stated himself, this follows the setting up of a forum in 2020 which reported back to the Minister and the Government. I note from a report in The Irish Times in May this year by Conor Lally that the number of knife crime injuries has increased in the State. The article went on to say, as others Members have mentioned here today, that these injuries are still well below the peak total of 269 recorded in 2006 but that the number of knife injury inpatients remained at more than 230 each year until 2011 when they began to fall. However, they started to rise again and there were over 200 last year. The Health Service Executive knife-assault data only captures people treated as inpatients. Less serious knife-attack injuries which would not require the victim being admitted to hospital as an inpatient are not captured in the data. The data also does not capture cases where the victim dies from their injuries. A total of 2,146 knives were taken from people by gardaí last year. This was up by some 90% on the 2016 figure but slightly below the 2,260 seized in 2020. The Garda sources pointed out that the increase in knife seizures does not necessarily reflect rises in the number of people carrying knives.
One of the gardaí who spoke to The Irish Times stated:
And with the economy generally going well, you’ve people back out in full socialising mode. And with drink and drugs involved in that, stabbings are the typical crime that will increase.
How worrying is a comment like that from a serving garda and how timely is it that we are discussing changing the law on this type of crime? We need a strong message to go out from this and all subsequent conversations on the Bill that knife crime will not be tolerated and there will be further detections and convictions. It is worrying for a parent when his or her child heads out to socialise, but even more worrying when a serving garda says that, with drink and drugs involved, stabbings are the typical crime that will increase. As I have stated in previous justice debates, the Government must continue to fund youth diversion and alternative projects throughout the State. The Minister of State has a particular interest in these. He recently visited some such projects in County Kildare. We must tackle this crime head-on and remove the perceived need to carry a knife by anyone out socialising. We must send out the message that such a need is wrong and could lead the carrier to getting a longer penalty should he or she use that knife and be convicted.
Not for the first time in the House, I will raise the issue of the recruitment and retention crisis in our Defence Forces. I have continuously called on the Government to address this before it is too late. The Bill increases the retirement age for uniformed public servants, including members of An Garda Síochána, prison officers and members of the Defence Forces, from 60 to 62. The Cabinet approved this change in March. There is no doubt that this will be welcomed by some serving members and will allow them to continue serving in their chosen careers. However, I recently attended a briefing in Buswell’s Hotel across the road that was held by representative bodies of uniformed public servants. They raised serious concerns about this increase. Two other Senators who have contributed to the debate also raised concerns. It is not good enough to say that members can work longer or retire and work in the private sector. For some, those are not options. It is a problem for those who joined the Defence Forces on post-2013 contracts. As the Minister of State will be aware, there is no supplementary pension for those who retire before the State pension age of 66 and, as such, there is no incentive for them to continue working until 62, as they will have to wait until they reach 66 to draw down the State pension. Like other Senators, I urge the Minister of State to engage with ICTU and the representative bodies that held the briefing for Oireachtas Members. We want to encourage those serving members with so much expertise to continue in their chosen careers, but without the prospect of a supplementary pension, staying on would not be a worthwhile consideration for many. We cannot lose this expertise. We cannot afford to lose any members from our uniformed service. I urge the Government and the Minister of State to engage with the bodies and examine this important issue urgently. If we can retain these experienced public servants through engagement and proper remuneration, there will be support for that across the political establishment.
I am aware of other sections of the Bill and I look forward to discussing them as we work through the various Stages and engage with the Minister of State.
I welcome the Minister of State. While there are many elements to the Bill that Sinn Féin supports, we are concerned that it is but a plaster and fails to address the underlying issues that are driving the need for such legislation in the first instance. We fear the Bill represents the lack of imagination within the Government in tackling crime and protecting communities. It is a clumsy attempt, not to ensure public safety, but to rescue the political future of Fine Gael as a law and order party. This is particularly the case as regards knife crime. On the proposed increase in the maximum penalty for knife offences, the number of knife seizures has increased from 1,342 in 2013 to 2,186 in 2023. According to correspondence we have received from the Courts Service, the number of convictions is increasing, but we are concerned that this has followed an increase in the maximum sentence, which the Government wants to increase again. This raises concerns about what the issue actually is. Are sentences the issue if the number of detections and prosecutions is increasing despite the increased penalties? The underlying issue appears not to be sentencing, but the availability of gardaí.
Available Garda numbers stand at almost exactly the same figure today as when Fine Gael took office, despite the massive population increase in that time. Services such as youth diversion projects and schemes, and other measures, have been decimated. The evidence is there in the seizure statistics, which have largely increased since penalties were quadrupled in 2009. They have especially increased in Dublin, my city, meaning more knives are being carried on the streets despite an increase in sentences. It is unclear how many people are currently receiving the maximum five-year penalty for these crimes. While tougher sentencing can form of a model of deterrence, we need to ask where the gardaí are to investigate and prosecute these crimes. It is not enough to claim to be tough on crime or to make big announcements. The capacity for these sentences to be enforced at a time of an historic shortage of gardaí is greatly reduced.
I turn to the Garda retirement age. The severe shortage of gardaí means that retention is increasingly important. While older members are less likely to be on front-line duties, they can perform important functions. If they are willing to continue serving, they should be allowed do so. In this regard, Sinn Féin welcomes the proposed increase in the Garda retirement age. However, significant outstanding questions remain, including what provisions, if any, have been made to hire extra staff. What updates are there with other non-core duties being removed, and with the Garda Reserve?
Sinn Féin also has concerns about the aspects of the Bill that propose to increase liability fines where no documentation is presented on arrival. This relates to immigration. The increase in the carrier fine is important, but my concern lies in the fact that there are still no guidelines under section 2(8) of the Immigration Act 2003. Is it the Government's intention not to issue this guidance and to rely solely on the threat of fines?
Another reality is that airports are not the main means by which international protection applicants enter the country anymore. Again, I fear the Bill is failing to address the underlying issue, namely, that the immigration system is failing, with the housing crisis being exploited by the far right to undermine civic discourse and undercut progressive campaigns for housing, healthcare and education. The Government is to blame for this. A Sinn Féin government would tackle these underlying reasons for the migration crisis at home and abroad.
As I said, elements of this Bill are welcome. However, it fails to solve the fundamental issues of this Government's own creation - the decimation of youth diversion services, the shortage of active gardaí and the failures of the immigration system. Only a new government and new approach can change course, protect communities and address the underlying issues undermining public safety.
I extend a fáilte mhór do na daoine as Cnoc Buí retirement group, who are here as guests of Senator Sherlock. Did they leave the gentlemen at home? I cannot see any. They are very welcome. I thank them for visiting Seanad Éireann. We are always delighted to see visitors and I hope they enjoy the rest of their day.
I welcome the Minister of State. I will talk about knife crime, which is a concerning issue for people in Dublin West. Last year, we lost somebody in the middle of the day in Ongar village, who was killed in a knife attack. Almost one year later, in almost the same spot, there was another knife incident. I understand that knife seizures have started to increase, but there is a bigger story here than the bare facts we have at the moment. The feeling is that the possession of knives is more prevalent and, in some ways, it has become more normalised to carry knives.
While I welcome what the Minister of State has brought to the House in terms of maximum penalties, I want to focus on the necessity for a wider approach to tackling knife crime. I think we will find the solution to this in the new local community safety partnership approach.
This is not just about policing and there needs to be a wider approach in communities where the community is involved. We need to change the way we work with communities and change behaviour, resulting in safer streets and safer communities.
Of course, that goes back to having a Garda presence. I remind people that we all agreed that Templemore needed to shut during the Covid pandemic and that has had a real impact. We would love to have 1,000 more gardaí and, in fact, we need many more than that as our population grows. It would be nice to have a mature debate where people accept that that has had a real impact on Garda numbers.
Regarding Garda K district, I have said this before and I will say this again. We have higher crime statistics and a higher population, but I do not believe we have the garda numbers to reflect that. That can be seen in Dublin West. We have one Garda station in Blanchardstown and another in Cabra. However, the Blanchardstown station covers all of Dublin West right out to Ongar village and then north again to Tyrrelstown. We lack a visible Garda presence and the solution can be found in the local community safety partnerships where there should be the opportunity for hubs, offices or partnership buildings to be open on our main streets with a visible physical presence of our different agencies supporting each other, working with each other and working with the community. That needs to involve the Garda, juvenile liaison officers, amazing youth workers, businesses and community groups.
We can see the positive work that our Garda clinics do in the area, but they are not consistent and not everybody knows about them. Having a presence on our main streets would make an enormous difference for areas like Ongar and Tyrrelstown. While it is very difficult to open a Garda station, it should not be as difficult to open a partnership office that can be available to the public to call into.
I ask the Minister of State to update us on local community safety partnerships. Dublin West really needs to be prioritised. We need one in each of Ongar, Tyrrelstown and Corduff. I understand that they will be similar to joint policing committees in that there will be one overall structure, but there must be room for subgroups so that communities have ownership of their own community safety plans.
My last point is on youth diversion projects. The funding for such projects has doubled in recent years but we have a confidence issue when people are seeing low-level, persistent antisocial behaviour, including robbing from cars and cars being broken into. Many communities across Dublin 15 and Dublin West are being targeted. It is really important that we instil confidence in the public that our youth diversion programmes work to address that behaviour.
I thank the Senators who contributed to the debate. The Minister, Deputy McEntee, and I have noted the points made. It is very evident that we need to proceed quickly with the enactment of the Bill. As I highlighted at the outset, the discussion on this Bill cuts across a number of areas of society and will have a real impact on people's lives.
At this point, it is useful to consider the main provisions of the Bill. It will enable a committee of inquiry to begin its work on examining the effectiveness of a complaints procedure. It will increase carrier liability fines as part of ongoing efforts to reduce irregular migration. It will make changes to the Judicial Council Act 2019 to address issues with personal injury guidelines.
This is imperative so as to keep the cost of insurance down. Amendments are also being pursued to increase the maximum penalty for a number of serious knife-related offences, and I think we can all agree this is a necessary step to keep people safe. Finally, the Bill will provide uniformed public servants with options to work for an extra number of years.
I want to address a number of the issues that have been raised. Senator Currie rightly raised the increased funding with regard to anti-social behaviour. Senator Warfield made a somewhat bizarre comment that there has been a decimation of youth diversion projects in this country. In 2019, the funding was €15.9 million. In 2024, it was €32.9 million. As Senator Currie pointed out, this is well over a doubling in only a number of years so I ask Senator Warfield to maybe inform himself a little better in that respect. On knife crime, Senator Warfield mentioned a number of concerns but did not actually say whether he was for or against the increase in knife crime sentencing. It would be helpful to know Sinn Féin's actual position on something like that, in particular.
With regard to other issues, in response to Senator Wall, the McManus report recommended two tranches of increases of judicial numbers. The Government appointed 24 additional judges in tranche 1, and expects to consider the second tranche later this year once there has been an assessment of how the initial 24 have been put to use and have worked.
Senator Gerry Horkan asked what is being done to assist carriers in identifying people with inadequate documentation. All measures to deter irregular migration and maintain the integrity of our immigration system are currently being considered. The board of management unit of the Department and the Garda National Immigration Bureau are working closely with the airlines on a range of measures to ensure passengers have such documentation when boarding. This includes delivering in-person training to the relevant airline ground handling staff on immigration requirements and false travel documentation. The BMU officials are also available 24-7 to assist airlines with immigration inquiries.
Senator McDowell raised the issue around the fines. I can tell the Senator that in 2017, there was €1,003,470 worth of fines. In 2023, there was €1,476,000 in fines, and these fines have increased recently. There was a 59% increase in carrier liability payment notices in 2023 compared to 2019. In 2023, the Garda National Immigration Bureau issued 1,003 carrier liability notices and €1.476 million has been paid to An Garda Síochána, which represents a 47% increase on the 2019 receipts.
Senator Ward raised the issue around mandatory retirement age. Some of these amendments will allow regulations under this Bill, and therefore more flexibility under it into the future. On Senator Ward's point about people arriving without documentation, it is just one element of an overall go at reducing the numbers of people presenting at ports of entry without appropriate travel documentation. Other steps are being taken as well.
I thank all Senators for their contributions. We will obviously have a further opportunity on Committee Stage to consider some of these issues in more depth. I think that these provisions are important across the board.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit. I thank the Minister of State and Senators for participating in the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
This Thursday.
Next Thursday. Is that agreed?
I can say next Tuesday if Senators want.
Is next Thursday agreed? Agreed.
Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 27 June 2024.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar fionraí ar 4.49 p.m. agus cuireadh tús leis arís ar 5.31 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 4.49 p.m. and resumed at 5.31 p.m.