Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael)

I apologise. It should have been here.

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 increasing it from €3,000 to a Class A fine which has a maximum of €5,000. This more closely aligns the fines payable in Ireland for this offence with fines in other European countries.

Section 3 of the Act provides that a person accused of committing such an offence may make a payment within 28 days to avoid prosecution for that offence. The amount payable under the section to avoid prosecution currently stands at €1,500 and this Bill will increase that amount to €2,500. This maintains the current ratio of the amount payable being equivalent to half of 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 this provision of the Bill.

Section 4 in Part 4 of this Bill introduces a number of changes to the Judicial Council Act 2019. The changes being introduced are necessitated by the findings of the Supreme Court in the Delaney case. In the case, the personal injury guidelines which came into force in April 2021 were challenged. As Deputies will be aware, the Supreme Court upheld the guidelines. This is good news as we believe the personal injury guidelines are key to keeping the cost of insurance down. However, the Supreme Court identified a particular deficiency in the underpinning legislation, the Judicial Council Act 2019. Part 4 of this Bill rectifies this matter. The changes now being made in this Bill reflect advice I obtained from the Attorney General.

Section 4 introduces new procedures in respect of future amendments to the guidelines. Any future amendments to the guidelines will be laid before both Houses 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. The section also introduces a provision that puts beyond doubt the legal efficacy of the existing guidelines adopted by the council. The provision clarifies that the guidelines remain legally robust until amended in accordance with the new procedures introduced in this Bill. The changes made by this Bill ensure that the guidelines achieve their objective of ensuring the delivery of fair and consistent personal injury awards.

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 small but gradual 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, chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, 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 take the opportunity to thank the members of the subgroup for their valuable consideration of this issue. I fully agree with their 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 I do not 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 therefore propose 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 offence in question and will ensure that, in the most serious cases, the courts can impose a sanction that fully matches the crime. I am aware that Deputy Jim 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.

Section 6 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 to ensure that the wording of the implementation measure correctly aligns with the European arrest warrant framework decision. It is a technical amendment.

There is a typographical error in section 38(1)(h), where it states “not less than” rather than “less than 6 months”. There is accordingly 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 the light of the wording and purpose of the framework decision, this amendment will again correct this typographical error to ensure there is no ambiguity, and that the 2023 Act properly implements the discretionary grounds of refusal set out at Article 9(1)(h) of the framework decision.

Part 7 makes the necessary amendments to facilitate an increased mandatory retirement age for members of An Garda Síochána, the Permanent Defence Force, 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, NDP 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 pension terms will be facilitated until the age of 60. If an individual remains in employment beyond that age, their pension accrual reverts to a standard basis from that point until their retirement. This policy provides an equitable and sustainable basis on which to increase the mandatory retirement age in these sectors. It strikes the right balance between competing demands. It satisfies equity and cost concerns, and it gives uniformed public servants greater choice as to how long they wish to work. It will, furthermore, assist in retaining valuable expertise. In the context of this policy, an increased mandatory retirement age of 62 for members of these uniformed cohorts was approved by the Government. In conjunction with sectoral secondary legislative provisions, which are advancing in parallel, the provisions of Part 7 will facilitate this increase.

As is the nature of a miscellaneous provisions Bill, this Bill covers disparate matters but each of them is important. The Bill will strengthen our response to knife crime, maintain the ability to set personal injury guidelines and keep insurance costs down, strengthen immigration controls, and allow for experienced and knowledgeable unformed public servants to continue their work of keeping the public safe for longer. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to hearing fellow Deputies contribute to the debate.

See this speech in context