Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I will start and Deputy Connolly will continue after me. I have already expressed my disapproval of this Bill being rushed through during a meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice on this legislation two weeks ago. I would not call it pre-legislative scrutiny because that is not what it was. Members of the committee were given a short note by the Department regarding its contents, after which a Department official came in to give a very brief explanation of the legislation. There was certainly no scrutiny or proper analysis of this Bill or any engagement whatsoever with stakeholders. I predicted it would be rushed through the Houses within weeks and I was right. It was rushed through the Seanad last week and here it is being rushed through the Dáil this week. I and many NGOs, including the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, have raised concerns time and again regarding how this Government handles legislation. Not only does it put significant stress on Oireachtas services, such as the Bills Office and the Library and Research Service, it does not allow adequate time for proper scrutiny by Members of the Oireachtas. It is completely disrespectful to our role as parliamentarians and the democratic process. Members are supposed to scrutinise legislation and make sure it is fit for purpose. Rushing this Bill is an affront to that.

The Minister stated she intends bringing forward a number of amendments on Committee Stage, which will be taken next week in the Dáil. These include amendments 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; amendments to the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956; and 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 is all going to be rushed through next week on Committee Stage. It will, supposedly, be scrutinised here in the Dáil, which we know will not happen, and the Minister will then run the Bill through. That is the process we will go through.

This legislation addresses many unrelated issues that seem to have been thrown together at the last minute with an attitude of getting these through as quickly as possible. Certainly, what happens in July is that legislation is rushed through. While I accept that some aspects of the Bill relate to a judgment delivered six or eight weeks ago by the courts, there have been weeks recently when no legislation was debated in the Dáil. Motions and discussions were ordered because there was nothing coming through the House. It is a bit too much of a coincidence that it is always in July and December that urgent legislation has to be rushed through to make sure they are processed.

This is incredibly concerning. I have to wonder why the Government seems so hesitant to allow for proper scrutiny. Surely, if the Government was confident in the legislation it is introducing, allowing time for scrutiny and engagement would not be an issue. We were not given adequate time to discuss the guidelines relating to the Judicial Council Act 2019, which also have to be approved. They, too, have just been thrown in to the Bill. This Bill was intended to be a superannuation Bill regarding pensions, etc., but it seems everything has been thrown in to get it through. It reads like a Bill the Department created at the last minute, with many different issues fired in to ensure all angles are covered. This is not how legislation should be written - without proper regard or engagement.

The Bill includes approval of increasing by one the number of judges in the Court of Appeal. On the face of it, this seems sensible but will this always be the case or will the extra judge be taken out in other, subsequent legislation? It was explained to us during pre-legislative scrutiny that we needed this extra judge because a judge had been assigned to other duties and another judge was needed in the Court of Appeal. Why not have 28 judges in the Court of Appeal rather than 18 judges? There would be room to manoeuvre then to work something out rather than having the whole system grind to a halt because legislation needs to be rushed through to deal with it. It does not make sense.

This legislation does not appear to be part of the two-phase plan announced by the Government in 2023 to increase the number of sitting judges. There is a serious need for increased investment in judicial resources and the appointment of additional judges. It is ridiculous we have to wait for new legislation to come through to get another judge in place. Research from the European Commission has shown that Ireland has the lowest figure of judges per 100,000 people, at just 3.27. This is well below the medium figure of 17.6. It is ridiculous we have not introduced the necessary legislation to address this following the Courts Act 2023. While the 2023 Act was a step forward when it was introduced, we were informed future legislation would tackle this issue. The reason can certainly not be that we do not have time to debate these issues in the House as we hardly debate legislation other than in July and December.

At the justice committee, I also raised concerns with Part 5, which proposes to increase the maximum penalties upon conviction on indictment for knife-related offences. This should have been debated separately as the committee has spent a lot of time debating increasing penalties in recent years. The Minister for Justice has said the current maximum sentence for serious offences, namely, possession of a knife with intent to unlawfully cause injury, trespassing with a knife and producing a knife to unlawfully intimidate another person, do not appear to be proportionate when compared with simple possession of a knife, yet they carry the same maximum sentence of five years. Just as easily, the sentence for possession of a knife could be reduced, while still having all those other penalties in place. Instead, it is proposed to increase the maximum sentence to seven years. This is bizarre. I asked at the committee why the sentence is being increased, and perhaps the Minister will explain the reason. Is it just to be seen to be doing something in this House? Why not ensure maximum sentences are used? If people are convicted of crime for which the maximum sentence is five years, why are they not sentenced to four or four and a half years?

This does not make any sense. Rather than rushing through legislation to have the maximum sentence increased to seven and a half years in this case, why not just make it life for everything? In that case, there would be loads of scope to manoeuvre. It is bizarre. I do not know why the solution is to just to increase the sentence. What is the merit in increasing the sentence, one way or another? The justice committee discussed knife offences at a meeting recently and it was agreed there was a need for further scrutiny and engagement to fully understand knife-related crime as the complex social issue that it is. There has been a complete lack of input from stakeholders regarding the impact of this Bill. I strongly oppose its introduction.

We do not have statistics on knife crime. An Garda Síochána has statistics on some areas related to knife crime but it has no statistics to show this measure is actually necessary. It may be necessary but there is nothing to show it is. We just have to take the Minister's word that it has to happen.

The International Protection Act 2015 is also being amended. The Minister outlined that the amendment of section 2 of the Act of 2003 has the effect of increasing the fine payable. The Bill amends the maximum fine, increasing it from €3,000 to a class A fine of a maximum of €5,000. How many prosecutions have there been under that offence? How much has the fine been? Does the fine need to be increased? I would safely say there have been very few prosecutions. I imagine they would have been covered in the media if there had been prosecutions. Why are we doing this? Is it just to be seen to be doing something? In much of this legislation, that is what we often see.

See this speech in context