Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

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.