Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am pleased to introduce the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025. I look forward to the debate and discussion here with Members in respect of this legislation. I acknowledge and thank Deputy Carthy, who is the Chairperson of the justice committee, for the fact that the committee has agreed to waive pre-legislative scrutiny of this short Bill. That is the appropriate decision to make, and I thank the members of the committee for agreeing to my request in that regard. I am conscious that the justice committee has a lot on its plate in terms of the legislation coming from my Department which does require pre-legislative scrutiny so I acknowledge publicly the work the committee does in that regard.

The general purpose of this Bill is to increase the number of ordinary judges in four or the five jurisdictions that operate within our courts system. I want to increase the number of judges on the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal. There is no proposal in this legislation to increase the number of judges who can sit on the Supreme Court. You will be aware, a Chathaoirligh, that, previously, the judicial planning working group had made a recommendation that the country required 44 new members of the Judiciary. The previous Government agreed with that decision and the current Government will continue with that process of appointment of 44 further judges. It has to be pointed out that the previous Government appointed 24 of those judges. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure we can have 20 more judges available for appointment. Members will also notice, however, that we are seeking the appointment of one extra judge on the Court of Appeal as well. The reason for that is the decision the Government made, agreed to by Mr. Justice Michael McGrath of the Court of Appeal, that he would chair the commission of investigation into the handling of historical child sexual abuse in day and boarding schools. I commend him on agreeing to do that, but it does mean that under this legislation I am seeking a total increase of 21 judges across the various courts.

The Bill marks the second phase of legislation to allow for the recruitment of these additional judges and, as I have indicated, 24 of them have been appointed to date. It is important that we in this House all recognise that the reason we are seeking the appointment of more judges is not in order that people can become judges but in order to facilitate individuals in Ireland who seek access to the administration of justice and who require access to the courts. We know from research and experience that the impact of additional judges can be extremely positive in improving waiting times and cutting the backlogs that existed in our courts for very many years.

The Bill provides for a number of technical amendments related to the Gambling Regulation Act 2024, the Family Courts Act 2024 and the Child Care Act 1991 to allow for the more efficient operation of those Acts when fully commenced.

The general scheme of this Bill was approved by the Government in September 2025, and further consultation was undertaken with various Departments. The results of those discussions have been taken on board in the published Bill. For reasons of urgency, as I said, particularly in the case of the amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act, we sought a waiver in respect of pre-legislative scrutiny. As I said, I thank Deputy Carthy and members of the justice committee for agreeing to that.

Before turning to the main provisions of the Bill, I want to point out the reason it is important that we appoint more judges to be available to hear cases. If we want to ensure that citizens and people seeking access to justice in our courts get access to decisions and judgments more quickly, it is essential that we appoint more judges. Judges are required to sit hearing very many cases, and that is the public-facing part of their job. Sometimes we forget, however, that at the end of a day sitting in court, a judge is required to go off and prepare paperwork, read further paperwork and, for the superior courts, prepare judgments in respect of complex issues that have been raised before them.

I think everyone in the House agrees we are lucky in this country that we have an internationally recognised Judiciary. It is renowned for its integrity as well as its commercial awareness, fairness and sense of impartiality. Anyone who appears before an Irish court can, I think, be relatively satisfied that they will get a fair adjudication in respect of their claim. As Minister for justice, I am very much committed to ensuring that I try to improve access to the justice system for people in Ireland. In order to do that, I have to further modernise the courts. I also have to ensure that the facilities are in place to ensure that justice can be administered in those courts. I am the first Minister for justice to operate the appointment of judges under the new system that was given effect by the Judicial Appointments Commission Act. I have been able to appoint individuals to the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal under that new process. I have no previous experience as to how the old system operated but, just from the point of view of informing Members of the House, I am pleased with the way the system that operates at present is operating. I think it is bringing forward individuals who are highly qualified for the purpose of judicial nomination by the Government. As you know, a Chathaoirligh, when a judicial vacancy is advertised, people are allowed to apply for that position. There is then an adjudication of those applications by the Judicial Appointments Commission. It conducts interviews in respect of a number of individuals who have applied and then it sends to me a list of three names, not in any order of preference, from which I have to make a recommendation to the Government that we nominate one of the three persons. If there is more than one vacancy, a greater number of names are provided. If there are two vacancies on a court, I will get five names. I think there are two for every three others that are identified there.

Traditional resourcing is essential to ensuring that the courts can administer justice efficiently and effectively for all our citizens. As I stated to the House at the outset, this Bill will give effect to the judicial party working group's recommendations to increase the number of judges. We have seen already that 24 have been appointed, and the purpose here is to appoint another 21.

In terms of court sittings, we can see that there has been a marked improvement as a result of the appointment of further judges. There has been an increase of 14% in the District Court, an increase of 28% in the Circuit Court and an increase of 18% in the High Court. There are some improvements that are worth noting and that probably do not get sufficient recognition. We have seen a 33% increase in family law cases resolved in the District Court, a 13% increase in criminal cases resolved in the District Court and a 6.5% increase in civil cases resolved in the Circuit Court. Waiting times for civil trials in the Circuit Court have gone down from 50 weeks in 2023 to 31 weeks in 2025. We have also seen that waiting times for criminal appeals in the Circuit Court are down from 33 weeks to 24 weeks and there has been a 5.9% increase in resolved cases in the High Court between 2022 and 2025. It is also important to point out that the waiting time for bail cases in the High Court has decreased from 104 weeks in 2022 to 41 weeks in 2025, and priority custody cases decreased from 70 weeks to 28 weeks over the same period. The increase in the numbers of judges hearing cases is obviously resulting in greater productivity and greater numbers of judgments. Of course, it is also putting pressures on other areas within my Department. Because we now have the Central Criminal Court sitting so much more frequently than was the case previously, more people are finding themselves sentenced to terms of imprisonment for serious offences. The increase in judicial numbers obviously has a knock-on effect on other areas such as prisons.

It is important to note that there are training days for judges who are appointed now across all jurisdictions. That is important to ensure that judges are attuned to the needs of victims and equipped to deal with the increasing complexity in areas of specialisation that is now apparent in the law.

Obviously, the purpose of this House is to enact legislation along with the Seanad and the President. However, every time we create a new law, generally within it we are providing a criminal sanction. Where we do that - or even if we do not provide a criminal sanction but just provide a civil remedy - necessarily we will find ourselves creating more potential disputes because the law has been increased and set down as requiring certain obligations to be performed either in the State sector or in the private sector and that will result in more complaints that the law has not been complied with. That will require more judicial adjudication.

On the provisions of the Bill itself, section 1 is the standard Short Title and the commencement section. Section 2 provides for the repeal of sections 263 and 271 of the Gambling Regulation Act 2024. That is being done for a particular purpose. The purpose was now being given effect to by section 10 of the Bill, which I will refer to presently. Section 2 also provides for the repeal of sections 31 and 33 of the Family Courts Act 2024, which are no longer required. This section also provides for the repeal of various parts of section 80 of the Family Courts Act to account for additional amendments to the Child Care Act 1991 as provided for in section 9 of this Act. Section 3 provides relevant definitions for Part 2 of the Bill.

Section 4 provides for the amendment of paragraph section 1A(2) of the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act 1961 and increases the statutory limit on the number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal by three, rising from 18 to 21. Section 4 provides regulatory power to increase the number of judges on the Court of Appeal by one judge for operational reasons in line with the same existing powers for the High Court. If it is the case in the future that a Court of Appeal judge is requested by the Government to do some other statutory functions, such as a commission of investigation, it will hopefully not be necessary for us to come back to seek extra judge to be set out in legislation for that judge to be replaced. Section 4 provides a degree of flexibility within the Court of Appeal, and it mirrors the provisions that exists in respect of the High Court.

Section 5 provides the Government the flexibility to appoint a judge permanently to a particular district and allows for a number of unassigned judges that can be assigned temporarily as need arises. It provides for an amendment to section 2(1)(b) of the sixth Schedule of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961, increasing the number of unassigned judges by six, rising from 28 to 34, in line with increases of overall numbers of District Court judges. When somebody is appointed as a District Court judge they may or may not be assigned to a particular district. For certain parts of the country, it is imperative that we have District Court judges assigned to them in areas which are more remote and where it is absolutely necessary to have a judge assigned there to ensure that if something arises and somebody needs to be brought before a court immediately, we have a judge there. However, there are many unassigned judges who perform a role within the District Court and where they go to wherever the workload is required under the direction of the president of the District Court.

Section 6 provides for an amendment to section 9 of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995 and increases the statutory limit on the number of ordinary judges of the High Court by six, rising from 49 to 55, in line with Government commitments. It is necessary that there are that number of judges in the High Court because of the increasing workload that is being imposed on High Court judges as a result in many respects of the expansion of the legislative framework that exists in this country. There are a huge number of laws being generated each year. Every time we create a law there is a requirement that they be adjudicated on where there is a dispute.

Section 7 provides for the amendment to section 10 of the Courts and Court Officers Act and increases the number of ordinary judges of the Circuit Court by six. That will rise from 45 to 51. Section 8 provides for the amendment to section 10 of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995 and increases the number of ordinary judges of the District Court by six, rising from 71 to 77, in line with Government commitments. District judges are really the judges who are at the coal face of the administration of justice in Ireland. Most people who find themselves in a situation where they have to encounter the justice system, they do it through an encounter in the District Court, which deals with most of the legal issues that arise for people that require them to before the courts.

Part 3 deals with technical amendments relating to the Child Care Act 1991. Section 9 provides for amendments to section 12 of the Child Care Act to update the District Court to the Family District Court, previously provided for in section 80(b) of the Family Courts Act 2024. Section 9 further provides for amendments to update provisions in the Child Care Act that contain references to "a justice" or to "a judge". This was previously for in section 80 of the Family Courts Act, which is repealed by section 2.

Part 4 deals with amendments relating to the Gambling Regulation Act 2024. It is the case that the reason for the urgency in this legislation is that I want to ensure the legislation in place in respect of gambling regulation can be amended in the slight technical way that it is in this Bill as it is necessary to do that in order that the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland, which is doing great work, can continue to meet the timelines it has set for itself and to even advance further in its licensing of entities under that legislation.

Section 10 provides for the amendment of section 1 of the Street and House Collections Act 1962 to amend the definitions of "collection" and "exempt activity" to refer to the Gambling Regulation Act 2024 rather than the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956. Section 11 provides for an amendment to section 1(2) of the Gambling Regulation Act, which contains a cross-reference to section 9 of that Act where it should have referred to section 10. Section 10 of that Act permits the Minister to repeal or revoke those statutory provisions underpinning the existing licensing framework for gambling, which are contained in the Totalisator Act 1929, the Betting Act 1931, the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 and in related statutory instruments.

It is the authority's intention to begin accepting applications for certain types of betting licences in the coming months. The repeal of both the 1929 and 1931 Acts will ensure that all applications for new betting licences must be made to the authority under the 2024 Act. Not doing so would result in the introduction of a dual licensing system, whereby an applicant for a betting licence could circumvent the enhanced regulatory regime introduced in the 2024 Act by obtaining licences under the 1929 or 1931 Acts. The section also includes further minor technical and drafting amendments to several sections of the 2024 Act.

This Bill is intended to increase the number of judges in the various courts to further ensure the courts can administer justice efficiently and effectively for all our citizens. The enactment of the Bill will lead to further efficiencies in the courts system. It will improve the progress of accessing justice by members of the public. It will provide improved waiting times across all courts. It will provide for more timely judgments and contribute to better clearance rates. It will provide opportunities for training and development for members of the Judiciary. It will also provide an updating of the Gambling Regulation Act, so that the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland can operate as fully as possible to ensure that licences can and are provided for where they meet the statutory test. I will have the opportunity to listen to colleagues and I will respond to what they have to say.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt ar an Bhille seo. One of the key problems within the justice system is the length of time that it takes for court cases to be heard and that often means that victims and their families are forced to wait far too long to get justice. There are particularly lengthy delays in respect of sexual violence cases, which of course increases the trauma for victims. It impacts on the abilities of victims, survivors and their families to get about rebuilding their lives. Court delays contribute to other problems, including a matter that we have discussed on a number on occasions, which is the huge number of crimes that are being committed by those who are on bail. That is due to the larger number of people who are on bail awaiting court cases and then the high number on remand.

The Law Society of Ireland has highlighted the fact that cases in this State currently take 1.5 times longer than the European average. It pointed out that too few judges and court staff are tasked with managing a disproportionately high caseload, further exacerbating delays and undermining the system's effectiveness. By numerous bodies, Ireland has been criticised for the low number of judges that we have. The EU justice scoreboard, for example, this year shows that for the past decade Ireland had the lowest number of judges per capita across all EU states. Therefore, we welcome the increase in the numbers of judges as provided for in this legislation.

I make the point strongly to the Minister that there needs to be a corresponding increase in Courts Service staff to ensure delays are reduced. We need to look at the physical infrastructure of the courts that has also been identified as inadequate in many instances to meet the challenge and needs of the justice system.

Issues have been highlighted by the Law Society and others in terms of privacy, for example, around family law cases and how the physical infrastructure in the courts, in many cases, restricts their ability to operate effectively. In addition to increasing the number of judges, the other factors increasing court delays need to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

As we look at how the court system operates, we also need to look at the wider experience of those who have reason to be in the courts such as the jurors, witnesses and victims. I raised with the Minister the need to introduce a payment to compensate for the costs of those who serve on our juries. The absence of such a payment impacts on people who are, in many cases, already struggling with cost of living, as well as those with caring responsibilities and the self-employed. I have raised this previously with the Minister. He has pointed out that the self-employed and full-time carers can be excused from jury service but it is not good enough that those groups are then under-represented on our juries. Those who wish to serve should have that option and those on low incomes should not be out of pocket for carrying out their civic duties. It is 12 years since the Law Reform Commission called for the introduction of what would be a modest, flat rate daily payment to cover the cost of transport and other incidentals involved in attending jury service. That has also been very strongly supported by the Law Society. I ask again that the Minister look at this issue to bring forward proposals to address the cost incurred by those who undertake their civic duty by serving on juries.

There is also clearly a need for greater support for victims and survivors for whom the court process is naturally very traumatic. I acknowledge that supports have improved but we must also acknowledge that much more needs to be done. The specific issue of the lack of court-leave was raised by a number of those who have gone through the judicial system as victims and witnesses. I was struck when this was raised over the summer by the sisters, Paula Fay and Catherine Wrightstone, following the conviction of their brother for sexually abusing them. Ms Fay reported that when she told her employer she was going to be a witness in a trial and that it could take three weeks, she was told she was only entitled to use her annual leave or seek unpaid leave. The fact such an entitlement exists in other states shows it is widely recognised as important. It is something I ask the Minister to examine with a view to introducing such an entitlement here. Having spoken to many victims who have been through the judicial process, there have been a range of experiences. Some have been very complimentary of the supports they have received but all, by the nature of their experiences, find the process traumatic. A number pointed out the supports they felt should be in place were simply were not, and we need to address that.

Victims of sexual violence need specific support. How difficult the process is for many of those has been highlighted multiple times. Rape Crisis Ireland has been running the national accompaniment programme which has been funded by the Minister's Department for over 15 years. The Department started funding some centres to deliver a professional model of delivery but did not roll this out beyond Dublin which resulted in a two-tier system for survivors. Rape Crisis Ireland is looking for the model to be moved from a volunteer-based one to a fully professionalised delivery that has equal access across the State to help minimise the impact of secondary traumatisation and to empower and encourage survivors to stay with the case as it progresses through the judicial process. I ask the Minister to look again at this issue with a view to implementing and funding the proposal put forward by Rape Crisis Ireland.

The legislation makes some technical amendments related to the Child Care Act 1991 and the Child and Family Agency. I want to take this opportunity to make a number of brief comments on Tusla. We have seen a litany of issues occurring over Tusla's remit in recent months and years. Frankly, they are alarming. There have been too many incidents involving children in State care. Over the past year alone too many children were failed and too many children have gone missing. An inspection of Tusla's separated children seeking international protection service discovered that in January and February of this year, approximately 30 children were missing. Too many children have died. There is the case of Kyran Durnin who is missing and presumed dead. There is the case of Daniel Aruebose whose skeletal remains were found in Donabate in September and the case of Vladym Davydenko who was killed at a Tusla care facility in Dublin last month. Then, of course, there was the horrific incident of the ten-year-old girl who went missing and was sexually assaulted at Citywest. I want to repeat the very serious concerns about how such a young girl, who was obviously a vulnerable child, could end up going missing and remain missing overnight while the public were not been informed. The language used in the statement issued by Tusla in the aftermath of that incident was deeply concerning to many people. It verged on victim blaming. The word "absconding" was used for a child which is language we use for escaped criminals, not for vulnerable children who have gone missing from State care. There has to be a full and thorough investigation of that incident. This and other recent cases I have mentioned must serve as a wake-up call for us as Oireachtas Members. Tusla is failing in its purpose. As elected representatives, the people we interact with are telling us of negative experiences, by and large. People generally do not approach us to say they have had a good experience with State services but I have never met anybody who said their experience with Tusla has been positive. There are serious and fundamental issues there that we need to address as a matter of urgency.

We have heard how the inspection by the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, of Tusla services in the south east found the capacity of the service to provide a quality, safe and effective foster care service had not improved since the previous inspection in February 2024. It was reported that one child in Tusla care had eight social workers in two and a half years. Dealing with the concerns around Tusla must be an urgent piece of business.

In respect of the technical amendments to the gambling regulations contained in this Bill, I want to bring to the Minister's attention what appears to be a disregard of legislation that is currently in place. I know we are moving towards the enactment of the more recent gambling legislation. However, if somebody goes on to their social media or Facebook account right now, they will see an advertisement for a raffle where, with the stroke of a button, they can enter into a draw for a house, a car, or, in some cases, tens of thousands of euro. Those lotteries are operating outside of the law as it currently stands. It appears to me that nobody is paying any attention to it. We need to address that. If we have laws in place and they need to be changed or are not fit for purpose, let us address them. However, if people are blatantly breaking the law, then we need to address that. Sinn Féin will be supporting this Bill.

Mark Ward (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One of the main problems within the justice system is the length of time it takes for court cases to be heard. Justice delayed is justice denied. These long delays in relation to sexual violence cases increase the trauma for victims. I was at a very emotive briefing today, hosted by my colleague, Deputy Carthy, where we heard very powerful testimonies from women who were victims of sexually based violence. One thing that struck me, which is directly related to the legislation we are discussing today, is that only 5% of all cases of sexual assaults make it to court. I cannot help thinking if we had a faster, victim-based judicial process, we would see this number increase. I hope this Bill will go some way in helping this process. The briefing I was at was about victims of sexual violence and the civil protection orders. This will be debated in this House on 25 November. It is no coincidence that 25 November is international day of the elimination of violence against women.

For the 5% of the victims and survivors who make it to court, the challenges do not end when the court case ends, even when there is a conviction. The women today spoke about the fear they feel as their assailants come to the end of their sentences. They fear contact from perpetrators and fear encountering the perpetrator as they go about their daily lives. What I heard today is that something as simple and humane as a court imposing a restraining order on the person convicted of sexual assault from approaching the victim would go a long way in making the victim feel safer. I am urging cross-party support for the Bill on 25 November.

There are provisions in the Bill we are discussing today to speed up the judicial process.

Victims of sexual violence are our families, friends and neighbours and live under a range of circumstances. They may have families, loved ones, friends, jobs, illnesses, exams and bills – all of the everyday dilemmas big and small that people deal with on a daily basis all over Ireland. Having been a victim of sexual violence and then experiencing an inhumane delay in getting justice in the courts can become too much. We need to make this process victim friendly and I hope the increase in the number of judges and supports for courts will make this happen so that women may become survivors and are not just victims.

Every time I speak on this issue, I am conscious about using the terms "survivor" and "victim". The term "victim" describes a person who has been subject to a crime. However, this does not imply any weakness, assume any guilt or assign any blame. The term "survivor" can be used as a term of empowerment to convey that a person has started the healing process. People who have experienced sexual violence do not have to be either one or the other; they can be who they want. They can also be both. The women I heard speak today at the briefing were, quite simply, heroes.

The Bill also seeks to make amendments to the Child Care Act and the Family Courts Act in regard to Tusla. It seeks to extend childcare by Tusla when there is an upcoming court case and I have concerns about this, which have already been relayed. A ten-year-old child was recently sexually assaulted while under the care of Tusla, which took place in Citywest, in my constituency. People want to know how a ten-year-old girl under the care of Tusla could go missing. It is a legitimate question.

There is a disturbing pattern of children in the care of Tusla being failed. We think of six-year-old Kyran Durnin, missing and presumed dead, three-year-old Daniel Aruebose, whose skeletal remains were found in Donabate, and 17-year-old Vadym Davydenko, who was stabbed to death in an unregulated Tusla care facility. People have asked me what is going on with Tusla. Tusla needs to examine how it responded publicly to the case of the ten-year-old girl. It stated that the girl had been voluntarily placed into care by her family earlier this year due to significant behavioural issues. This is victim blaming. It went on to say that the child had absconded from care. Prisoners escape and abscond. Ten-year-old children do not. Again, this is victim blaming. Tusla, which is meant to care for some of those vulnerable children in society, needs to take a long hard look at itself. I also call for an immediate public inquiry into this matter. In the context of the Bill, I have concerns about the ability of Tusla to look after vulnerable children any longer than is necessary.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On some level, the Bill is fairly straightforward. Nobody will complain about a greater number of judges being delivered in our judicial system. As has been said by my colleagues, and it will be said by many others, the major issue is that the system is not fit for purpose in that court cases in the State can take at least one and a half times longer than the European average. Obviously, that should not be the case. As Deputy Carthy said, we need to make sure not only that we have more judges but also that we have all of the adequate staff to deliver something that is a bit more fit for purpose. We all know justice should be swift, and that is an absolute right. The Bill needs to be expedited insofar as possible.

This has been an ongoing issue. Many of us, as constituency TDs, have had representations made to us regarding very brutal cases. I commend Deputy Carthy on the presentation in the audiovisual room earlier with victims and survivors of sexual violence. I would like to think there would be support across the House for the Bill and the simple idea of civil protection orders being provided to those who have been through absolute hell and need vital support. We are talking about those who are survivors and the victims of sexual and gender-based and domestic violence.

There have been some improvements, but many will say it has been insufficient in terms of how the entire system deals with people, in particular from the point of view of protecting and believing them and ensuring that justice is delivered. Beyond that, we need to provide protection to people who, unfortunately, have found themselves in positions that are beyond vulnerable. We need to do everything to remove this issue from society as much as possible.

Unfortunately, we will never be able to do all that we would like, but we need to make sure we have a far better and more robust system to look after those people. I do not think many here would not raise issues in respect of safeguarding. There are proposed changes to the Child Care Act and the Child and Family Agency Act. The only thing we can say about Tusla in the past while is that, unfortunately, people who thought they could not be shocked have been absolutely shocked by the ongoing investigations into Kyran Durnin, Daniel Aruebose and the shocking case of the ten-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted while under the care of Tusla.

I would add my voice to those of my colleagues in respect of the disgraceful language used by Tusla in talking about a child having absconded. This is an utterly vulnerable child who was under the protection of the State, and the State failed miserably. We need to make sure that there is follow-up and that we have a system that is fit for purpose and far more robust than what we are talking about at the minute.

We have spoken many times about the fact we do not have a system that is fit for purpose in terms of the supports required by families and children. In some cases, we have left children in really difficult circumstances. It is not just about those who are in care; it is also about the fact that we have not put support structures in place. We need to consider this holistically. In many cases, we can carry out interventions at a very early stage when they would be a lot less nuclear than what is sometimes needed at a later stage. We can ensure that family units stay together. Beyond that, we could provide children with a far better life that could lead to worthwhile engagement with society, including education, employment and all of the rest. I hope we will not deal with such dreadful situations again. We need the full information on the case of Vadym Davydenko. We also need to make sure not only that our residential care is fit for purpose and up to scratch but that we look after those people in our care holistically.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Labour Party will support the Bill and we hope we can expedite it through the Houses. The Bill is based on the recommendations of the judicial planning working group. This is phase 2 of the recommendations, dealing with the addition of 21 judges. I have to acknowledge the improvements to the various different courts. The Minister read them into the record of the Dáil and I will not repeat them, but they need to be acknowledged. Nevertheless, the Council of Europe report has said that we are still way below the required volume of judges required when compared with our European colleagues, so we still have a bit of work to do on this. While the Bill is a step in the right direction, we will have to go again. We will have to see how the Bill works.

The spending per inhabitant on the courts in our jurisdiction is significantly less than in others. It takes 1.5 times longer for the various courts to sit. While acknowledging that the timescales in many of the courts have reduced and many cases have been expedited, there are still issues.

In relation to the issues that have been outlined by other colleagues regarding sexual crimes, etc., we really need see how we can itemise these to bring them forward and deal with them in a quicker and more compassionate way. I would be willing to work with the Minister on that. I do not think there is a monopoly of ideas on it. I welcome the fact a colleague from Sinn Féin put forward a proposal that will certainly go through as well. We all need to look at every angle we can in this regard.

I will talk a little bit about resources and the courthouses. Where are we in relation to resources in the courts? The Minister might in his reply outline the staffing levels. If he has any updated statistics on staffing levels across the courts, they would be welcome. There have been a number of issues regarding various courthouses, some of which are in my own county, and the condition of courthouses, etc. What is the plan for working with the Office of Public Works, OPW, in relation to those? The Minister might give us some information on that as well.

I want to raise a couple of issues in relation to An Garda Síochána and its workings in the courts. Earlier in the year, when the Minister was not long in the job, he spoke about hoping to make a number of changes with regard to how An Garda Síochána was going to work in the courts. The Future of Policing in Ireland report had a number of recommendations in this regard, some of which were accepted and some of which were not. I actually did not have much issue with them not being accepted. However, we need to look at how we can free up An Garda Síochána. I presume, given the issues we have with recruitment and retention and numbers in An Garda Síochána, that the Minister agrees with me on this. We need to look at how we are going to free up An Garda Síochána more within the courts.

I was very taken with what the Minister said - it must be well over six months ago now, from memory - about the use of digitisation and documentation and how we were going to use digitisation on various charge sheets, bench warrants and a whole range of other things. Where are we in relation to that? Again, the Minister might update us on that. I would be hugely supportive of this. I know a number of gardaí who have worked in the Garda presenter role in the courts. As the Minister knows, there have been issues with that, which have been outlined by certain judges, and we were in no man's land for a while in relation to this. Where are we at as regards how we can look at freeing up An Garda Síochána in the courts? What is the future of the Garda presenter role? Are we moving towards digitisation? Do we need to bring in legislation for how we deal with this? I would say it is a possibility that we would. It is a strong possibility that we will have to do so because otherwise people would be at the mercy of certain courts and certain judges making their own decisions on it under the current legislation as laid down. The Minister might come back to us on that. I would like to know some figures in relation to the resources in the courts. I would like to know about any works through the OPW. In particular, I would like to see where we are going with regard to freeing up gardaí, digitisation, the future role of An Garda Síochána and court presenters and all of that. All in all, the Labour Party will be very much supporting this Bill and looking for its speedy introduction.

Catherine Callaghan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the contributions that have been made on this important Bill so far this afternoon. I commend the vision and efficiency that the Government has shown in progressing this Bill, which will fulfil the second phase of a multiyear plan to increase the number of judges. While those who work to administer justice in Ireland are among the hardest working individuals in the country, by increasing the number of judges available to hear cases, we can provide a further boost to their efforts.

Recent reports from the Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, as well as the judicial planning working group, JPWG, found that Ireland had the lowest per capita number of judges in the EU, at 3.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. This compares with a European average of 22.2. In real terms, this translated to delays in Ireland’s judicial system, and in the past has worked to slow down the work of the system. As we know, justice delayed is justice denied. However, in response to these findings, both this Government and its predecessor chose to act decisively, committing to an increase in judge numbers from 173 to 217 over two phases. The first phase, enacted when An Tánaiste was serving as the Minister for Justice in 2023, created 24 new judges and brought with it immediate benefits. These included a reduction in the backlog of criminal summonses awaiting scheduling from over 61,000 at the start of 2023 to just over 7,000 by mid-2024. As well as this, the cancellation of District Court sittings was largely eliminated by the beginning of last year, there was a 17% increase in Circuit Court sittings around the country and waiting times for judicial review in the High Court dropped from 13 weeks to three weeks. Clearly, therefore, the changes made under the 2023 Act worked to greatly increase the capacity of the system to the extent that by the beginning of last year, as many as 12 Central Criminal Court jury trials were running concurrently, which was an all-time high.

This Bill then, which aims to add 20 judges to the courts system, does so on the back of an enormous amount of positive evidence. While this will no doubt be welcome and will go a long way towards improving how justice is administered in Ireland, we must remember that this Bill is a step in the right direction, but there is still more to be done. The JPWG report concludes, “Additional numbers in further phases should be determined by a review in 2025 of judicial needs up to 2028." Indeed, it has been noted by those in the judicial profession that increasing the number of judges is not the answer to all workload challenges and must take place alongside broader reforms of the justice system, as proposed by the reports above.

The Government has shown a willingness to act when it comes to providing a future plan for the justice system, and I have no doubt that as that plan is enacted, further consideration will be giving to the supplementary staffing requirements that go alongside an increase in the numbers of judges. I also welcome the Bill’s intention to amend the Street and House to House Collections Act 1962, the Child Care Act 1991 and the Gambling Regulation Act 2024, to repeal certain provisions of the Family Courts Act 2024, and to provide for related matters. These technical amendments are important measures that will improve these Acts’ operation and provide clarity on points of contention.

To conclude, I warmly welcome the Government’s work to increase the capacity of the justice system and I commend the provisions of this Bill, which aims to build upon the proven success of phase 1 to further improve the efficiency of our courts system. The Government has shown real ambition in improving the everyday operation of justice in Ireland, and I look forward to engaging with the justice sector on future developments of the system.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill. It is a technical one that tidies up provisions across our courts and civil law system, and we will, of course, be supporting it. However, I want to use the opportunity, when we have a Bill that is to do with the appointment of more judges, to talk not about the structures of the courts but about the culture that exists within them, particularly when it comes to sentencing and rehabilitation. If we are serious about justice and the administration of it in this country, we have to be honest about the fact that they are still far too slow to use community-based alternatives that actually work.

Last year, South East Technological University, in research commissioned by the Department of Justice, examined how judges view community service orders. What it found is incredibly instructive for our work here. Judges, particularly outside of Dublin, continue to rely on short custodial sentences, of less than 12 months, even though every piece of evidence tells us they do nothing to reduce reoffending. Many judges interviewed admitted they had little information about how community service works in practice - for instance, about completion rates, programme quality or supports for people with addiction or mental health issues. One judge who was interviewed for the research said plainly that they would love to know how community service is analysed, which courses are rehabilitative, and which are suitable for people with addiction or mental health issues. This is absolutely not intended to be a criticism of judges - far from it. It is an indictment of the lack of feedback, judicial education and resources around community sanctions. That same excellent piece of research highlighted that almost half of District Court judges do not have a probation officer regularly sitting in their court, and just as many lack access to community service suitability reports.

It recommended that all courts should have access to community service suitability reports without delay and same-day reports and pre-sanction assessments should be available to every judge in every district. That is a simple, powerful reform that would make many more community sentences a real option instead of an aspiration. At the justice committee meeting this week, we heard about some of the innovations that take places in the specialist Children Court in Dublin. We were then told those innovations are not available elsewhere. That is a real omission and something we should look to rectify. Another study for the Judicial Council by SETU reached the same conclusion that judges need sentencing guidelines on non-custodial sanctions, better training on alternatives to custody and a major reinvestment in the Probation Service to provide pre-sanction reports and community projects in every part of the country. Those are not radical ideas; they are practical, evidence-based solutions to ensure we do not keep using short-term prison sentences that in fact achieve very little. Judges in every court should have the tools, training and information to see probation and community sanctions not as letting someone off but as a structured, supervised path out of reoffending.

I acknowledge there has been progress. The latest report from Restorative Justice shows that referrals to restorative programmes increased in 2024 and provision expanded to new counties, which should be welcomed, but there are still counties that have no specialist restorative provider. Most victims are never even offered to choice to take part and the vast majority of Garda cautions remain non-restorative in nature. The progress is real but it is still limited and very localised. If we are appointing new judges, this is the moment to reshape the judicial culture to ensure rehabilitation and restorative approaches are seen not as a leniency but as justice done well. We need a re-investment in the Probation Service, sentencing guidelines and a judicial bench book that includes community and non-custodial sanctions and joint training between the Judiciary, Probation Service and restorative justice providers. The difference between community or custody is about whether our courts become a conveyor belt into overcrowded prisons or a place that genuinely gives people the tools to change. A short prison sentence may satisfy the demand for punishment but rarely serves the public interest in the long term; community sanctions, when properly understood and resourced, are infinitely better. We have talked quite a bit about recidivism rates which are extraordinarily high even by European standards. If we get the court culture right and provide alternatives to prisons across Ireland, that could make things a lot better. I welcome the Bill.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all Members who made contributions. I listened to them very carefully. Deputy Carthy started off talking about long delays in cases that involve sexual violence. I think Deputies Ward and Ó Murchú mentioned that as well. It can be the case that there are lengthy delays when it comes to complaints made to An Garda Síochána about sexual offences. If we think about what the Garda is required to do and the time it can take for a victim to come forward to An Garda Síochána, sometimes allegations of complaints of sexual violence and sexual assault can be historical, as we have seen with the commission into sexual violence in secondary schools to which I referred earlier. That poses significant challenges for An Garda Síochána. Gardaí have to go off and interview people, try to get information relevant to many years previously, which can result in allegations of sexual violence taking longer to investigate. I am also conscious that when An Garda Síochána gets a complaint of sexual violence, it investigates it very thoroughly. I know everyone in the House is anxious to ensure cases come on for hearing as quickly as possible but An Garda Síochána has to do an investigation, get evidence, statements and put the allegations to the individual against whom allegations have been made. When it has done that, it makes a recommendation on its file and sends the file off to the DPP. The DPP then has to consider the file and make a determination as to whether she believes there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution and the likelihood of success. They are all complicated factors.

Notwithstanding that, we in this House can try to speed the process up by ensuring if those steps are taken promptly, they know a court and judge will be available very quickly thereafter to hear the criminal prosecution. That is in effect what we are doing today. However, it is important to point out we cannot speed up every aspect of the criminal justice system because some of it is dependent upon evidence being gathered by An Garda Síochána and consideration of a file by the DPP. That in some cases takes time. There are other examples, which I am increasingly impressed with, where we see a criminal offence take place, the Garda arrests take place fairly rapidly after that, a file is completed by the Garda and we are now getting on to prosecutions sometimes between 12 and 18 months after the criminal act. We have sometimes seen that in the Criminal Courts of Justice. That is a very fast return when it comes to getting cases before the courts to have them determined promptly. I commend people in this House who speak up for survivors. I speak up for survivors and victims whenever I get that opportunity. From the courts' point of view and from our point of view in terms of legislation, it has to be recognised as well that we have to ensure there is a fair trial. We cannot take legislative steps that will result in the fairness of the trial being brought into question. I know everyone in this House agrees with me. Deputy Carthy also talked about how we have the lowest number of judges per capita in Europe. I think Deputy Callaghan referred to that as well. We need more judges, which is the purpose of the legislation. However, I urge a sense of caution when comparing Irish judicial numbers with what is referred to as EU judicial numbers. In the civil law system on the European Continent, they would count as judges people in this jurisdiction we would probably view as prosecutors. One has to be careful when looking at the bald statistics that make us look as though we are a complete outlier; the difference in our legal system and categorisation of people as judges can result in those numbers standing out significantly. Notwithstanding that, we certainly need more judges appointed.

Deputy Carthy, and I think Deputies Ward and Ó Murchú, also referred to Tusla. Tusla is not within my statutory responsibility. I am not saying that to try to avoid discussing it. It has a very difficult task. One of my colleagues made a contribution about how we only hear from Tusla when issues have arisen that go wrong. We are never going to hear of things that have gone well from Tusla's point of view. I think people will agree Tusla has an extremely challenging task. Regrettably, there are thousands of children who fall within its responsibility. When something goes wrong, it is held to account for it but we need to recognise the extent of the challenge it has and that when it provides a service that goes well, we just generally do not hear about it.

Deputy Carthy also spoke about the gambling regulator which is being dealt with in the legislation.

Deputy Ward spoke about the elimination of violence against women. I want to bring to his attention that I got approval from Government a couple of weeks ago in respect of a new sexual offences Bill. That will change the law on consent for rape and sexual assault. At present, the law in respect of consent is that if the accused honestly believed they had consent, that is sufficient. That is a subjective test - the person thought the woman was consenting. That test will be changed and we are going to introduce an objective test that will be reasonably based. It will be an objective, reasonable test. That will improve the circumstance of victims who come before the courts.

I disagree with Deputy Ó Murchú when he said the justice system is not fit for purpose. Every day of the week in this country, whether it is the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court or indeed the appeal courts, justice is being administered by judges.

There are practitioners in there and we can see it in our newspapers every day, people being brought before the courts. The system operates very efficiently and effectively and it is important that it does. It is one of the arms of government. We have the executive arm, here we have the legislative arm but there is also the judicial arm. It is probably the least resourced of those three arms of government. It does a job on a daily basis and does it well in terms of the challenges it faces. It is important for us to ensure we provide greater supports to them and that is what we are doing today. I welcome the fact every Member of the House has agreed further judges will improve greater efficiencies.

Deputy Kelly asked me a couple of questions on improvements in the courts and resources. He asked about the capital project for the courts. I want to try to ensure we have capital available to build new courthouses. A lot of new courthouses were built in recent years but the main priority is to get Hammond Lane up and running. There is also a commitment for a new courthouse in Tralee. These are just two examples where I want to see a continuation of progress. Deputy Kelly also spoke about An Garda Síochána. He mentioned several measures I mentioned to him about six months ago. They are coming. They are within the criminal justice and civil law miscellaneous provisions Bill, a different miscellaneous provisions Bill to this one. It is one I hope to be able to introduce in the next couple of months and I have approval from Government for it. At present, it is being drafted in the Attorney General's office and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government. Those issues regarding digitalisation and freeing up garda resources from the courts will be available there. On the issue of garda presenters, I hear very much what Deputy Kelly has said but before I do anything like that, there has to be resources in the DPP to take over the significant amount of work the gardaí do at present very efficiently and effectively.

Deputy Callaghan welcomed the Bill and I note what she said about judges. I have dealt with that previously with regard to their numbers. Deputy Gannon made some contributions in respect of community service orders. It will also be the case in that miscellaneous provisions Bill I hope to bring forward in the forthcoming months that there will be a new statutory requirement in respect of community service orders. There is now going to be a situation in place where if a judge imposes a sentence of up two years, they will have to consider a community service order. The amount of that community service order can also increase from 240 hours to 480.

For the record, the Probation Service does an excellent job. It probably does not get much recognition for the work it does but it does a huge amount of work, particularly in the area of children who come before the courts. I had a meeting the other day with senior officials from An Garda Síochána who are responsible for responding to youth crime. Again, we do not hear about it but there are some very positive results from the juvenile liaison officers and in diverting people from the path of crime.

Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister. An bhfuil an cheist aontaithe?