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

I invite the Minister to speak. Leanaimid ar aghaidh.

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

I am pleased to commend the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025 to the House. No amendments to the Bill have been tabled on Committee Stage. I particularly acknowledge the co-operation and support that has been given to the Bill by colleagues and party spokespersons across the House. I also extend my thanks to the Oireachtas staff, in particular the staff of the Bills Office for their assistance.

As the House is aware, the purpose of the Bill is to provide, by amendment of various Courts Acts, for an increase in the maximum number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Circuit Courts and the District Courts by 21 judges. The Bill also provides for amendments to the Child Care Act 1991, the Family Courts Act 2024 and the Gambling Regulation Act 2024. Having brought the Bill before the House, the Government is satisfied the additional judicial positions are warranted to address the current demands being placed by the courts and to improve efficiencies across all our courts, providing a vital bulwark of our judicial system. The amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act and the Family Courts Act will provide for the more efficient operation of these Acts when fully commenced. I commend the Bill to the House.

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

Sinn Féin will not oppose the Bill but I believe the Government has missed an opportunity with the Bill to include the introduction of compensation for expenses in court by those who undertake jury duty. Deputy Carthy has raised this with the Minister on numerous occasions. The absence of such a payment impacts on people already struggling with the cost of living, as well as those with caring responsibilities and the self-employed. Self-employed people and full-time carers can be excused from jury service but this means these groups are under-represented on juries. Simply speaking, those who wish to serve as jurors should not be out of pocket. Low income jurors face barriers due to inadequate allowances and the time commitment required. Deputy Carthy tabled amendments to the Bill but they were ruled out of order for some reason. It is important that the Minister makes a commitment to revisit this to make sure jurors are not out of pocket in order that they can take part in the judicial system.

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

I thank Deputy Ward for his contribution. This is an amendment that was mentioned previously by Deputy Carthy. The purpose of it is to try to provide for the payment to jurors of travel and subsistence expenses, and for reimbursement for financial losses incurred in the exercise of their responsibilities as jurors. It is important to point out that jury service is a very important civic duty. In many respects, it is a bit like voting. It is one of the requirements we demand of a citizen. Deputy Ward may say that when it comes to voting, it is something you can do in the space of half an hour or an hour but when it comes to jury service you can find yourself on a jury for very lengthy periods of time. I take this opportunity, by the way, to commend members of the public who have done such service on juries over the years because the criminal justice system could not operate without individuals serving on juries.

No expenses are paid to people called for jury duty but they do get lunch and refreshments provided on a daily basis. There is also a requirement to ensure that employers continue to pay an employee while he or she is on jury service. Employers cannot say they will not pay someone called for jury service. There is a requirement for them to pay an employee while they are engaged in jury duty.

I know also that section 9 of the Juries Act 1976 allows a county registrar to excuse a person from attendance. I have seen frequently, with the call-over of the jury panel, that jurors will approach the registrar and give circumstances and details as to why they say they are not able to serve on a jury. Sometimes the judge will hear this application as well. It is certainly the case for people who are self-employed, for example, those who run a shop on their own, that county registrars and judges take this into account and excuse people if it appears to be the case that it is essential they are not selected for jury service.

There have also been a lot of improvements in the jury experience in recent years. There was the introduction of a digitalised jury summons. In fact, I got one myself recently. I responded to it and said I was not available. I was able to say I was excused because, as a Member of the Oireachtas, that is permissible. The Courts Service has also invested in the provision of improved jury facilities in modernised courthouses across the country. That is something we need to take into account. I want to ensure the jury room and the facilities for juries are appropriate in order for them to carry out the very important part of the criminal justice process. There are too many courthouses around the country where the facilities for jurors, practitioners and more importantly, litigants, are not up to standard.

My Department is currently undertaking a review of jury service, which will be informed by research on the topic, including the Law Reform Commission's valuable report on jury service, as well as submissions made by the Bar Council and the Law Society and legislative and policy developments in related areas over the past number of years. The approach proposed by Deputy Carthy's amendment raises concerns as to how it will operate in practice. It would be a complex issue and would require processes and procedures to be put in place to ensure its efficient delivery. It would require additional resources being allocated to the Courts Service, as I am sure the Deputy can understand. The roll-out and operation of such legislation would require significant public engagement. I know the amendment has not been formally put down but since Deputy Ward raised it, I am not capable and ready at present to proceed down that route. As I say, there is research ongoing as to what can be done to facilitate further the importance service that is carried out by jurors.