Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)

I am very pleased to present the Bill to the House. As Senators will be aware, Article 36 of the Constitution provides that the number of judges of the various courts shall be regulated in accordance with law. Accordingly, the maximum number of judges of each of the courts is prescribed in legislation. The primary purpose of this legislation is to increase by 21 the number of judges who will sit in our four courts of jurisdiction, excluding the Supreme Court. I am not proposing to add to the number of judges who can be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Senators will be aware that a judicial working group reported a number of years ago and recommended that we should increase the number of judges that sit in Ireland. The proposal was to increase by 44 the number of judges who would sit. The previous Government and I increased the number of judges and appointed approximately 24 of those 44. What I am proposing to do in this legislation is to provide for the extra 20 judges recommended by the working group. The number in the legislation is 21 because one of the judges of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Michael McGrath, has agreed to take on the very onerous and responsible task of being the chairperson of the commission of investigation into abuse in schools.

The House should also note that there are a number of provisions in this legislation that will deal with the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland. It has been necessary to put in place a couple of minor amendments to ensure that the gambling regulator, which is doing a very job at present, can proceed to commence its licensing.

To go back to the issue of the appointment of extra judges, people may ask why we are doing this. The reason is not that we just want to have more judges so that more people can be appointed as judges. We are doing this so that the people who seek access to justice in Ireland can be accommodated and facilitated. In particular, I want to ensure that if people go to court in Ireland they know that they can have their claim dealt with in a speedy and efficient manner. I am pleased that when we look at the changes in the different courts since the extra 24 judges were appointed starting in the first quarter of 2022, we see that there has been a significant increase and improvement in efficiencies in the courts. For instance, between the beginning of 2022 and the middle of this year, there has been an increase of 11% in District Court sittings.There has also been a 38% increase in cases resolved in the family law District Court between those periods. In the same period, between the beginning of 2022 and mid-2025 there has been an overall increase of 23% in the number of Circuit Court sittings. There has also been a decrease in waiting times for civil trials in the Circuit Court from 50 weeks to 30 weeks. Similarly, in the High Court waiting times have decreased across most areas of the High Court business and the number of listings has increased by nearly 10% between 2022 and 2024. Following the appointment of the additional six judges to the High Court in 2023 there has been an increase of 9% in sitting days between quarter 1 of 2023 and quarter 2 of 2025.

More importantly, we have seen real efficiencies and a speeding up of the criminal justice process in the area presided over by the Central Criminal Court, which presides over the most serious criminal prosecutions in the country. The Central Criminal Court has seen the average trial length in days increasing from 7.5 days in quarter 1, 2024 to 11.6 in 2025. This indicates that while case numbers may not be increasing, the complexity level of the cases is having an impact. In the Court of Appeals, appeals have also increased by more than 10% from 573 in 2022 to 635 in 2024. The increase is driven by a higher number of incoming criminal cases. These improvements are having a significant impact on the most important people before the courts who are the individuals seeking access to justice and who are dependent upon an efficient and effective administration of justice.

In regard to the Bill, section 1 provides for the Short Title and collective citation. They are standard procedures.

Section 2 provides for the repeal of sections 263 and 271 of the Gambling Regulation Act 2024 to reflect the amendment of the definitions of collection and exempt activity provided for in section 10 of this Bill. It also provides for the repeal of sections 31 and 33 of the Family Courts Act 2024 which are no longer required.

Section 3 provides relevant definitions for Part 2.

Section 4 provides for the amendment of paragraph (1)(a)(ii) 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, from 18 to 21, thereby setting a new statutory maximum of 21 ordinary judges plus the court president of the Court of Appeal. The section also provides regulatory power to increase the number of judges in the Court of Appeal by one if that is required for operational reasons. That gives a level of flexibility within the Court of Appeal. That mirrors the statutory power available in respect of appointments to the High Court.

Section 5 provides for an amendment to section 2(1)(b) of the Sixth Schedule to Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961, increasing the number of unassigned judges at the District Court by six, from 28 to 34. This again provides the Government with greater flexibility in respect of the appointment of a judge to a particular district.

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 High Court judges by six to 55, in line with the working group's recommendation. We now have 55 ordinary judges plus the President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Barniville.

Section 7 provides for the amendment to section 10 of the 1995 Act and increases the actual number of ordinary judges of the Circuit Court by six to 51, in line with Government commitments.

Section 8 provides for the amendment to section 10 of the 1995 Act and increases the actual number of ordinary judges of the District Court by six to 77 in line with Government commitments.

Part 3 deals with a number of technical amendments relating to the Child Care Act 1991.

Section 9 provides with the amendment of section 12 of the 1991 Act to update the time that the Child and Family Agency can retain the custody of child pending the hearing of an application for an emergency order from three days to three working days.

Section 9 provides for amendments to update provisions in the child care Act that contain references to a justice which now would be referred to as a judge.

Part 4 deals with the amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act 2024.

Section 10 provides for the amendment to section 1 of the Streets and House To House Collections Act 1962 to amend the definitions of collection and exempt activity to reflect the definition in the 2024 Act and the fact that charitable and philanthropic gambling activities will be licensed under the 2024.

Section 11 provides for an amendment to section 1(2) of the gambling Act which contains a reference to section 9 of the Act where it should have been a reference to section 10.

Section 10 when commenced permits the Minister to revoke or repeal the Totalisator Act 1929, the Betting Act 1931 and related statutory instruments. The repeal of both these Acts will ensure that all new license applications for these types of betting must be made under the 2024 Act. Not doing so will 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 licenses under the 1929 or 1931 Acts.

There are further minor technical amendments to several sections.

I am pleased to present the Bill to Seanad Éireann. I do not believe it is a contentious Bill. I hope it will get the support of Senators as it is an important improvement to our justice system.