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

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.

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for being in the House this evening and giving of his time and giving us a comprehensive overview as to why we should support this non-contentious legislation. It is important to say Fianna Fáil welcomes the debate and supports the Bill. It is a priority for Fianna Fáil to ensure that our court services are resourced to administer justice efficiently and effectively. It is also important to say that it was a commitment in the programme for Government and we are hopefully fulfilling this with the Minister this evening.

A modern courts and legal system is vital for ensuring fair access to justice and enhancing the overall experience of all users. The principal purpose of the Bill is to provide for an increase in the maximum number of judges in the District Courts, the Circuit Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal. This is in line with the findings of the judicial planning working group report. 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 many years. It is heartening to hear the times outlined by the Minister. It is important that we recognise the reason that we are seeking to appoint more judges is not in order that people can become judges but to facilitate individuals in Ireland who seek access to the administration of justice and who require access to the courts in a timely fashion.

The Bill also provides for two technical amendments to the Child Care Act 1991 and the Gambling Regulation Act 2024. The Minister has said everything that needs to be said. I do not need to repeat it. It has been clearly demonstrated that the input of the other 24 judges is working really well and we should support this legislation. I thank him.

Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is most welcome to the Chamber this evening. I am substituting for my colleague Senator Garrett Kelleher who is the Fine Gael justice spokesperson.

I was preparing for this earlier this evening, reflecting on the evolution that we have seen over the past number of years and in the more than a century of Irish independence. In doing so, I came across a piece on the courts website that I felt was apt. It is a quote from then President of the Executive Council, W.T. Cosgrave, on establishing the 1923 Judiciary committee, which was set up to advise the then Free State on what would be the most appropriate number of judges, a precursor to the Minister's own judicial planning working group. In that correspondence, W. T. Cosgrave wrote: "There is nothing more prized among our newly-won liberties than the liberty to construct a system of judiciary and an administration of law and justice according to the dictates of our own needs and after a pattern of our own designing."It is very appropriate that in an era of almost 6.5 million people living in the country, we reflect on the legal maxim of "justice delayed is justice denied" and take the opportunity to make sure there is an appropriate number of justices in the country to ensure anybody who wants to go before the courts or anybody who finds themselves before the courts can have his or case heard in a timely manner. I welcome the increase in the number of judges, which is reflective of the fact that there has been an increase in the number of sitting days. As a solicitor, I am well aware of the importance of ensuring that when a case is listed, it actually goes ahead. There is nothing more frustrating for somebody who finds himself or herself before the courts in any capacity than to have a date appointed to be the date for the case to be heard, only for it to be adjourned for two weeks, three months, six months or a year. It is expected and hoped that the increase in the number of judges in the Court of Appeal from 18 to 21; in the High Court from 49 to 55, including the President of the High Court; in the Circuit Court from 45 to 51; and in the District Court from 71 to 77 will contribute to ensuring there is ready access. It is appropriate to be cognisant, as I am, of the restructuring that took place recently in the High Court with the incorporation of the new Planning and Environment Court. There are now more complex cases before the courts than perhaps at any stage up to now. This is because some European directives and pieces of environmental legislation have not been incorporated within our own system and we now have more cases before the family law courts than we have ever had before.

I want to reference the amendments being made in this legislation to the gambling Act. The original legislation which is being amended traces back to a time when it was proposed to ensure that regulations were placed under the Street and House to House Collections Act 1962 on those who seek to collect money door-to-door for charitable purposes, as part of a fundraiser or as a mechanism for a voluntary, community or sporting organisation to raise funds locally. While changes have been made to this area in recent years, under the new regulations there is still an opportunity for any community, sporting or voluntary group to go out and raise money in line with the wishes and needs of the individual sports club or community or voluntary organisation. It is important that the fact that this right still exists is not lost in this legislation, notwithstanding certain amendments.

This housekeeping exercise tightens up and modernises certain legislation to ensure we have the most effective and streamlined court system possible. The Courts Service needs to progress aggressively to ensure we have a more electronic, digitalised and modern mechanism of filing papers. It is quite strange that in 2025 the court system is still operating predominantly through a paper-based system and has not moved to an electronic system. I encourage the Minister for justice to ensure, as part of the modernisation and reform of our courts, we actually move to that. I am aware that consideration is being given to an e-probate system. In my day-to-day encounters, I encounter many people who still find that the probate system is taking too long. While this is not directly linked to the number of judges, extra resources should be put into the probate system to ensure that the average waiting time to get a grant of probate, assuming all paperwork is compliant, is not up to a year. That has to be prioritised, notwithstanding the increases in resources made available in the most recent budget. Fine Gael supports this legislation, specifically because it will ensure we have a greater number of court sitting days. There is a widespread appreciation that there is an opportunity for people to have their cases heard in a swift and timely manner.

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At its core, this Bill increases the number of judges across the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Having 21 additional judges is a step in the right direction. I acknowledge the Minister's work on that. We cannot keep pretending that increasing judicial numbers alone will solve the deep and systematic delays that exist in our courts today. Our justice system is slow because it is starved of staff and of resources. We know from the Law Society and from lived experience of victims and survivors that cases can take at least 1.5 times longer than the European average, which is absolutely unacceptable. These are not just statistics; these are people's lives. Survivors of sexual violence are waiting years and years to give evidence. Families are living in limbo as they wait for custody or access decisions. The futures of vulnerable children are held up because reports, hearings and orders simply cannot be scheduled. For survivors of sexual violence especially, the delay is not just an administrative inconvenience; it is a form of secondary trauma. Every adjournment, every postponement and every rescheduled hearing keeps them locked in the worst chapter of their lives. It prevents healing, prolongs fear and undermines the purpose of justice. That is not a victim-centred system. It is not timely justice. It is unsustainable. We do not just have too few judges in the system; we have too few registrars, court clerks and legal and administrative staff to run the system efficiently. Adding judges without adding staff is like adding buses without hiring any bus drivers.

The Bill also proposes minor amendments to the Child Care Act 1991, as it relates to the Child and Family Agency. While these amendments may be limited, the opportunity before us is not. We cannot keep discussing legislation connected to child protection without acknowledging that families and front-line workers are seeing every single day that Tusla is overstretched, is overwhelmed and has too many cases to be able to keep vulnerable children safe. We have seen reports from HIQA, from practitioners and from communities outlining failures that leave children at risk, whether it is a child waiting for months for an assessment, an unsafe placement, a lack of aftercare supports or cases bouncing between social care workers due to burnout or constant staff turnover. The system is not coping. A child's life cannot be put on pause and a child does not get those years back. When the system moves too slowly, it is always the child who will pay the price for it.

The Bill also touches on the Gambling Regulation Act 2024. Again, it is a small amendment but it is a big topic. As the Minister knows, across rural communities like the ones I represent in Cork North-West, local fundraisers, charity raffles, sports clubs and community organisations have raised some concerns around this Act and how it may affect their ability to fund the vital work they do. We have to strike a balance. I appreciate that regulation of gambling is needed because we have issues around gambling. It is a growing and hidden addiction that is really difficult for families and individuals. We have to protect vulnerable people without making it harder for GAA clubs, community councils, youth groups and other voluntary organisations to raise a few euro to keep them going. I urge the Minister to ensure community fundraising is protected. Small voluntary groups must not caught be in the crossfire of legislation that is aimed at commercial gambling.

We cannot keep patching up holes and calling it reform. We need a court system that is resourced in every corner from the registrar's desk and the clerk's office to the judge's bench. This Bill gives us an opening and a chance to say clearly that the status quo is not working and that incremental change is just not enough. Victims deserve better. Survivors deserve better. Children deserve better. Sinn Féin will support this Bill but we will continue to push, as all of us must, for full and urgent reform our justice system needs.

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

I thank Senators Rabbitte, Cathal Byrne and Nicole Ryan for their contributions. I am very pleased there is agreement that the Bill should pass through Seanad Éireann. Everyone recognises that appointing extra judges will have an impact in increasing efficiency and speeding up cases. I listened very carefully to what my colleagues had to say.

In response to Senator Ryan, it is important to acknowledge that the administration of justice operates effectively in Ireland every day. I do not accept that the system is not working. It is working. Obviously, it could always work more efficiently and more resources could be put into it but on a daily basis throughout the country in our District Courts, our Circuit Courts, our High Court and indeed our Court of Appeal, there is justice being administered.We all want to ensure there will be a reduction in delays. However, when it comes to criminal prosecutions, it is inevitable that an element of time will be required for the making of a complaint by a complainant, the investigation and taking of statements by An Garda Síochána, the transfer of a Garda file to the DPP, assessment by the DPP and the preparation of a book of evidence, and the serving of it on the person accused of the indictable offence. That all takes time. I fully appreciate how important it is to ensure victims of criminal offences get their cases heard and have the prosecutions brought before the courts promptly. However, I also have an obligation to ensure people charged with a serious criminal offence have fair trial. In order to do so, it is important they are given the full documentation and that fair procedures apply in the prosecution of the trial. Senator Ryan will agree with me about that. It means there will always be an element of delay, or what may be categorised as delay, but there has to be thorough preparedness in putting a prosecution before the courts to ensure individuals can be prosecuted effectively and because they have a right to a fair trial.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I have listened to what colleagues have to say. I will be back here again shortly for Committee and Report Stages of the legislation. I thank colleagues for their support.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Anne Rabbitte (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Next Tuesday.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.