Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 19 Apr 2023

Vol. 1036 No. 6

Courts Bill 2023: Second Stage

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Deputy James Browne)

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

I am pleased to present to the House the Courts Bill 2023. This is a short and technical Bill consisting of amendments to existing legislation for the purpose of increasing the statutory maximum prescribed number of judges of the District, Circuit and High Courts and of the Court of Appeal.

The background to this Bill is the report of the judicial planning working group which has recently been received and considered by the Minister and the Government. The judicial planning working group was established in April 2021 by the then Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, in line with the commitment in the programme for Government to consider the number and type of judges required to ensure the efficient administration of justice over the next five years in the first instance, but also with a view to the longer term. The working group was independently chaired by a former Secretary General of the Department of Education and Skills, Ms Brigid McManus. It comprised representatives of Government Departments, the Office of the Attorney General and the Courts Service. Two judicial observers were nominated by the Chief Justice to assist the working group. The working group highlighted certain key objectives. Judges are key persons at the heart of the courts system. An effective courts system that provides timely access to justice is of central importance to society and the economy, given the courts' role in the prosecution of crime, in helping families and individuals to resolve their disputes, in the resolution of business and property problems and in protection of the vulnerable. A stable, well-functioning courts system that can give decisions within a reliable timeframe is an important part of Ireland's attractiveness to foreign business and feeds directly in to Ireland’s prosperity.

However, the working group concluded that current judicial numbers cannot meet these objectives fully given population growth, new and growing areas of law, and the increasing complexity of issues raised before the courts. The working group was very conscious of the position in the courts with delays and backlogs, exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, having an adverse impact on individuals and on society more generally. Accordingly, the working group recognised the need for a sizable increase in judge numbers and sustained investment, alongside other measures, to improve matters. The Minister is committed to improving access to justice for all of our citizens. An efficiently functioning courts system is a critical component of a modern liberal democratic society founded on the rule of law. It is vital that our courts are properly resourced to deliver on policy initiatives under the programme for Government, including the full commencement of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act providing a new legal framework for supported decision-making in Ireland; a dedicated planning and environment division of the High Court to enable more efficient management of cases dealing with planning and environmental matters and judicial review in particular; and a family law Bill to create a new dedicated family court within the existing court structure and to provide for court procedures that support a less adversarial resolution of disputes.

A key input for the working group was a study commissioned by the Department of Justice from the OECD specifically to inform that working group’s work. This study was published by the OECD in parallel with the working group report. This independent review of Ireland’s judicial resource needs was a key input to the work of the working group. Overall, the OECD study found that the Irish judicial system has a shortfall of judges. The OECD proposes that, considering all caveats and in the context of existing procedures and technology, the likely number of additional judges needed is between 36 and 108. It also states that improving procedures and operations and enhancing case management systems and IT infrastructure may deliver greater efficiencies and potentially reduce the number of judicial positions required.

The working group report made a range of recommendations which are received in the context of important developments, under way and planned, to improve the administration of justice in Ireland. The Courts Service modernisation programme is a ten-year programme which will deliver a new operating model for the Courts Service designed around the user, with simplified and standardised services and accessible data to inform decisions, all delivered through digital solutions. Together, these developments represent a demanding multi-annual change programme for the Judiciary and the Courts Service.

A significant number of additional judges will be needed over the next five years. The working group recommended that a phased approach be taken to addressing judicial resourcing. The Government agreed with this phased approach and it is the Government's intention to appoint an initial tranche of 24 new judges in 2023, with a further 20 new judges following the implementation of reforms and efficiencies, as has been recommended. The working group also recommended that, before the additional judges in phase 2 are proceeded with, there should be an assessment of the extra judges appointed in phase 1 and also of progress in the change programme. The Government will want to see evidence that the appointments made under phase 1 are having an impact on waiting times and improving access to justice for the citizen. Both the working group and the OECD have highlighted the need for a substantial programme of change initiatives without which the demand for additional judges would be even higher. Key proposals to be considered include District and Circuit Courts sitting five days a week; impact assessment for policy or legislative proposals impacting court operations; strategic HR for the Judiciary; structuring the District Court; reviewing the Circuit Court geographical areas; additional powers for court presidents to manage their court jurisdictions; and extensive recommendations relating to data collection and management.

The Justice Plan 2023 commits to bringing this work forward in the following ways. We will finalise and agree key performance indicators with the Courts Service to measure the impact of the modernisation programme and the implementation of the final report of judicial planning working group. The Government will agree and publish a judicial plan working group implementation plan in quarter 2. I am committed to improving access to justice for all of our people, and this legislation will ensure our courts are properly resourced to deliver on Government priorities, such as a planning and environmental court and new family courts.

This is a short Bill consisting of seven sections, which I will briefly outline. Section 1 provides for a definition for the purpose of the Bill.

Section 2 provides for an amendment of section 1A(2) of the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act 1961 to increase the statutory limit on the number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal from 15 to 17.

Section 3 provides for the amendment of paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Sixth Schedule to the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 for the purpose of increasing the number of moveable judges of the District Court by eight to 28. A moveable judge of the District Court is a person not permanently assigned by the Government to a particular district at the time of his or her appointment. Such an increase could enable the President of the District Court to allocate judges to where the need is greatest at any particular time.

Section 4 provides for an amendment of section 9 of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995 to increase the statutory limit on the number of ordinary judges of the High Court from 42 to 48.

Section 5 provides for an amendment of section 10 of the Court and Court Officers Act 1995 to increase the statutory limit on the number of ordinary judges of the Circuit Court from 40 to 45. To this number should be added the recent increase of three following the commencement of section 98(1) of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) (Amendment) Act 2022. Thus the actual increase in phase 1 is eight ordinary judges of the Circuit Court.

Section 6 provides for an amendment of section 11 of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995 to increase the statutory limit on the number of judges of the District Court from 63 to 71.

Section 7 provides for the Short Title of the Bill and a collective citation. These are standard provisions.

Independent, impartial and efficient Judiciary and courts are critical to our democracy. This substantial increase in judicial resources will be complemented by the ongoing implementation of the far-reaching Courts Service modernisation programme for which additional funding has been provided in 2023, as well as strategic reforms of court operations including the frequency, location and management of courts. I commend the Bill to the House.

Deputy Pa Daly

I thank the Minister of State for his presentation. There is no doubt but that this Bill is welcome. We had called for additional judges because from speaking to practitioners, guards and many others, it is a significant issue. In the Dublin Circuit Court, for example, trial dates for February and March 2025 were given out earlier this year. The only exception would be if a child was involved or if the accused was in custody. In the Central Criminal Court, trial dates have varied. In severe cases, judges have tried to assign a date within nine months and to use case management, but in other cases, there are delays of 15 to 18 months from when a case enters the list. That is clearly not acceptable to anyone.

The judicial review list on the civil side of the High Court is very slow. It might take 12 months to get a hearing date for a one- or two-day case. Once the case is heard, the judge could take weeks or months to deliver judgment because there is practically no time available to him or her out of court to write a judgment.

I heard the proposals of the Minister of State.

Sometimes it sounds like a great idea to have judges in the Circuit Court sitting every day of the week. In practice that may or may not be a good idea. If it is to be considered I am sure that everything will be taken in the round.

Proposals will be considered about restructuring the District Court and reviewing Circuit Court geographical areas. I would guard against too much centralisation. There is the old maxim of justice being done and being seen to be done; it should be seen to be done out in the communities also. A witness to a road traffic accident in Castlemaine, County Kerry, who is asked to go to court to be a witness in that case will have a round trip of about 100 km to go to Cahersiveen District Court to give evidence in that case because other closer courts such as the courts in Killorglin and Castleisland have been closed down.

During my relatively short time in the courts around Kerry, about ten different District Court sittings were closed. Castleisland court was closed when Kerry County Council built a specific courthouse building for use by the Courts Service, a building which now houses water services. However, it was completely ignored and all of the services were sent to Tralee and in the overall budget buttons were saved. However, all the extra Castleisland cases put into Tralee are adding to the already long list in that court. It might seem like a great cost-saving measure in closing one court, but the overall benefit is not good. We do not want judges with very long lists. The stress of dealing with a long list of hearings is not beneficial.

The Bill stems from the important report of the judicial planning working group. The Courts Service has been struggling severely for some time, as I have indicated. The pandemic exposed these struggles also. For years the justice system has been deprived of the resources and investment it needs. Many victims and ordinary plaintiffs have been forced to wait for long periods as the courts struggle to keep on top of caseloads. At the weekend I attended a conference on domestic, sexual and gender-based violence. Many of the workers in the midlands and around Athlone stressed the difficulty and the delays for vulnerable women in accessing justice in the courts. Maybe we can learn from what happened in England where, for example, cases for maintenance are sent to a different type of tribunal outside of the court system. There have also been some difficulties over there with that system and complaints about it. However, we can learn from what happened there rather than having massive lists of family cases.

It is significant that the Government has to bring forward this legislation which entitles those affected by delays in criminal trials to compensation. This is at the instigation of the Council of Europe. It is significant that international obligations seem to be steering policy in this area more than an inherent sense of doing the right thing. Justice delayed is justice denied. It is worrying that the delays are down to how the courts have been resourced and operated. One of the European Commissioners appeared in Leinster House a few months ago berating Ireland in a Commission report over the number of judges per head of population. Delays in many areas of law, especially family cases, are becoming intolerable. Wait times of up to 24 months are not unheard of and that can be a lifetime for vulnerable people. The European Commission report, as I mentioned, ranked Ireland as the worst country in Europe for judicial resourcing. Its report stated that we had 3.27 judges per 100,000 people in 2020, which is way below the European average of 17.6 judges. This obviously has real impacts on access to justice for ordinary people. It also has an impact on economic competitiveness. Sectors such as technology and financial services make up a large part of our economy now and legal services are incredibly important to ensure the smooth functioning of the economy.

Of course, the Bill is a step in the right direction and we will be supporting it. However, the increase, while in line with the recommendation of the working group, will still leave us below the European average in respect of judges per capita, as the report of the judicial planning group will admit. Increasing resources is one part of the picture and other moves such as a judicial resources planning model and more flexible working arrangements are positive.

It is worth looking at other aspects of the report which are not necessarily included in the Bill and placing them on the record here so that the Government is held to account. An OECD study was commissioned specifically to inform the report and it found the judicial system has shortfalls along with limited efficiency of court operations and case management capacity. It suggests the likely number needed was between certain points in that range in respect of total numbers between 361 and 108 extra judges. The Minister of State has indicated that there are appointments, but they are only one part of the picture. We look forward to a more detailed roadmap and I think he has outlined the initial proposals for 2023 and for next year.

As the Minister of State indicated in his opening statement, the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act, the establishment of the environment and planning court and family court will also be considered. We may need more regulatory impact assessments when it comes to introducing Bills in the future as the number of required judges and their skill sets will be shaped by developments such as the one the report mentions. A phased recruitment of judges is also welcomed, as is actual physical capacity and available supports that are in short supply in many locations often due to the fact that many courts, especially in rural areas, have been closed.

I will quote from one of the reports about the five-day working week as a standard across jurisdictions, greater powers in support for court presidents and better data to support it in the District Court and Circuit Court areas. This needs to be married with the independence of the courts which are run by judges as they see fit. The review of Circuit Court and District Court areas must bear in mind access to justice for isolated rural areas. Kerry has three peninsulas and a high degree of peripherality.

I have frequently mentioned the issue of Tralee courthouse. The proposal is still to close the current courthouse, which has been there since the days of Daniel O'Connell, and to build a new one. The Courts Service completely ruled out any other proposals to use the existing building, which would have been better for a number of reasons, not least to keep the services where people are used to them being, helping the whole of the town centre to improve itself and even the carbon footprint in constructing a new courthouse. I am not sure if the transfer from Kerry County Council to the Courts Service has gone through yet. I do not think it is too late to review and revise that decision, to talk to neighbouring landowners such as An Post to keep a proper court service on Ash Street in the middle of the town where it has been for 170 years, since it was constructed from a quarry in the centre of town. However, the Courts Service had plans for all the different towns around the country and it seems that the easy option has been taken to use the brownfield site.

Deputy Mark Ward

Sinn Féin will support the Bill, which, as has been said, has arisen from recommendations from the judicial planning working group. We support the purpose of the Bill to increase the maximum number of judges at various court levels. This is welcome particularly given last year's damning European Commission report which ranks Ireland as the worst country in Europe for judicial resourcing. It revealed that this State had 3.27 judges per 100,000 people in 2020, which pales in comparison with the European average of 17.6 judges. We have 14 judges per 100,000 fewer than the European average, which is shocking and translates into cases moving more slowly. There are widespread delays across the judicial system.

The State has been reprimanded by the Council of Europe over the wait times for criminal proceedings to begin. A separate Bill is due to come before the House to give compensation where people's rights have been violated due to delays in criminal proceedings. Steps to address this are important and the Minister of State has promised 24 new judges in the coming weeks with a further 20 to follow, which is welcome.

However, this increase, while in line with the recommendations of the working group, would still leave Ireland well below the European average in respect of judges per capita.

Justice delayed, as Deputy Daly said, is justice denied and in sensitive cases, such as those for domestic violence, every added day without a resolution is prolonging that person's fear and trauma. Improved access to justice has been a difficulty for some time, particularly for those experiencing domestic and gender-based violence, and those with cases before the family courts. The courts system must be reformed in order that it can hear cases without any unnecessary delays. Figures released to Deputy Martin Kenny recently indicate that the current waiting time for hearings in family court is between three and 24 months, depending on where the case is being heard. Victims awaiting hearings at District Court level have waiting times that vary between six and 36 months for trial. Throughout Ireland, people are becoming more and more aware of the scourge of domestic and gender-based violence, intimate partner violence, harassment and coercive control. Many survivors will turn to the courts for help to free them from their abuse by applying for domestic violence orders, protection orders, safety orders and barring orders and by applying through the family courts for divorce orders, through to obtaining criminal convictions under the law through the District, Circuit and Criminal Courts.

However, the postcode lottery faced by victims in respect of court waiting times is adding to their trauma. While organisations such as Women’s Aid have complimented An Garda on its roll-out of Operation Faoiseamh during the pandemic, and the Garda pro-arrest approach in situations of domestic and intimate partner violence, the same compliments have not been afforded to the Courts Service owing to the delays detailed earlier.

The detailed submission made by Women’s Aid to the review of the National Strategy on Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence stated:

Our experience supporting mothers separating from an abuser indicates that the family law system fails women and children who are separating from a domestic abuser. The process is prolonged, costly and disempowering.

Sinn Féin in government would deliver much-needed change to invest in our courts system and ensure victims have access to a fair hearing and proper justice. Delays are inexcusable and mean too many people are left without justice for too long. Sinn Féin would end this scandal and ensure that our courts are fit for purpose.

I have said it already and I will say it again: access delayed is access denied. While these measures go some way and may address some of these problems, they do not go far enough and further steps need to be taken.

Deputy Pauline Tully

I welcome the Bill and will support it. I particularly welcome the fact that there are 24 new judges coming in a few weeks and a further 20 to follow. I particularly welcome that they are for both the lower courts, the District Court and the Circuit Court. There has been an increase in the number of judges in the past decade but this has been more for the higher courts. The reason I welcome this for the lower courts is that most of the cases brought to my attention relate to family law and domestic abuse. The delays in the courts in dealing with these is having a terrible effect on families. Where a family breakdown occurs and where they are waiting for judicial separation or a divorce, the longer it takes and the more adjournments that take place, the harder it is on the two people, and indeed the children, if there are any.

On domestic violence cases, people are seeking interim barring orders and they get these for a period of eight days, I believe. It was normal practice then to go back to court to seek the final order. It is taking up to four months in some areas and I know that in my area of Cavan, someone has to wait 12 weeks before getting the safety or barring order. This results in trauma being compounded on mostly women and children, and some are being forced to go back to an unsafe situation because they have nowhere else to go, or they are putting a great deal of pressure on refuge spaces and taking them up for longer than they should need to. I welcome the fact that with more judges, this issue will be addressed.

Other issues in the family law area need to be reviewed. I understand that they are not dealt with under this Bill but the in camera rule, for example, allows perpetrators of domestic violence to hide their identity, even where in some cases the victim or survivor is quite happy to go public. This has been described by some domestic violence support groups as a paradise for abusers. I understand the need for the in camera rule but I believe it is benefiting abusers who in many cases are often projected as pillars of society and do not want to be seen in their true form.

Judges and court staff need training in the area of domestic violence. I have a number of examples, including one recently where a young woman was hospitalised as a result of a serious assault by her partner for the second time. There had been other incidents of abuse as well as that but she finally felt strong and brave enough to seek a barring order. When she went to the judge, he said that he would give her a protection order and if her partner then breached the protection order, she could then ring An Garda and have him arrested and removed from the property. She could not return to that home because she was afraid that she would not be allowed to make that phone call if she went back. There was evidence there that he had seriously assaulted her on a number of occasions and she should have been able to get a barring order.

Another older woman who had put up with years of abuse and control finally, again, felt strong enough to go to a judge and seek a barring order. The judge said to her that it was hardly that serious if it took her that long to actually report it. That is a disgraceful attitude and needs to be addressed.

The issues of maintenance need to be taken out of the courts system altogether. It is mostly women and children who go to the courts and are forced to go back. It is time-consuming and expensive and is being used by abusers as a way of continuing to exert control over their former partners. We need to look at another mechanism outside of the court system to deal with the non-payment of maintenance and not to force people back into the court, with the retraumatisation of facing a former partner over the non-payment of maintenance.

The other proposals within the Bill such as judicial resources, planning models and more flexible working arrangements are positive. Judges need to have a clear career path and the right specialisation, especially in areas such as commercial law, family law and domestic abuse.

While I believe the Bill could have gone further, it does broadly take into consideration the recommendations of the OECD and the judicial planning working group and I, therefore, will support it.

Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin

This Bill is very welcome and, as others said, there is a crisis at the heart of our court system as to their sittings, an issue we have often debated. The lack of judges has been reported upon by any number of media outlets. How judges are appointed has been part of the political debate for a number of years. However, we cannot get beyond the fact that our courts system is grinding to a halt because of the lack of judges. Now we have political consensus across the House that more judges are needed.

The level of delay in family law cases is unspeakably cruel because the Circuit Court cannot function. How is any family or life supposed to function or children supposed to get through a routine if the court case is being consistently delayed?

This is probably not a popular point of view, but there appears to be a stupefying arrogance at the heart of our judicial system. This is an arrogance that has been there for hundreds of years where anybody who engages with the court system and who is not used to it just has to accept that his or her next hearing will be in a number of months, or even further on in time than that. The arrogance is almost typified in a bizarre way by the outfits that they wear. If one takes a trip into the court system, one is pretty much taken aback by the fact that they dress up in these unusual gowns. They have unusual outfits that people are expected to and must wear in the courts system. It is something, to be honest, that is not consistent with the idea of a republic, where if one is expected to get even-handed justice from the court system, it is from these people who are supposed to be in a higher caste in society because they dress differently from the rest of us. It is quite stark, perhaps, if someone does not see this everyday, to be confronted with this type of performance.

The arrogance that comes from that system expects those of us who do not often engage with the courts system to just get used to that and accept that their time is more precious than anybody else's time. It is cruel that a situation, particularly one in family law that affects children, could be delayed to that degree. It has been suggested that judges should get training. That is crucial. Judgments have been made, particularly regarding sexual crime, which make you scratch your head and wonder if this judge and this system really understands the nature of the offence they are passing judgment on. It is said to me by governors in our prison system that if judges understood the nature of the sentences they were handing down and their impact on the prison system, they would not hand them down in the same way. The idea of a four-month sentence is ridiculous. Such sentences are clogging up the system and nobody who gets a four-month sentence can engage in anything constructive in prison life. They are handed down all the time by judges who do not really understand the impact that sentence has on the individual or on the prison system.

We welcome the Bill. The Government is reacting positively to a need that exists in the courts system and is providing us with more judges. However, the arrogance and hierarchical structure in the system have to be challenged. The suggestion that someone has to dress differently and use different terms of engagement when referring to people in the courts system does injustice to the idea of an even-handed republic where, no matter who someone is or where he or she is from, he or she is dealt with even-handedly. It is not evident once you step into a courtroom. There is an expectation that we have to wait because their time is so much more precious than ours. It is wrong and does violence to the potential of a family to move on from a family breakdown or relationship breakdown where children are affected, when they are just expected to wait.

On training, judges are not beyond being told, instructed, coached or educated in the wider ways of the world. They may consider that, because of their great academic achievement or lofty pals, they know the ways of the world, but they do not. None of us does. None of us can be so arrogant as to suggest we know everything and do not need to be re-educated or reschooled in the ways of the world. There are judgments that have not just raised an eyebrow but have often enraged people when it comes to certain offences. As has been suggested by other Deputies, we have to train and retrain our judges. If they are going to be so arrogant as to fill our prisons with people on four-month sentences, they will have to justify that and interface with those prison systems on the impact of what they are doing.

To summarise, we have to puncture the arrogance at the heart of the hierarchical system, do away with the archaic dress-up they seem to be so defensive of and end this sense that their time is more important than anybody else’s. They have to submit themselves to retraining to understand the impacts of their judgments and they have to understand, when they hand down sentences, the wider impact of what they do. We are independent of the Courts Service and need to be so. We need to respect that service, judges and the independence of the Judiciary but there is a potential for people not to trust or believe in it if it perceives itself to be on an elevated plane that the rest of us do not understand. Their role is crucial. The judgments they hand down are wide-reaching and they need to understand that, but none of us is above criticism. They are not above criticism or a bit of retraining.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor)

I thank the Deputy. We go back to the Government. Deputy Alan Farrell has seven minutes.

Deputy Alan Farrell

I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach. She is motoring along 40 minutes ahead of schedule. Well done to her.

I thank the Minister of State for his opening remarks and welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The efficiency of our courts underpins the basis of our legal system. We know from multiple reports and observations made over many years that our court systems do not operate as they should, primarily because there are not enough judges, courts and resources. That is borne out in some serious reports, of which the Minister of State will be aware, from the European Commission. This legislation will benefit society greatly through the actions of Government. The Minister of State noted it is two years this month since the work of the Minister, Deputy McEntee, and the Department of Justice instigated this process and it has now reached the floor of the Dáil. As a member of the Oireachtas justice committee on and off for seven years of the past 12 years, that is pretty fast. I commend the Department on that endeavour.

The Bill will allow important increases in the number of judges and judicial sittings, including increasing the maximum number of judges to the Court of Appeal by two to 17, as provided for in section 2. The High Court will increase by six judges to 48, as provided for in section 4, and the Circuit Court will be boosted by five, increasing the number to 45, under section 5. The District Court, which might be considered the entry point to our judicial system, will increase by eight to 28, while increasing the maximum number of judges by eight, resulting in a rise to 71 judges on the court, provided for by sections 3 and 6, respectively. These increases will provide timely access to justice and endeavour that is vital to the State and our population. As has been mentioned by many, the issue has been compounded by Covid in the past two to three years. Without effective and efficient access to justice, public faith in our justice system can be weakened, and this situation cannot be allowed to develop. Ensuring adequate resources for our courts benefits all working in the legal system and, perhaps most importantly, the people who seek justice.

I commend the Ministers, Deputy McEntee and Harris, and their departmental officials on the significant work put in to the Family Courts Bill 2022. The Bill will provide effective and efficient access to the family courts and these changes will develop a dedicated family court operating with the existing court structure in the State and will allow us to develop better infrastructure, technology and funding, which I hope will dramatically improve the pursuit of family justice. Critically, this will allow us to create a family court system that puts children at its core. We must achieve this as promptly as possible by getting that Bill across the line along with this one. Building on the Family Justice Strategy 2022-2025, an important step taken by this Government, we will be able to provide easier access to information about the family justice system; children and the most vulnerable will be provided with improved supports; services and supports will be easier to find; and more. This will allow us to analyse different areas of family justice, which can allow us to implement more reforms and offer better support in future.

The Bill will provide an opportunity to remove the access to justice issues we have had for some years. I welcome the speed at which the Department and Ministers have moved to address the matter. I listened carefully to my colleagues opposite, particularly members of Sinn Féin, and nothing unreasonable was said. Having been recently reappointed to the justice committee, the committee members of all parties and none work well together and it has been a positive experience, it being my third stint on the committee.

Notwithstanding the significant cynicism of the previous speaker, I do think some very positive things are happening in the justice sphere and in particular in our courts. The Minister and the Department will be bringing through a combination of Bills to modernise our court system, strengthen community safety and, most importantly, reduce reoffending. This would be something we should all be very proud of if we can achieve it. I know a lot of jurisdictions struggle with access to justice and reducing the rates of crime and reoffending.

There is an opportunity for us to innovate in the Courts Service. Providing additional resources is not just about providing additional judges. It is also about providing the personnel to support those judges in the carrying out of their duties. It is, of course, imperative that those individuals are properly staffed and resourced with the appropriate technology to assist them in doing their job. The key issue of access to justice should be a more efficient experience for the general public in getting what is rightfully theirs. In certain instances, particularly with regard to the family courts, the protection of the courts and the protection of the State apply. I commend the Bill and I thank the Minister of State for his work on it. He has contributed to the process greatly.

Deputy Ruairí Ó Murchú

I concur with an awful lot of what has been said. We will all be supportive of this. We are all aware of backlogged court systems. It is a trite statement on some level to say justice delayed is justice denied but it is very true. I remember doing jury duty and dealing with an assault case. I will not go into the ins and outs of it but the fact is that we were dealing with something that had happened four years previously. I do not see that anybody is served by this type of delay and we are all aware of it. In fairness, it is "sooner, better, quicker" and this is absolutely necessary. We know every town and village is dealing with a serious level of crime, whether we are speaking about burglary or drugs, and by drugs I do not think the Minister of State will be shocked to learn that I am speaking about drug debt intimidation and those particular threats of violence and violent acts. We need a court system that can deal with these people as quickly as possible.

We all welcome the fact that a citizens' assembly is happening and there is a wider issue that needs to be dealt with. I am the greatest proponent there is for youth diversion and the importance of it and of family and community intervention at a very early stage. This is from a point of view of levelling the playing field. Whether we are speaking about organised crime or disorganised crime and criminality, in an awful lot of cases poverty and multigenerational trauma are issues. If we do not intervene and take action we will continue to have these particular issues. Therefore, it is "quicker, better, faster". We just need to make it happen as quickly as possible.

I hope the Minister of State and others were listening to some of what was said by Deputy Daly and particularly by Deputy Tully who spoke about safety orders and barring orders and the length of time they take. I think we know when we are speaking about systems across the board that there is an absolute need and necessity for streamlining and for anything that can be put in various alleyways to get the job done better for people. We are speaking about people who find themselves in very tight and difficult situations. We are speaking about spousal abuse and children who can be in very bad circumstances and situations. We need justice to be very swift in these circumstances.

I welcome the fact that we are speaking about a greater number of judges while I accept that we cannot overpolice the particular issues we have in society. We need to look at an holistic means of dealing with them. I support the Bill. We know we do not have the judges we need to deal with the situations we have but we must also put in a lot more, whether we are speaking about policing resources, which are absolutely necessary, as is community policing, or about all of the other interventions.

Deputy Jennifer Murnane O'Connor

It is important that everyone has access to justice and that our courts are properly resourced to deliver on Government priorities such as the planning and environmental court and new family courts. Last year I encountered one District Court with 111 separate child law and private family law applications before it. This volume of cases is disastrous for children and families affected by delays and timely access to the courts. It is a massive burden on the court. The programme for Government recognises that the family court system must be reformed to ensure that proceedings involving children are dealt with in a manner that recognises the unique vulnerability and needs of children. This is important because it is part of the Bill and it is vital. I welcome it.

Having an efficient court system that provides timely access to justice is of central importance to society. The court exists to protect our rights and uphold the rule of law. At some point we are all likely to have reason to interact with the court system. When we do it is important that we experience an efficient, fair and timely service that has equal access for all so that everyone has the same access. It is very important that we all see this in our court system.

The rape crisis network has called for the regulation of court experts, particularly in family courts where matters have been in camera. I hope the increases in the judicial resources will be complemented by the ongoing implementation of the far-reaching court service modernisation plans, for which additional funding has been provided in 2023, as well as strategic reform to our court operations, including the frequency, location and management of our courts. I would like to add to this that we should extend support to families and victims who need assistance in navigating the court system.

It is a priority for the Department of Justice that the courts are resourced to administer justice efficiently and effectively. This is central to providing access to justice. Resourcing seems to be a big issue in our justice system. An issue I want to highlight is resourcing of the coronial justice system. Someone I know very well dealt with the system last week. Recently I was very concerned to hear of a strain on the system in Dublin, which had an incredibly distressing impact on families with loved ones awaiting a post mortem or coronial assistance. Our coroners throughout the country need greater resources in order that the part they play in the justice system is robust. We have to say they are all under pressure. I ask that the Minister of State to look particularly at that.

The Bill allows for an increase in the number of judges in the District Court, Circuit Court, High Court and Court of Appeal. Recommendations of the reports of the judicial planning working group and the OECD will be implemented. It will also mean our court system will be less under strain as we have seen it suffer in the past. As previous speakers have said, I welcome the work of the Minister of State on this. I also want to welcome the new judges we will have, and this is very important.

I also welcome the programme of change initiatives for sittings of the District Court and Circuit Court. I want to ask about sittings on five days a week. In my area courts sit one day a week. I ask for a review of the Circuit Court geographical areas and other changes that would make access to justice more streamlined. This is important.

As a Carlow woman I want to raise local issues. A few years ago we got a commitment that the Leighlinbridge Garda station would reopen. I ask the Minister of State to look at this. Another issue I want to raise is that we have the most beautiful courthouse in Carlow. It is a beautiful building. I know this is not in the remit of the Minister of State but I have been working with the OPW. For years and years I have been given a commitment on the railings around the courthouse. A small part of it was done but there is a lot more to do and I ask the Minister of State to see whether he can do anything to help me on this.

The Bill is very welcome and I say well done on the work that has been done. I will be fully supportive of the Bill.

Deputy Martin Browne

In a report published by the European Commission last year Ireland was ranked as the worst country in Europe concerning judicial resourcing at 3.27 judges per 100,000 people in 2020. To say this was below the European average is to be kind. The truth of the matter is that the European average is 17.6 judges per 100,000 people.

There is a real deficiency there. I am also reminded of the waiting times at District Court and Circuit Court levels being faced by victims of crime in parts of County Tipperary, particularly those experiencing domestic and gender-based violence and those with cases before the family courts. The idea that someone in Nenagh who requires a domestic violence order might face a wait of six to 12 weeks, and a six-week wait in Clonmel, is unconscionable.

There is an issue with how timely access to justice can depend on geographical location. There is, therefore, a postcode lottery which, again, is a failure of people. In the case of victims of domestic violence, for example, who may seek criminal convictions under the law through the District Court and Circuit Court, that their location, especially in rural areas, determines how timely their access to justice will be only prolongs the trauma. I urge the Minister of State to ensure that when considering the forthcoming review of Circuit Court and District Court areas, access to justice is given particular focus, not just the efficiencies that can be achieved.

There are widespread delays across the judicial system. The issues we are discussing have become such that the time involved in getting criminal proceedings under way has led the Council of Europe to reprimand the State and actively monitor the progress the Government is making in addressing the issue. We have all heard the phrase "Justice delayed is justice denied". However, for the substance of that phrase to be reflected through an upcoming Bill to compensate people where delays to criminal proceedings have violated the rights of defendants speaks to the sheer scale of the problem that has developed. Delays can cause further trauma, difficulties and insecurities for the people concerned. For these reasons, I support this Bill to amend the maximum number of judges in the Court of Appeal, Circuit Court and District Court. Unfortunately, addressing the shortage of judges is a process that will take time, such is the consequence of the length of time this has been allowed to go unaddressed.

I note the Minister promised 24 new judges in the coming weeks, with a further 20 to follow, in line with the recommendations of the working group established in recognition of the problem. That is an important recognition. As I said, it is part of a slow process and will still leave Ireland far below the European average. I support this Bill and want to see it pass but I urge continued efforts to ensure timely access to justice for all people, no matter their geographical location.

Deputy Patrick Costello

Our courts and justice system face many challenges arising from increasing levels of demand, the increasing complexity of the work and the consequences of underinvestment over the years. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that an independent, impartial and efficient Judiciary and courts are critical to our democracy. In many ways, we are very lucky in this country to have an independent, efficient and impartial Judiciary.

The simple reality is that we do not have enough judges to deal with the demands of our courts. This is leading to long delays in hearings and trials. The recently retired President of the High Court, Ms Justice Mary Irvine, called out the lack of judges and said this was hampering the administration of justice. While still President of the High Court, she asked for 17 extra judges, saying this was what was needed for the High Court to run effectively. Unfortunately, at the time she got only five. This call was repeated by the current President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Barniville. This issue is impacting every level of the system, not just the High Court. We must remember that the District Court is perhaps the most important level in the system. It is the level where most people and the average citizen will experience the legal system the most. It is by far the most in demand. The solicitor, Mr. Gareth Noble, has been busy tweeting about the unmanageable length of District Court lists and the denial of justice applicants face due to delays. He is working in the very sensitive areas of family law, domestic violence and care orders. This affects not just the rights of the individual applicant but often also the rights of children and families. Mr. Noble's view was backed up my Ms Helen Coughlan, chair of the Law Society of Ireland's family and child law committee, who warned of further problems if nothing changes. I am very glad, therefore, that we are beginning to change things.

Criminal barristers have expressed to me concerns about the length of time it takes for a trial to commence, a victim to get justice or an innocent person to clear his or her name. Many international comparisons have been cited today showing that we are well below average in terms of the number of judges we have. One reason we need more judges is the growing complexity of individual cases. We are looking at an increase in the number of specialist court lists. The Minister mentioned some of these, for example, an environmental court and a planning court, as well as a family court that has been promised. All of these need judges and their staff to make them worthwhile and to function properly.

It is not only judges who are needed. A judge cannot sit without a registrar. A registrar is essential, and while it is positive that we are increasing the limits on the number of judges and seeking to appoint more of them, we need to ensure that registrars, judicial assistants and the people in the Courts Service, who are just as essential to the administration of justice as judges are, are also properly resourced and their numbers increased to meet the increasing number of judges and increasing demands.

While an independent, impartial and efficient Judiciary and courts are critical to our democracy, the courts need to be accessible. The words of the Chief Justice, Mr. Donal O'Donnell, come to mind when he said it is "not enough to provide courtrooms and judges". We must, he continued, look at the "many barriers that limit the capacity of ordinary citizens ... to bring disputes to court and obtain a speedy and fair resolution of those disputes." The fact that we are not providing enough judges is exacerbated by the fact that legal aid is struggling. If we want to make justice accessible, we need to address this issue. Criminal legal aid has seen funding cuts over the years which have not been restored. A report of the Department of Justice stated that per capita spend on legal aid in Northern Ireland is €73.53. In Scotland, it is €23.28 and in England and Wales, it is €38.14. Here, it is only €18.40. Mr. Justice Henchy described a legal aid certificate as the shield provided to the citizen against unjust attack on his or her constitutional due. With such low levels of investment in criminal aid, it would be fair to say that we are not adequately providing for the protection of citizens' rights.

Increasing the number of judges is more than welcome. I have not heard anyone complain about it so far. However, we need to look at accessibility to justice in the round. As I said, legal aid is an essential part of that. It is not just about the funding but also the areas that legal aid covers.

We need to look at the availability of legal aid in terms of quasi-judicial decision-making bodies. I often find myself quoting in this Chamber the Zalewski case in which the Chief Justice warned that the standard of justice in quasi-judicial decision-making bodies "cannot be lower or less demanding than the justice administered in [our] courts." We have seen legislation reforming how the Workplace Relations Commission works to ensure it meets the same standard as our courts. This will affect every single quasi-judicial decision-making body, however. It is clear that when we marry that with Mr. Justice Henchy's comment that the door for legal aid is going to be kicked open by the right applicant and right petitioner to the courts, it is only a matter of time before someone comes looking for his or her constitutional due in the form of meaningful civil legal aid. The Government should act now to reform and better fund legal aid in an orderly way before we are bounced into rushed legislation as a result of a court decision or have policy decisions made not by Cabinet but by the facts of the right case. I am more than happy to help with that. I have a Bill on legal aid which is due to start next week. I look forward to the Minister of State supporting that Bill and helping it get through the Houses to address this need.

We need to ensure that justice is successful. Providing extra judges is very important. As has been said previously, however, we need to provide courtrooms. There are large numbers of essentially unused courtrooms in this country. Typically, only approximately 25% or our courtroom capacity is used. Extra judges will help that but judges cannot operate alone. They need additional extra registrars and judicial assistants and the administrative backup of the Courts Service.

I will finish by echoing the Chief Justice again. It is not just about judges and courtrooms if we want to make justice accessible. I commend this Bill to the House given that it will make justice accessible but I believe much more still needs to be done.

Deputy Seán Canney

I also welcome the fact that this Bill is before the House. It is important that we provide more judges fairly swiftly and that justice is done and seen to be done in a fairly efficient manner. As other speakers have said, a judge alone is not the justice system but is just part of the overall process. We need to have proper, modern courthouses and the backup teams that are required to ensure that justice is done.

I know of many cases of people accused of certain things who have been waiting for a long time for justice to be served, one way or the other. It is a huge source of trauma and frustration for people when they cannot get access to court in a timely fashion in order that their case can be addressed. In many cases people walk away from justice because they believe it is too much hassle. We end up with situations where people are denied justice because an efficient system is not there for them.

We are coming out of the dark ages in terms of how we treat the judicial system, how it works and what purpose it serves. I welcome the fact that additional judges will be appointed but they will need adequate backup. The planning system is such that the number of planning applications that go to judicial review is enormous. We talk about building housing and developing our infrastructure but because we do not have an efficient judicial system, these processes are delayed. We need to have specialised courts and expertise within those courts to deal with the likes of planning applications, family breakdown and so on. The courts must be accessible and there must be a full team available to make sure the work is carried out and decisions are made as quickly as possible.

I am going to be a bit parochial now and refer to the courthouse in Tuam, in my constituency, which has been closed for about 25 years. It is a fine building in the town but it is now derelict. Approximately 20 years ago, the Courts Service bought an additional building beside it costing around £600,000, back when pounds were real pounds. Basically, that has been left idle ever since. Meanwhile, the Courts Service is renting space here and there for court services. The courthouse in Tuam is on the Courts Service list of capital projects but it has not moved one iota because the service does not have enough funding to carry out the necessary work. It has been put to me that courthouses are used for only a limited time but it is incredible that we would let a public building in a town fall into dereliction in the context of discussions around vacancy and vacant properties. The vacant property tax should be levied on whoever owns that building, whether it is the local authority or the Courts Service. It is a fine building but it is currently a stain on the landscape of the town. I ask the Minister of State to have a look at this. The Office of Public Works, OPW, was due to do some preparatory work on the building back in 2016 or 2017 but it has not advanced one iota since. The building itself is listed but if the Courts Service engages with Galway County Council, it might find a solution to the problem, put a proper courthouse in place and bring a public building back to life. Perhaps other uses could be found for it but we are wasting valuable money. Despite all of the billions we are getting in, we are wasting money all of the time. We have been spending a lot of money on rent for the last 20 years and we spent money on purchasing an additional site. I estimate that well over €1 million has been spent and that will be wasted if this project is not done in an efficient manner. We need to bring a bit of pride back into our services.

I will not linger further, other than to say that we need more judges in their own right and we also need to have the teams with them. It is important to recognise that the Minister of State is making progress and I support him with this Bill.

Deputy Michael Collins

The Courts Bill 2023, if passed, will increase the maximum number of judges in the District Court, Circuit Court, High Court and Court of Appeal. This increase in judicial resources may lead to the faster and more efficient processing of court cases. It may also help to reduce the backlog of cases in the courts and improve access to justice. Overall, the Bill seeks to enhance the functioning of the Irish courts system by providing adequate resources in the form of an increased number of judges. This may lead to improved efficiency, better outcomes for litigants and a more accessible and fair justice system.

I have asked before and I ask again about the plans that are in place to appoint a State solicitor to west Cork to replace Mr. Malachy Boohig, who retired from that post in December 2022 after 36 years of service. We are aware that Mr. Jeremiah Healy, the solicitor in Fermoy who is the State solicitor for east Cork, is acting State solicitor for west Cork at the moment but this is not a satisfactory long-term arrangement, as we want to retain our own State solicitor in west Cork. There are plenty of suitably qualified solicitors willing to take up this position.

While the appointment of judges is slightly beyond our brief here, I do know a lot of great, qualified people who have approached me on this issue. I do not think judges should be political appointees in any way, shape or form but they have made the point to me that it is impossible to be appointed as a judge, even though they might have worked up along the line professionally over the years. It is very unfair to some who feel they are qualified to be considered as judges. Maybe the appointment process will become more transparent in the near future.

Another huge issue for me as a Deputy, and I am sure it is true of other Deputies, is migration. Why do we get such vague answers from the Department of Justice to specific queries we make? Surely if we have all of the details and the person in question's authorisation, we should be able to get definitive answers and not just the usual generic responses or links to websites. I am dealing with a lady from Ghana who came here on a 90-day visitor visa under extreme circumstances to help her sister whose young baby died. I am trying to get an answer as to how this young lady can stay here for longer than the original 90-day visa in order to help her sister. Answers are not forthcoming from the Department of Justice, which I find totally unreasonable. This is not just an issue with this case but with other similar cases. I urge the Minister of State to look into this.

Regarding the courts and the cases that come before them, gardaí play a huge role in preventing people from ending up before the courts. Community gardaí are very important but I see less and less activity by community gardaí throughout the country. Community gardaí are becoming rare and the new Garda roster is becoming a huge issue that needs to be addressed. If the Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, continues on the road he is travelling, gardaí will earn less in both wages and allowances for working unsocial hours. All in all, we will have a Garda service whose members are greatly unhappy and that is not something we need at this time. There is increased activity in the courts as a result of the closure of Garda stations and the fact that there are fewer gardaí out and about in the community. We lost quite a number of Garda stations in west Cork under the previous Fine Gael-led Government and that has led to increased criminal activity and increased worry for people. I hope the Government will address these issues going forward.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I am delighted to speak on this legislation. We are facing a crucial moment in our nation's history. Our country is being fundamentally transformed by powerful and nefarious interests who seek to change our way of life and the very fabric of our society, sovereignty and safety. The Government has participated in creating one crisis after another in order to push through unacceptable, dangerous solutions. It has spent the last three years lap dancing, prancing and wriggling seductively in the laps of its globalist masters. I do not say that lightly. The main Opposition parties and the Opposition on the left, while screaming and wailing on cue, are also clearly signed up to these globalists. It is nothing but theatre.

The Green Party is green on the outside but it is red on the inside and has no business ever being in government. It does more damage to the country and its environment with its ridiculous policies and its only mantra-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I hate to interrupt but we are discussing the Courts Bill, which relates to the appointment of judges.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I am talking about the appointment of judges. I am talking about the charade that goes on here with the Bills we pass, about the other power struggle that is going on and about this House being diminished. That is what I am talking about, with the indulgence of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

I will talk about the Courts Bill. I have a lot to say about the courts. As I said, when deals are agreed between parties, each of them gets its own number of judges appointed. The cake is sliced up for appointees and judges. We saw how ferociously and vociferously Shane Ross’s Judicial Appointments Bill was opposed in order to prevent any kind of independent oversight on the Judiciary. There are huge problems.

I will go back to what I said about the Green Party and taxes. Everybody has bought into the situation here. We just put on more carbon tax and more tax. We freeze people out of their homes, literally, in the name of climate change. It is all one mantra. If you dare to challenge it, or if people in positions in Teagasc and other organisations have alternative scientific evidence, they are not even allowed to speak of it or their promotion prospects will be damaged. They have been damaged and threatened. Is that a free democratic country? Is that the country of Liam Lynch, whose death we commemorated last weekend? He gave his life 100 years ago. Is that what he and the other great leaders fought for? I was delighted to see an Teachta Jim O’Callaghan and an Teachta Lahart come down to our commemorations for our great noble leader and the ideals and values he had. I was delighted to listen to the homily given by Bishop Alphonsus Cullinan about the ideas and values of Liam Lynch and his comrades-in-arms, including in Cumann na mBan, and the values they had for Ireland. What would they think of Ireland today? I do not know what they would think of it today. That is for history to write but I do not believe this is the Ireland they would have wanted.

The courts were mentioned here. Deputy Michael Collins raised a point earlier today about the banks. Every one of us has had issues with banks, legal firms and the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, since the so-called bank crash and the subsequent bailout. I said when NAMA was set up that it was like a wild animal released in the woods and nobody knew where it would end up. We have the mess. There are no regulations for these banking entities even though we are big shareholders in some of them. We have no recourse for justice for ordinary people in the courts. When they go to the courts for protection, fairness and fair play, they cannot get it. Some of them are going in as lay litigants - this is no criticism of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle or of Deputy O'Callaghan - because they cannot afford representation. They are shunned, disapproved of and destroyed. Their lives are destroyed.

We have repossessions. We have a third force going around. We have had this debate several times about the security industry as well. They are going around without proper court documents doing evictions and repossessions of homes, without any proper paperwork and with no recourse. The gardaí stand idly by in many cases. I have supported the Garda all my life and want to support them. We have seen this happen in Balbriggan, in Roscommon and in many parts of the country. People are terrorised and their health fails. They are broke and famished. We see businesses like the one that Deputy Collins mentioned in Clonakilty - a seventh-generation business. The current generation is 44 years in the premises but was thrown to the wind with no recourse to justice. When we ask Ministers here about such matters, they tell us that they cannot interfere in the banks. We have regulators galore and court persons who should defend these people. I am not saying they should defend them blindly, but they should give them access to justice. They need some recourse to justice because of contracts being broken, contract law being shredded and torn up. In some cases, the contract they had with the bank went to an entity which sent it to a second entity before it eventually went to somebody else. That could not happen in any democracy and it would not happen here if the relevant sections of our courts and our judicial system were working hand in hand.

I know there is a separation of powers across the river but I am concerned. This is not the first time I have spoken in this vein in the House. I have been down in the courts many times. I had occasion to go there in advance of the last general election when a candidate - God rest her - died suddenly during the election campaign. Our election in Tipperary was going to be postponed. This was a costly and daunting experience for my good self. It was prohibitively costly to ensure we had a free and open election in Tipperary on the same day - ar an lá céanna le gach áit eile sa tír. We had to fight for that. We had to go into the courts. We may have been there only ten minutes but the costs were frightening. I will be honest and tell the truth - those costs are still outstanding. Even though I was acting in good faith and in the public interest, I was hit with costs along with Councillor Joe Hannigan, rather than the public interest being served. It beggared belief that night at midnight when the Government relented and allowed the election to go ahead. The case was left hanging and no costs were awarded to me or to anybody else. I can handle that but I am talking about ordinary people who have no access to the courts.

I am dealing with the case of a woman and her family who were evicted from a house in Wicklow. Thirteen men came into her house in the dark of night with two females in the house, and a Garda car sitting outside on the street. When they approached that Garda car for protection, they were just dismissed. I will not say that they were laughed at. The Acting Chair is familiar with this case. We spoke about it an hour ago. There was no justice. I have been in court in Dún Laoghaire a number of times with that lady. Now the case is put off until 2025. Justice delayed is definitely justice denied. That family had their house repossessed even though there was no proper paperwork. It was contested but nothing can be done about it, and a family is now homeless. We talk every day here about the homeless but we do not mention the homelessness that the State, with or without the judicial system, is presenting and causing. I refer to family farms, family businesses and family homes. There has been a trail of utter destruction in the past ten years, with no accountability. There is no recourse to justice in the courts because it is so prohibitively costly. As well as that, you cannot get in because cases are stacked up and there are delays.

I welcome the appointment of a number of new judges. They are badly needed. As someone said earlier, court clerks and other personnel are also needed because cases are listed. To get discovery of documents now in some courts is nigh impossible. Why is that? It should not be so. You are entitled to discovery. If orders are made for discovery, it should be obtained. Cases are going on. For example, the Circuit Court travels throughout the country and sits three or four times a year in Clonmel and locations in other counties. It has a list of cases as long as this bench waiting to be heard. Some of them will not be heard for ten years. That is farcical. When the prosecution speaks with the barristers who are defending, they might decide that a case is too long and cannot be held in an eight-day sitting because it could take up to 15 or 16 days. I know, because I went through it myself. Bhí mé ann mé féin. You have to wait and wait for five, ten or 15 years. That is not a functioning Judiciary or a functioning democracy. It neither looks like one nor sounds like one. They are the issues, every day of the week. I have huge concerns about what is happening to people who are not being allowed access to justice.

As I said, we are here today in our beloved country. We need to think, look and see where we are going to get a clearer picture of what is happening if we cannot have confidence and faith in our judicial system. We have lost it in our banking system because they betrayed all of us. I voted here for a bank bailout. That was the biggest political mistake I made in my life. I did not vote for the so-called bailout because it was a cleanout. Here we go again. Yesterday we had the merry dance of making an announcement outside while we were debating homeless figures inside. I stood here looking for €2 million to progress a motorway to stop the slaughter on the N24 between Limerick and Waterford. There is a €2 million shortfall in the funding for the consultants to design the road. The Minister for Finance was out brandishing a surplus of €10 billion to €15 billion on behalf of the Department of Finance.

We are going to have imaginary low inflation. I hope it happens, but I have no degrees in maths and still am not foolish enough to fall for this kind of spin. It is all spin and nothing short of spin. That is what is wrong. You dare not challenge it because then you are the worst in the world and you are out of kilter. You are all out of step except my Johnny, so Johnny has to sit down. "Croppies lie down" - the old adage is still there.

We just need to be open-eyed and see where we are going. We need to see the situation regarding inward migration in this country. Before anyone accuses me of wolf-whistling or being racist, I am not. However, we have figures supplied by the Minister for Justice showing 3,000 and 4,000 different times over seven years when migrants came here with no documentation whatsoever. They are being moved around in buses in the dead of night. Are we trying to store up trouble? The Irish people are the people of the céad míle fáilte, of a sense of the meitheal and of welcome and support. Communities have done so much to welcome refugees from the war in Ukraine. Ordinary people have welcomed refugees into their homes and everything else, but now it has become a money racket for big business and the costs are shocking. It is some of the hotels here in Dublin and the centres. They are getting €30 million a year. It is a money racket. It is unfortunate that people need our help and support, but the racket should never be allowed to happen. In one case we have people opening their homes freely and allowing refugees in, and on the other hand we have money from America. I know of agents and men - ordinary people - sourcing houses. They do not have businesses or offices. They are just sourcing accommodation and getting a very handsome cut. They continue to get a percentage of the amount of people accommodated. Is that the Ireland of the welcomes? Is that the Ireland of the support for the small people, the Ireland our forefathers fought for and the Ireland of the ideals they had? I certainly do not think so. We must deal with inward migration. We need to not be just the lapdogs of Europe, running off to the World Economic Forum and taking our orders from other places.

The Teachtaí Dála anseo put together a Government. I will not say it was elected, though its members were elected individually. The Government was formed here with grubby deals and the support of some Independents who besmirch the name "Independent" on many issues. They might as well be Fine Gael-lite or Fianna Fáil-lite. Then that Government takes decisions that are driving our people into penury. We saw it last night, when we could not get more than five Teachtaí to stand up with us as we were pleading for us to cop ourselves on as a State with the carbon tax and not put more perishment and penury on ordinary people. Everybody knows the infrastructure is not there to roll out electric vehicles. I mentioned the child labour and slave labour involved in mining materials to make batteries. It is all a big con, but that will not be spoken about at all. That is over there. That is dirty talk. Let us put that away. We are to have one narrative now, which is green, clean and electric and to hell with dirty fossil fuel and the oil companies that invested such money here and still want to invest in Barryroe. I heard Deputy Naughten earlier talking about investment somewhere in his constituency and what Germany is doing at the moment in disconnecting its nuclear power and becoming nearly fully reliant on fossil fuel. Why do we have to be so blinkered here and to just bow our heads to anything that is green? We are going down a cul-de-sac and then the gate will be closed behind us and we will have no way of coming back.

Our people will not have food with the way our farmers are being treated. When they go to the courts for justice over below-cost selling by the major moguls and supermarkets, they get none because money is power. The power of money says big is beautiful and wonderful, and to hell with small farmers. I met the sheep farmers who were present in the Seanad earlier. They are being wiped out. These people have a clean product that is world-renowned in Irish lamb. I must declare an interest that my own family has produced mountain and hill sheep for generations and hope to continue, in spite of the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, and all the NGOs and all the different reports by Teagasc and the citizens' assembly that are attacking and demonising farmers. The citizens' assembly is anseo. This is the citizens' assembly that I, thanks be to God, am privileged to have been elected to, rather than one where everyone is hand-picked and people spill out the narrative and attack and demonise ordinary rural-dwellers and farming families who put us in these places. They must have recourse to the courts for justice, but they have no place to go. We have a security agency based in Tipperary for all these so-called third forces that came in here from the North and countries overseas - I call them mobsters - acting on behalf of the receivers and the sheriffs. It is disgusting. The sheriffs are under the Courts Bill too, but they are totally untouchable.

Deputy Cormac Devlin

I welcome the opportunity to examine the Courts Bill 2023. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and his officials for their ongoing work on this important and technical legislation. I also acknowledge the Minister of State's presence throughout this Stage of the Bill.

At the heart of this Bill is the objective of improving access to justice for all citizens by ensuring the courts are properly resourced to deliver justice efficiently, especially around the new family courts. Having an efficient courts system that provides timely access to justice is of central importance to our society. The courts exist to protect our rights and uphold the rule of law. Most citizens will have reason to interact with the courts system at some point. When they do, it is important they experience an efficient, fair and timely service that is equally accessible to all. The Courts Bill 2023 allows for an increase in the number of judges in the District Court, Circuit Court, High Court and Court of Appeal. It will, therefore, implement recommendations from both the report of the judicial planning working group and the OECD. This substantial increase in judicial resources will be complemented by the ongoing implementation of the far-reaching Courts Service modernisation plan, for which additional funding has been provided in 2023, as well as strategic reforms to court operations including the frequency, location and management of courts.

I am mindful of the independence of the Judiciary. Some of the remarks made by Members during this debate display an ignorance of the workings of the courts, especially around issues like the attire and the impact of crime on victims. They were unhelpful and added little to the debate. Judges, barristers, solicitors and the entire legal community work hard, in many cases in difficult circumstances, to administer justice fairly. However, Deputies across the House will be aware of the significant delays to court lists, especially at the family court. I am aware of one case that has been ongoing for almost 18 months and has yet to reach a substantive hearing. This is completely unacceptable, particularly for the children involved, who are massively impacted by the delay.

The Bill will deal with these delays through the appointment of 44 new judges. The increase in the number of judges will be implemented in two phases, as the Minister of State earlier outlined, with provision for 24 additional judges this year and a further 20 judges, subject to an assessment of the impact of the initial appointments. This will ultimately increase the overall number of judges from 173 to 217. It is critical that the increase in the number of judges is accompanied with reforms to improve efficiency, such as a five-day sitting week for the District Courts and arrangements to give court presidents more powers to manage their court jurisdictions. People who interact with the system currently report long delays to cases, but also disruptions to court hearings due to the lack of judges. It has been mentioned that justice delayed is justice denied, and that is true. This Bill will increase the number of judges and it is an important step alongside the Courts Service modernisation plan, the Family Courts Bill 2022 and further capital investment in new facilities, which is very much required.

Deputy Jim O'Callaghan

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I support the legislation being brought forward by the Minister of State and commend him on doing so.

We should acknowledge that our courts are as integral a part of the governance of this country as our Legislature and Executive are. All three of them are essential for the purpose of ensuring our democracy functions properly. All three of them are essential for the purpose of ensuring that we have a separation of powers and that the citizen is well served by the institutions of the State. Unfortunately, people sometimes get confused between the purpose of the institutions of the State and the individuals who work within them. For instance, sometimes people think that Dáil Éireann's primary function is about the role of the politician and what politicians get out of it but it is not. We are elected here in order to be the representatives of the Irish people and in order to ensure the laws of the Irish people are made in a careful and competent manner. Similarly, the Executive and the Government are there in order to ensure that the policies that are created by the State and the laws that are drafted and voted on by these Houses of the Oireachtas are implemented properly.

We also have to say that the courts are there to serve the citizen. They are there to serve the citizen because the courts are the only place in this country where justice can be administered, and it is administered in public. If you look at the three arms of the Government, if you look at the Legislature and the Executive, you will see that they are enormously resourced. I mention Deputies and Senators in these Houses, which is an appropriate reference. Deputies can hire two people and Senators can hire a person. We have wonderful staff in the Houses of the Oireachtas who look after us and we have facilities provided to us in order to ensure we have constituency offices. Similarly, if you look at the Executive, Ministers have the support of Government Departments and statutory bodies that feed into those Government Departments and they have a huge amount of resources when it comes to ensuring they can carry out their executive functions on behalf of the State.

If you look at the Judiciary, you will see that we have historically invested little money in our courts. This is part of the reason, as Deputy Mattie McGrath said earlier, there are delays in the courts. The reason there are delays is that as a country we have decided we do not want to invest in the courts to a sufficient extent. The downside of that is not that lawyers or judges miss out but that citizens miss out because they have an entitlement to ensure they have a Courts Service that serves their interests, and that is the primary function of it.

This legislation will increase the number of judges in the country to 190, and I welcome that. Let us recognise that we have a population of 5 million in this country, which means that with 190 judges, we have about four judges per 100,000 people. That is considerably below other European countries. It is probably the lowest of all Council of Europe countries. The Czech Republic has 28 judges per 100,000 people and Poland has 25 judges per 100,000 people. We give out about the Polish judiciary but at least there are sufficient numbers of them. Germany also has 25 judges per 100,000 people.

We need to resource our courts in order to ensure that citizens have ready and quick access to them. We need to ensure that we fund the courts and that the IT systems there are up, modern and professional. If we do not have a professional court system the people who lose out are not lawyers or judges but the citizens of this country, who are entitled to have a system of administration of justice that serves them.

An Cathaoirleach Gníomhach (Deputy Mattie McGrath)

An Teachta Pringle is sharing time with an Teachta Connolly.

Deputy Thomas Pringle

Hopefully Deputy Connolly will be in before I am finished. If not, maybe she can go after somebody else.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I welcome the Bill’s intention to lift the cap on the number of judges in Ireland and to appoint 24 additional judges, which would bring the number of judges in Ireland from 173 to 194. A recent report published by the European Commission shows that Ireland’s spending on courts and prosecution services lagged behind the European median figures significantly. It found that Ireland had the lowest figure in terms of judges per 100,000 people, at just 3.27, well below the median of 17.6. It also showed that Ireland had the lowest number of public prosecutors, just 2.6 per 100,000, compared with the European median figure of 11.1. This shows a need for increased investment in judicial resources and so I welcome the appointment of additional judges by the end of the year and the possibility of more being appointed next year.

I am glad that the Minister of State recognises that timely access to justice is of central importance to society. Competent and modern courts are essential to any democracy and the current backlog of cases as a result of Covid-19 is not acceptable. At the moment there remains a backlog of 66,000 summonses in the Irish courts. As the Law Society of Ireland outlines:

Delayed court sittings cause real-life consequences, at a time when many are in vulnerable situations. These backlogs delay justice for citizens and justice delayed is justice denied.

A properly functioning judicial system and properly resourced courts are extremely important. We need to ensure that our citizens have reasonable access to justice, but unfortunately the current judicial numbers do not allow for this. The appointment of more judges will go a long way to ensuring better access, but 24 is not nearly enough and so I would urge the Minister of State to ensure more appointments are made in the near future.

However, I also believe it is not enough to merely appoint more judges; we need to ensure our judicial membership is inclusive and intersectional. The European Commission report showed that the percentage of female judges in Ireland in 2020 was significantly lower than the EU average of 56%, with just 39% of judges in Ireland being female. It also showed a significant under-representation of women in the highest roles within the judicial system. Unfortunately, the research did not look at the under-representation of minority groups but we do not need a report to tell us that there is a severe lack of judges from minority backgrounds. Our judges should reflect our society and so this legislation is a missed opportunity to address issues of under-representation, of women and of minority groups. I hope that the Minister of State will consider addressing issues of under-representation in upcoming legislation. We need to ensure sufficient diversity of judges to help to counteract unconscious bias from developing and to promote inclusion within the Irish courts.

While I support this Bill, I would question - and maybe the Minister of State can respond to me on this - why legislation is required every time there is an increase in the appointments of judges. This slows down the appointments process significantly, at a time when an increase is extremely necessary and well overdue. I know there is an intention to bring in further legislation next year, which seems unnecessary to me. I would like to know why the Minister of State has not included the total increase necessary under this legislation. The Minister of State said in his opening statement that the working group recommended that a phased approach be taken to address judicial resourcing, but what is the reason for this, especially given that it requires legislation every time? In reality, with the best will in the world, it will take at least a year for legislation to be prepared, go through the process, go through all the Houses, get passed and have judges appointed. It will take at least that length of time.

When Deputy Jim O’Callaghan was speaking, he emphasised the importance of the Judiciary under our Constitution. It is true that the Legislature, the Government and the courts are the three arms of our State. Maybe this is a cynical view but it seems to me that the Legislature has taken the view that it controls the courts by making sure it restricts the number of judges and restricts the ability of the courts to function. It makes sure it controls the courts in that way so they will not step out of line. The Minister of State will tell me I am being cynical about this but you have to look at the process involved in appointing more judges. That it has to go through the legislative process seems crazy to me. If you look at the number of judges per head of population we have, it explains a lot about why our judicial system does not work that well.

Deputy Catherine Connolly

I welcome this short Bill. Depending on how you count it, there are four pages and seven sections. The purpose of the Bill - to provide for an increase in the maximum number of judges - has been outlined frequently. I welcome that and it is positive. However, this is being introduced following ongoing and serious concerns being expressed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the High Court, other courts and organisations on the ground about the serious lack of judges, which is leading to backlogs and ever-lengthening waiting lists.

The Bill is based on a comprehensive report, which I have read and looked at. I come back to the theme that keeps recurring in that report: the lack of judges and the consequent failure to provide an efficient court system. The report also mentions the interlinked changes that are necessary and access to justice, which will not be served completely by the increase in judges but which needs other fundamental changes as well. I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for producing the Bill digest once again for us under pressure, as it does repeatedly. We should look at how it constantly has to produce papers for us under pressure and at the last minute.

The lack of judges has been the subject of significant criticism. It has been stated that "the single biggest thing that the Oireachtas could do to improve the quality of justice in Ireland is to legislate to provide for additional judicial posts", which we are finally doing. The current President of the High Court, as already mentioned, Mr. Justice David Barniville, has called for an increase in the number of High Court judges to address the volume of cases coming before the court and the complexity of cases, which has been pointed out in the report on more than one occasion. The report cites the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015, which took seven years to implement, as an example, due to the complexity thereof and the consequences for the number of staff and judges needed to deal with that if we are serious about doing so. It took seven years to get that far.

The former President of the High Court, Ms Justice Mary Irvine, has called for the appointment of additional judges on a number of occasions. The number of judges increased in 2021 by five, but Ms Justice Irvine state that this was insufficient. She did not spare us. She told us bluntly what was necessary. She indicated that the additional five judges were already accounted for at that time and described the current situation as desperate.

We have also been subjected to criticism from the European courts and various other bodies. Here we are again. I welcome the Minister of State's work and that of the Department. We are finally making provision for additional judges. The report that is before me works along with the report from the OECD, which showed the huge gaps that exist here in comparison with other countries. The authors point out that it is difficult to make comparisons with other systems. I refer to the English system, for example, with its use of magistrates and so on. Notwithstanding those differences, we are way behind. All the statistics have been set out.

The increase in the number of judges is certainly very welcome and will help in improving access to justice, but it is only one aspect of access to justice that we are finally addressing. We are going to do it on a phased basis. I understand that because, a bit like housing, we have created a mess and left so many gaps that we can only now do it on a phased basis because when an extra judge is appointed, there must also be a team in place. I must declare a conflict of interest here because somebody very close to me works in that area. There is a whole team of judicial assistants, registrars and lots of other ancillary help that is required. We will do it on a phased basis.

This has been a theme of repeated public contributions by the Chief Justices over the years. They have spoken about the consequences of the lack of judges and the imbalance in power between people who have money and wealth, who can access law through the courts, and those who do not. They have repeatedly highlighted that. That is significant. It is something I might come back to if I have the time in the context of the role judges have performed for us. On occasions I can be quite critical of judgments that come down but by and large, given the restricted background and schooling from which judges come, they have nevertheless served us well. They have come out with judgments that have been extremely critical of the Government, particularly in the area of the environment, which I will come back to. Without them, I do not know where we would be, notwithstanding all the problems surrounding access to justice.

The current Chief Justice has welcomed this Bill and said it is "the first evidence-based attempt to assess the demand for judges on an objective and measurable basis". That is obviously very important. He said, "It is a real and tangible recognition of the fact that a functioning justice system is not a luxury, but is a critical component of a modern liberal democratic society, which is founded on the rule of law". He went on to point out that this is not enough either because people must know their rights around access to justice. He said high-quality decision-making in courtrooms is not the sole objective. He notes that if people do not know their rights to begin with, they cannot get a hearing. Maybe they cannot get a hearing because of the delays in the system or cannot afford to go to court if it is too expensive, as it is in many cases, despite the pro bono work done by various solicitors and barristers. The risk of an adverse order is always there and therefore the quality of justice is not the quality we should have.

The Chief Justice also spoke about the legal aid system, which I will come back to. I welcome the fact that there will finally be a review of it. It has taken quite a long time to have a review of the legal aid system. All the restrictions under which that operated and the areas of law completely excluded from it are well known. I hope the review is an open and accountable review that looks to deal with access to justice on every level, particularly in respect of the environment and climate change, not to mention the Labour Relations Commission and all the other areas that are excluded if we are seriously interested in access to justice.

The previous Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Frank Clarke, is also worth mentioning. He repeatedly returned to the barriers to access to justice over and over in a conference in October 2021 and again just last year. I do not have the time to go into that but I want to pay tribute to the fact that he has repeatedly highlighted the barriers to justice, one of which is the lack of judges, and all the other barriers as well. He stated:

... there are undoubtedly areas where the problems of access to justice can be particularly acute. Minorities, marginalised groups or the vulnerable obviously run a real risk of having less effective access to justice than others.

He elaborated on that. What is interesting is that he spoke about the moral requirement or argument justifying access to justice but also the practical argument that it is actually good for society and our economy. He goes into that and there was a special speaker on that matter at that conference. The real consequence of not taking action, of course, is that we are going to be subject to repeated condemnation. We have been there with the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice. There are all these practical and serious consequences to not taking action. Today is a start in that regard.

There is a narrative that has emerged repeatedly with this Government and the previous Government that objectors are causing the housing problem or stopping development. It is a very dangerous and disingenuous argument that is not justified at all. With the new planning legislation that is going to come before us, we are going to restrict people's access to justice and to taking a judicial review. That is extremely dangerous and not based on any evidence. It is simply a narrative that seeks to divert attention from whatever government is in power and its failure to deal with housing or proper sustainable development. It is extremely dangerous and has to stop. The Government and various backbenchers are creating this narrative about non-stop objections, which is not based on reality. I spent 17 years working at local authority level. I saw people struggle to make reasoned submissions on planning applications against all the odds without being rewarded in any way. Rather, they were demonised. There was a very good article by a solicitor back in November which highlighted a lot of this. She wrote:

In a recent study by Community Law & Mediation and Dublin City University, representatives of vulnerable and marginalised groups – for example Travellers, migrants, older people – reported feeling largely excluded from environmental and planning decision making.

She also made the following important point:

In the midst of a climate [and biodiversity] crisis, members of the public and NGOs should be empowered to fight for clean, healthy and liveable communities. Access to justice should be strengthened and promoted.

She further pointed out that "the entire process has been overshadowed by a troubling narrative driven by members of Government and the construction lobby". Of course, she also highlighted the Aarhus Convention, which has been brought up repeatedly in our courts.

The Minister is more aware of this than I am. The trinity of people involved in any planning application was highlighted repeatedly, namely, the developer, the local authority, and the members of the public who have a vital role to play in making sustainable submissions in relation to any given planning application. I will look quickly at what we owe various groups that have taken it upon themselves to go to court with all the problems and all the risks they have taken on. The Galway city ring road went to An Bord Pleanála, which granted permission for it. This was then challenged and that decision was quashed because An Bord Pleanála, the highest planning body in this country, failed to take on board the relevant climate action plan. It was not aware that an action plan had been passed by the Government four days before An Bord Pleanála made its decision. Seemingly it was not aware of all the other climate legislation or obligations either. Again, we are thankful to a group on the ground that took that case.

I go back to the climate mitigation plan quashed on 31 July 2020. This seems to be a significant date every year because it is the same date connected to the sprat case, which I will come to in a minute. The Friends of the Irish Environment challenged the Government's mitigation plan. This was in 2020, after we had declared a climate and a biodiversity emergency. The High Court determined that the Government's national mitigation plan did not comply with the requirements of the underlying legislation. The reasons quoted were vagueness, lack of specificity and that the citizen was entitled to know what the law was saying, which did not happen in that case. There have been many other cases. I mentioned the sprat case, which is particularly important. The Government did everything right on this occasion and brought in a policy to stop large vessels of more than 18 m from going into inland waters to fish unsustainably. They gave a lead-in period in relation to the sprat. Two people, as was their right, challenged that and took the case. Three or four years passed. As they were found successful on one specific area, given that consultation with Europe and England had not taken place, that policy was set at naught. The point I am making is the fact that it took so long in the courts. There also seemed to be no urgency on the part of the Government to make a case that this was extremely important for the sustainability of our fishing stock and for fishermen. No case was made at all, it would seem. Again, ordinary people are bringing cases to our attention constantly.

If this is the start of seriously looking at making justice accessible to all regardless of means, then it is a good start and I welcome it. However, this is only one tiny piece of the jigsaw and the other pieces are there. We know people do not have equal access to the courts. We know there are many barriers, cost being one of them, and no provision in Irish law to allow for people to come together and take an action jointly. I will repeat it again. This is really relevant when we look at a climate and biodiversity emergency and a housing crisis. A narrative that is repeated non-stop is that the objectors are to blame, as opposed to listening to what people are telling us at great trouble and at great cost. They use the courts as best they can in the most limited way and we should be learning.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I fully understand and appreciate the necessity of increasing the number of judges at the present time. The population is growing, the demands are growing, more and more cases are being referred to the courts and more and more cases have to be referred again and again to the courts. There are also a number of cases over which I would disagree with my learned colleague, where there are judicial reviews that could be handled in a different fashion without taking up the time and the expense of the courts. Put simply, the lesson I have learned over the years from that is that people's need for a house, a home of their own, has to be taken into account as well. It must rank highly on the order of priorities. Notwithstanding anything that interferes with that right, provided everything is done in a proper fashion and in accordance with the law, we should do our best to facilitate it.

One thing that has put particular strain on the courts over recent years is of course the financial crash and the fallout from it, which brought thousands of people into a situation where they had to go to court or were brought to court by lending institutions of one kind or another. To be fair to the judges and the courts, in many cases they gave a fair hearing to these people in court. They had to wait to get to court, however. The action taken by some of the lending institutions, referred to already by Deputy Mattie McGrath and by other people contributing to this debate, was somewhat different. Corners were cut; people were employed in evictions who should not have any right or authority in that area at all. I dealt with a number of cases myself, whereby I had to raise questions in the House as to whether these were legitimate sheriff's employees, members of An Garda Síochána or members of some other body appointed by a lending institution to force the family or families out of the house or houses, as the case may be. That was totally unacceptable, unnecessary and highly emotive from the point of view of depriving the family of a roof over their heads.

We have had a lot of discussion about lifting the ban on evictions in recent times. I can understand that and acknowledge it is a hugely pressing issue. We cannot forget that in some cases, the householders did not have the chance of going to court or anywhere. The system was short-circuited by those with the power and authority in their hands and the individuals in the homes and households were forced out. That continues to a certain extent and we as public representatives deal with it all the time. I readily admit that I have been in probably every court in the land except the Supreme Court over the past ten or 12 years. These cases arose from home repossessions and all that went with it and hardship was caused for an awful lot of people and families, many of whom were themselves bereaved or who were vulnerable at the time. We hear about how certain institutions were benevolent and so on. They were not. There were individuals in many of these institutions who pummelled the people concerned. Representatives from the institutions came again and again and were at their door every night waiting for the people to come home from work, knowing that they had no ability of paying for a house valued in a different time and in different circumstances and that the only way was out. Lots and lots of people had to leave by virtue of the force brought upon them by the lending institutions. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be glad to know I will not name the different institutions but I reserve the right to do so in the future as is necessary. I will tell her beforehand though.

One thing that has come to my attention in recent times with an increasing number of incidents is in the family law courts, where there is a new regime applicable that is called parental alienation. It has caused unbelievable distress to young mothers who are being separated forcibly from their children. Their children are detained by An Garda Síochána on foot of an order of the court, which is covered by the in camera rule. Everybody will say I do not have the right to raise this. If I do not have the right to raise this, then where is this issue to be raised? Where is the place for the people to raise the question of an injustice that is being done? I believe it has to be here.

I think the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would agree with me in another time and place because, as far as I am concerned, and there are many Deputies in this House who are aware of what was happening, there is now a clear indication that due process and natural justice will not necessarily prevail. This is a serious situation and there is no other place to raise this matter. This is the Legislature. It is where we raise these issues.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must again caution the Deputy in relation to due process. There is a separation of powers.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I am aware of the separation of powers as well and I have referred to this aspect of due process and natural justice publicly before in the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Well, okay.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

It is up to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to rule me out of order if she wishes, but I vehemently hold the views I have. This is because I have seen evidence which raises serious questions concerning the way in which women who are mothers of young children are being deprived of their rights under the Constitution. There is no other place to raise this question. I was challenged, in fact, by a solicitor acting for the other side in a case to disclose all my papers and to hand them over to him so he could use them as part of his case, including phone messages, etc. I told him that I was sorry but it was none of his business and I had the right to hold my messages and records confidentially in just the same way as he did. I then said, however, that if he wished to discuss this matter in court and waive the in camera rule I would be more than happy to accommodate him. This offer still stands.

The other thing I wish to point out is that there are serious cases where the rights of children have been overlooked, for want of a better description. Tusla has been asked to get involved but that agency cannot do so because it comes under the remit of the Department of Justice and the courts. It cannot, therefore, get involved in these cases. There are cases where serious allegations of child abuse have been made, some of which have been investigated by a member or members of An Garda Síochána. These have been frustrated and have run into the ground at a later stage. There remains, therefore, a serious question in this regard which needs to be examined urgently. The Minister has already agreed to carry out an investigation into the happenings in the family law courts and that the resulting report will be available by the end of the year. I do not think we have the time for this process. Time is running out fast. The nature and scale of the allegations brought to my attention are such that they have urged me to hurry and be more insistent in trying to achieve what women think should be their rights. I said "think should be their rights", for obvious reasons, but these are women's rights and they have an entitlement to their full rights without restriction. Nobody has the right to say to a mother of children that her rights are limited and will be subject to the views of the other side. There is an urgent need here for change and it should come sooner rather than later.

In support of this position, incidentally, I mention that a Justice of the Supreme Court in recent days has referred to the use of "expert witnesses", who take on celebrity status in some cases and become stronger than the courts based on them coming into court and that is the decision that prevails afterwards. Nobody questions it and this should not be the case. The courts themselves have the right to rely on witnesses, to listen to them or to dismiss them as irrelevant, if that is necessary. Some judges, thankfully, do that. At this stage, however, we must recognise the extent of the problem which exists and try to accommodate the women and children in this situation. Let us not forget that some women have been separated forcefully from their children for up to two or three years and some continue to be so. There is no agreed time limit within which they can be reunited with their children.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not sure where the Deputy is going with this. There is a separation of powers. We do not comment on court cases. There is a whole appeal mechanism-----

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

We do, actually.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Well, I am just-----

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I will give the Leas-Cheann Comhairle an instance.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are speaking on a Bill for the addition of judges. I ask the Deputy-----

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

I am speaking about things that need to be dealt with, as I have a right to do, in the context of the increase in the number of judges and the issues that might be in the Bill that have been referred to in the past in the House and which continue to be brought to my attention. In fact, they have also been brought to the attention of other Members of the House. I do not, therefore, intend to breach the rule concerning the courts and the separation of powers at all but I also point out, with respect, that I remember sitting in this House when there was a case before the courts. It was mentioned every day in this House. Now, theoretically, it should not have been mentioned. I believe that at the time, however, the issue was seriously in need of airing in the House, and it was. It did bring about some changes as well. I refer to cases that were recently before the courts too in respect of another dominant issue over the past couple of years. This issue had to be raised in the House while it was before the courts. The House was not responding quickly enough, so the courts did so. It was the reverse of the case I am making now.

I believe, therefore, that it is important that we recognise that the job we have to do is to represent people, and this includes all the people, including those in the courts and the judges. If there is an imbalance developing in either way, then we must do something about it. I reported something which happened recently that I was not happy about to someone directly involved in a case and the response I got was a question regarding whether I was there. I had to say I was not but that my questioner was. That was the difference. I had brought this matter to that person's attention. I knew about it previously but now that person knew about it as well and it was his or her job to do something about it.

I say this because when history comes to be written it will show that in this House in the past when issues were brought to the attention of the public and then ignored, we passed legislation. One of the items of legislation we passed was to protect the rights of the child. The general theme after that was we should listen to the children. We do not, though, always listen to the children, but we must listen to the children now and there is nobody else to bring up these issues on their behalf and that of their parents, whoever they may be, in different circumstances, and into public focus. I need to know what is the way in this regard.

People in my situation will be told that we can write to so-and-so. Yes, we know about that option. We can write and we will get a reply, if we are lucky, six months later or it will be found there is a reconstruction of the situation in such a way that it will not look well from the perspective of the case we have made and so on. We know all about that aspect. All in all, then, I believe now is the time to add on what is necessary and to ensure that other agencies, such as Tusla, concerned with protecting the rights of children can do their jobs independently. This is what they are supposed to do. This is what they were created to do by this House as well. Generally, they do so, but not where the courts are concerned. These agencies cannot go there either. Where the family law courts are concerned, these agencies cannot go there. They cannot do their job and they are fearful of doing their job. This is the way it works.

Five years ago, I would not have had this view on the issue at all. It came to my attention, however, through various sources, when examining cases I thought were straightforward and in no way convoluted, that extraordinary decisions were being made. This is a serious situation. All in all, though, I support this Bill. I urge that consideration be given to the issues I have raised as a matter of urgency. I ask that we try to ensure in delivering justice to all that it is seen and can be proven to be delivered to all. No restriction should be placed on the rights of mothers or the children going through the family law courts, under whatever excuse. I hope this will happen sooner rather than later. I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for her indulgence, because we both feel strongly about this subject. I think we will agree eventually but-----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not sure about that-----

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Well, it is never possible to tell because stranger things have happened.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am not sure about my indulgence.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan

Stranger things have happened.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I was struggling to see where the Deputy was going with that. Anyway, the time is almost up.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice (Deputy James Browne)

I thank all of the Deputies who contributed to the debate today. This is a short and technical Bill. Its objective is to provide a continuing basis for an effective courts system, which is of central importance to our society and economy. The Minister is committed to improving access to justice for all of our citizens.

It is important that our courts are properly resourced to deliver on this objective, and for the Government's policy objectives for the courts, which are already in train and planned. For these reasons, the Government has approved the proposal for 24 additional judges in phase 1, as recommended by the judicial planning working group. As I said, before proceeding with additional judges in phase 2 the Government will want to see evidence that the appointments under phase 1 are having an impact on waiting times and improving access to justice. These substantial increases in judicial resources will be complemented by the ongoing implementation of the courts modernisation programme as well as the strategic reforms in courts operations.

I will conclude by thanking Deputies again for their contributions to the debate. I look forward to the further Stages of the legislative consideration of this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.