Jim O'Callaghan
Dublin Bay South · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“This relates to section 69 of the Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, which amends Schedule 5 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to add the Courts Service to the Schedule.”
“The first four amendments in this group are minor drafting corrections. They corrected the wording in four places so that the Bill reads consistently. It is changing the word "references" to "a reference". They make no change to the substance or effect of the Bill.”
“The ARP scheme was introduced in July 2022 to recognise the generosity of members of the public who opened their houses, whether in their entirety or through the provision of a room, at their own expense to provide shelter to people displaced by the Ukraine war. The Department of Social Protection administers the scheme on my behalf.”
“I have no doubt it will be challenged, and I have to be able to convince a court, if it is being challenged, that this legislation weighs up conflicting interests and recognises there is a mechanism for somebody who has reformed himself to get off the register.”
“The scheme has been a lifeline for people from Ukraine displaced by the conflict, given high rental market rates and scarcity of rental accommodation.”
“I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle in the first instance for presiding over these Stages of the legislation. I am very pleased that this legislation has been enacted. I want to thank a few people very briefly. I thank Deputy McAuliffe for introducing me to Jason Poole. I thank Senator O'Loughlin for her work on this issue in the Seanad.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,181 lines we hold for Jim O'Callaghan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 54 of 84.
“The last thing we want to do is dictate to broadcasters that they cannot have live broadcasts or they can only have them in very limited circumstances. It is their decision to decide whether they want live broadcasts. My assessment of live broadcasts is they are more exciting from the point of view of the people who are on the live broadcast and from the audience's point of view. If they were told something was broadcast a couple of hours ago, it would lose some of its excitement. It should not be a decision for us though. It is a matter for the broadcaster to determine. We should stay away from that. One of the issues raised by Senators Mullen and McDowell is to put some responsibility on the broadcaster to try to correct a statement, if a defamatory statement has been made.”
“It is too unfair on a politician to say they are liable for that, they organised the meeting, and somebody came along and defamed another person. Obviously, the individual who makes the utterance is going to be liable, but should the politician also be liable? In my view, he or she should not. What is being done here is to try to recognise and respect that an important part of the broadcast media is live broadcasting. I disagree with Senator McDowell when he said we should not really be having live broadcasts. It is not for us to decide what Virgin, RTÉ or any broadcaster wants. That would involve us getting too censoriously involved in controlling the media. We should not be near that. I know that everyone in this House is a proponent of free speech.”
“We are talking about circumstances where a licensed broadcaster as defined under the Broadcasting Act 2009 either invites a contributor or somebody in the audience to make a contribution in respect of something that has been said on a live broadcast. Many people in this House and the Lower House organise public meetings. We do it for the reason that we believe it is very much in the public interest, and probably in our own political interest as well, to have public meetings where issues of public concern can be discussed. It attracts people to come along to the public meetings. However, if it is the case that somebody stands up at a public meeting and says something that is defamatory of another person, it is not fair in that circumstance for the politician who organised the meeting to be held liable for that publication.”
“I will try to be brief. At the outset, I will consider all the things that have been referred to here during the consideration of whether I need to bring forward Report Stage amendments. This is no effort by me or the Government to curry favour with the media. As I said previously, the purpose of defamation law and amendments to the Defamation Act is to try the balance the sometimes competing rights between the right to one's good name, on the one hand, and the right to freedom of expression on the other. It is a difficult balancing act. However, this is an area where we should try to balance it more in favour of the publisher. Let us think of an example.”
“They could get a correction order, an order of declaration for the purpose of correcting what was said. Those are available and there are other measures that do not depend upon the financial status of the person in the audience who has made the utterance. It is a worthwhile new statutory defence. I will consider the issue that was raised in the amendment but I encourage colleagues to support the section.”
“Most people, in general, are compliant and do not exceed the boundaries of what is permissible in respect of what can be said. It is a good provision. It will encourage broadcasters to have live broadcasts. We do not want to lose live broadcasts. It will also ensure that if broadcasters do not do the basic work in terms of ensuring they have control over who is coming on or they were aware of an individual had a tendency to utter things that are false about a person, in that instance they would be held liable. It is the case that the person who utters the defamatory statement will still be held liable. Senator McDowell said that most of these individuals may be straw people that you cannot get damages from. People can get other remedies under the Defamation Act.”
“On fairly basic principles of justice, it is unfair that somebody is to be held liable in respect of an utterance over which they had no control. As Senator McDowell is aware, there are a number of tests that have to be complied with by the broadcaster in order to avail of this defence. For instance, if the broadcaster knew there was a person who was regularly coming onto programmes or publishing utterances that were defamatory about an individual and knowingly put him into the audience or onto the panel, the broadcaster would then not get the protection of this defence. In terms of audience participation, it is beneficial from the point of view of public participation. It helps our democracy where we can have a broadcast that involves audience members.”
“I will be brief. This is a provision that I am introducing, which I hope the Oireachtas will support it, for the purpose of facilitating the freedom of expression side of the balancing act. Section 27A will be a worthwhile amendment once it is put into the Defamation Act. It will facilitate live broadcasts. We have to be careful as politicians stating whether we think live broadcasts are a good idea. We should not be getting into that territory. That is a matter for broadcasters to determine. However, it can be the case that broadcasters can be and are held liable for utterances made by other persons, whether in the audience or on a panel, in circumstances where there was really nothing the broadcaster could do to stop it from happening.”
“The amendment limits delay to being for editorial or control purposes, whereas delay could be for other reasons, for example, a technical issue. The fact that consideration is being given to the amendment, and the fact that officials in the Department are considering it, are, I hope, sufficient for the Senators who tabled the amendment. I appreciate the intention of it. It is certainly my objective to ensure that when this new section is introduced into the Defamation Act it will provide the live broadcast defence to broadcasts where there has been a slight delay. I hope this gives some satisfaction to the Senator and others.”
“However, I cannot accept the amendment tabled by Senator McDowell and others at present for a number of reasons. I will outline the reasons I cannot accept the amendment as drafted but, as I have said, I will give it some consideration because it is certainly the intention of the provision to ensure that if there is a slight delay in the broadcast it would still mean the broadcaster is able to avail of the new statutory protection. The problem with the amendment tabled by the Senators is that the term "live broadcast" is not used in the provision. The term "live broadcast defence" is used as a description of the defence but thereafter section 13 refers to "live programming". The amendment also refers to utterances but the defence is broader and refers to publication of a statement.”
“Again, it is a further protection and a further type of defence being provided to the media to enable them to conduct their work without fear of having defamation proceedings instituted against them when they have put in place measures to facilitate their own protection. The amendment tabled by Senator McDowell and others,0. as he indicated, would allow for the defence to operate where there was a short time delay between the utterance of any spoken matter and its broadcast. I can understand the purpose behind the amendment. What I can say to him is that the intention of the amendment is clear and my officials are examining the matter. I may table an amendment on Report Stage to clarify that a short delay would not impact an application of the section 13 defence.”
“In the first instance we are talking about the new section 13 I am including in the Bill. The purpose of section 13 is to provide another defence. This time it will be referred to as a live-broadcast defence. The purpose of this defence is that a broadcaster broadcasting a live situation will have some level of protection in response to a guest on the programme who utters something that is extremely defamatory. Obviously in this context, the person who utters the statement can still be held liable for the statement they utter. The purpose of the provision here is to provide some protection to the broadcaster in circumstances where that broadcaster may have had absolutely no knowledge of the publication that was about to be made.”
“The amount of that community service order can also increase from 240 hours to 480. For the record, the Probation Service does an excellent job. It probably does not get much recognition for the work it does but it does a huge amount of work, particularly in the area of children who come before the courts. I had a meeting the other day with senior officials from An Garda Síochána who are responsible for responding to youth crime. Again, we do not hear about it but there are some very positive results from the juvenile liaison officers and in diverting people from the path of crime.”
“On the issue of garda presenters, I hear very much what Deputy Kelly has said but before I do anything like that, there has to be resources in the DPP to take over the significant amount of work the gardaí do at present very efficiently and effectively. Deputy Callaghan welcomed the Bill and I note what she said about judges. I have dealt with that previously with regard to their numbers. Deputy Gannon made some contributions in respect of community service orders. It will also be the case in that miscellaneous provisions Bill I hope to bring forward in the forthcoming months that there will be a new statutory requirement in respect of community service orders. There is now going to be a situation in place where if a judge imposes a sentence of up two years, they will have to consider a community service order.”
“Deputy Kelly also spoke about An Garda Síochána. He mentioned several measures I mentioned to him about six months ago. They are coming. They are within the criminal justice and civil law miscellaneous provisions Bill, a different miscellaneous provisions Bill to this one. It is one I hope to be able to introduce in the next couple of months and I have approval from Government for it. At present, it is being drafted in the Attorney General's office and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government. Those issues regarding digitalisation and freeing up garda resources from the courts will be available there.”
“It is probably the least resourced of those three arms of government. It does a job on a daily basis and does it well in terms of the challenges it faces. It is important for us to ensure we provide greater supports to them and that is what we are doing today. I welcome the fact every Member of the House has agreed further judges will improve greater efficiencies. Deputy Kelly asked me a couple of questions on improvements in the courts and resources. He asked about the capital project for the courts. I want to try to ensure we have capital available to build new courthouses. A lot of new courthouses were built in recent years but the main priority is to get Hammond Lane up and running. There is also a commitment for a new courthouse in Tralee. These are just two examples where I want to see a continuation of progress.”
“That test will be changed and we are going to introduce an objective test that will be reasonably based. It will be an objective, reasonable test. That will improve the circumstance of victims who come before the courts. I disagree with Deputy Ó Murchú when he said the justice system is not fit for purpose. Every day of the week in this country, whether it is the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court or indeed the appeal courts, justice is being administered by judges. There are practitioners in there and we can see it in our newspapers every day, people being brought before the courts. The system operates very efficiently and effectively and it is important that it does. It is one of the arms of government. We have the executive arm, here we have the legislative arm but there is also the judicial arm.”
“Regrettably, there are thousands of children who fall within its responsibility. When something goes wrong, it is held to account for it but we need to recognise the extent of the challenge it has and that when it provides a service that goes well, we just generally do not hear about it. Deputy Carthy also spoke about the gambling regulator which is being dealt with in the legislation. Deputy Ward spoke about the elimination of violence against women. I want to bring to his attention that I got approval from Government a couple of weeks ago in respect of a new sexual offences Bill. That will change the law on consent for rape and sexual assault. At present, the law in respect of consent is that if the accused honestly believed they had consent, that is sufficient. That is a subjective test - the person thought the woman was consenting.”
“One has to be careful when looking at the bald statistics that make us look as though we are a complete outlier; the difference in our legal system and categorisation of people as judges can result in those numbers standing out significantly. Notwithstanding that, we certainly need more judges appointed. Deputy Carthy, and I think Deputies Ward and Ó Murchú, also referred to Tusla. Tusla is not within my statutory responsibility. I am not saying that to try to avoid discussing it. It has a very difficult task. One of my colleagues made a contribution about how we only hear from Tusla when issues have arisen that go wrong. We are never going to hear of things that have gone well from Tusla's point of view. I think people will agree Tusla has an extremely challenging task.”
“We cannot take legislative steps that will result in the fairness of the trial being brought into question. I know everyone in this House agrees with me. Deputy Carthy also talked about how we have the lowest number of judges per capita in Europe. I think Deputy Callaghan referred to that as well. We need more judges, which is the purpose of the legislation. However, I urge a sense of caution when comparing Irish judicial numbers with what is referred to as EU judicial numbers. In the civil law system on the European Continent, they would count as judges people in this jurisdiction we would probably view as prosecutors.”
“There are other examples, which I am increasingly impressed with, where we see a criminal offence take place, the Garda arrests take place fairly rapidly after that, a file is completed by the Garda and we are now getting on to prosecutions sometimes between 12 and 18 months after the criminal act. We have sometimes seen that in the Criminal Courts of Justice. That is a very fast return when it comes to getting cases before the courts to have them determined promptly. I commend people in this House who speak up for survivors. I speak up for survivors and victims whenever I get that opportunity. From the courts' point of view and from our point of view in terms of legislation, it has to be recognised as well that we have to ensure there is a fair trial.”
“They are all complicated factors. Notwithstanding that, we in this House can try to speed the process up by ensuring if those steps are taken promptly, they know a court and judge will be available very quickly thereafter to hear the criminal prosecution. That is in effect what we are doing today. However, it is important to point out we cannot speed up every aspect of the criminal justice system because some of it is dependent upon evidence being gathered by An Garda Síochána and consideration of a file by the DPP. That in some cases takes time.”
“Gardaí have to go off and interview people, try to get information relevant to many years previously, which can result in allegations of sexual violence taking longer to investigate. I am also conscious that when An Garda Síochána gets a complaint of sexual violence, it investigates it very thoroughly. I know everyone in the House is anxious to ensure cases come on for hearing as quickly as possible but An Garda Síochána has to do an investigation, get evidence, statements and put the allegations to the individual against whom allegations have been made. When it has done that, it makes a recommendation on its file and sends the file off to the DPP. The DPP then has to consider the file and make a determination as to whether she believes there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution and the likelihood of success.”
“I thank all Members who made contributions. I listened to them very carefully. Deputy Carthy started off talking about long delays in cases that involve sexual violence. I think Deputies Ward and Ó Murchú mentioned that as well. It can be the case that there are lengthy delays when it comes to complaints made to An Garda Síochána about sexual offences. If we think about what the Garda is required to do and the time it can take for a victim to come forward to An Garda Síochána, sometimes allegations of complaints of sexual violence and sexual assault can be historical, as we have seen with the commission into sexual violence in secondary schools to which I referred earlier. That poses significant challenges for An Garda Síochána.”
“It will provide opportunities for training and development for members of the Judiciary. It will also provide an updating of the Gambling Regulation Act, so that the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland can operate as fully as possible to ensure that licences can and are provided for where they meet the statutory test. I will have the opportunity to listen to colleagues and I will respond to what they have to say.”
“Not doing so would result in the introduction of a dual licensing system, whereby an applicant for a betting licence could circumvent the enhanced regulatory regime introduced in the 2024 Act by obtaining licences under the 1929 or 1931 Acts. The section also includes further minor technical and drafting amendments to several sections of the 2024 Act. This Bill is intended to increase the number of judges in the various courts to further ensure the courts can administer justice efficiently and effectively for all our citizens. The enactment of the Bill will lead to further efficiencies in the courts system. It will improve the progress of accessing justice by members of the public. It will provide improved waiting times across all courts. It will provide for more timely judgments and contribute to better clearance rates.”
“Section 11 provides for an amendment to section 1(2) of the Gambling Regulation Act, which contains a cross-reference to section 9 of that Act where it should have referred to section 10. Section 10 of that Act permits the Minister to repeal or revoke those statutory provisions underpinning the existing licensing framework for gambling, which are contained in the Totalisator Act 1929, the Betting Act 1931, the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 and in related statutory instruments. It is the authority's intention to begin accepting applications for certain types of betting licences in the coming months. The repeal of both the 1929 and 1931 Acts will ensure that all applications for new betting licences must be made to the authority under the 2024 Act.”
“It is the case that the reason for the urgency in this legislation is that I want to ensure the legislation in place in respect of gambling regulation can be amended in the slight technical way that it is in this Bill as it is necessary to do that in order that the Gambling Regulatory Authority of Ireland, which is doing great work, can continue to meet the timelines it has set for itself and to even advance further in its licensing of entities under that legislation. Section 10 provides for the amendment of section 1 of the Street and House Collections Act 1962 to amend the definitions of "collection" and "exempt activity" to refer to the Gambling Regulation Act 2024 rather than the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956.”
“Most people who find themselves in a situation where they have to encounter the justice system, they do it through an encounter in the District Court, which deals with most of the legal issues that arise for people that require them to before the courts. Part 3 deals with technical amendments relating to the Child Care Act 1991. Section 9 provides for amendments to section 12 of the Child Care Act to update the District Court to the Family District Court, previously provided for in section 80(b) of the Family Courts Act 2024. Section 9 further provides for amendments to update provisions in the Child Care Act that contain references to "a justice" or to "a judge". This was previously for in section 80 of the Family Courts Act, which is repealed by section 2. Part 4 deals with amendments relating to the Gambling Regulation Act 2024.”
“Every time we create a law there is a requirement that they be adjudicated on where there is a dispute. Section 7 provides for the amendment to section 10 of the Courts and Court Officers Act and increases the number of ordinary judges of the Circuit Court by six. That will rise from 45 to 51. Section 8 provides for the amendment to section 10 of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995 and increases the number of ordinary judges of the District Court by six, rising from 71 to 77, in line with Government commitments. District judges are really the judges who are at the coal face of the administration of justice in Ireland.”
“However, there are many unassigned judges who perform a role within the District Court and where they go to wherever the workload is required under the direction of the president of the District Court. Section 6 provides for an amendment to section 9 of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995 and increases the statutory limit on the number of ordinary judges of the High Court by six, rising from 49 to 55, in line with Government commitments. It is necessary that there are that number of judges in the High Court because of the increasing workload that is being imposed on High Court judges as a result in many respects of the expansion of the legislative framework that exists in this country. There are a huge number of laws being generated each year.”
“It provides for an amendment to section 2(1)(b) of the sixth Schedule of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961, increasing the number of unassigned judges by six, rising from 28 to 34, in line with increases of overall numbers of District Court judges. When somebody is appointed as a District Court judge they may or may not be assigned to a particular district. For certain parts of the country, it is imperative that we have District Court judges assigned to them in areas which are more remote and where it is absolutely necessary to have a judge assigned there to ensure that if something arises and somebody needs to be brought before a court immediately, we have a judge there.”
“Section 4 provides regulatory power to increase the number of judges on the Court of Appeal by one judge for operational reasons in line with the same existing powers for the High Court. If it is the case in the future that a Court of Appeal judge is requested by the Government to do some other statutory functions, such as a commission of investigation, it will hopefully not be necessary for us to come back to seek extra judge to be set out in legislation for that judge to be replaced. Section 4 provides a degree of flexibility within the Court of Appeal, and it mirrors the provisions that exists in respect of the High Court. Section 5 provides the Government the flexibility to appoint a judge permanently to a particular district and allows for a number of unassigned judges that can be assigned temporarily as need arises.”
“That is being done for a particular purpose. The purpose was now being given effect to by section 10 of the Bill, which I will refer to presently. Section 2 also provides for the repeal of sections 31 and 33 of the Family Courts Act 2024, which are no longer required. This section also provides for the repeal of various parts of section 80 of the Family Courts Act to account for additional amendments to the Child Care Act 1991 as provided for in section 9 of this Act. Section 3 provides relevant definitions for Part 2 of the Bill. Section 4 provides for the amendment of paragraph section 1A(2) of the Courts (Establishment and Constitution) Act 1961 and increases the statutory limit on the number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal by three, rising from 18 to 21.”
“Obviously, the purpose of this House is to enact legislation along with the Seanad and the President. However, every time we create a new law, generally within it we are providing a criminal sanction. Where we do that - or even if we do not provide a criminal sanction but just provide a civil remedy - necessarily we will find ourselves creating more potential disputes because the law has been increased and set down as requiring certain obligations to be performed either in the State sector or in the private sector and that will result in more complaints that the law has not been complied with. That will require more judicial adjudication. On the provisions of the Bill itself, section 1 is the standard Short Title and the commencement section. Section 2 provides for the repeal of sections 263 and 271 of the Gambling Regulation Act 2024.”
“The increase in the numbers of judges hearing cases is obviously resulting in greater productivity and greater numbers of judgments. Of course, it is also putting pressures on other areas within my Department. Because we now have the Central Criminal Court sitting so much more frequently than was the case previously, more people are finding themselves sentenced to terms of imprisonment for serious offences. The increase in judicial numbers obviously has a knock-on effect on other areas such as prisons. It is important to note that there are training days for judges who are appointed now across all jurisdictions. That is important to ensure that judges are attuned to the needs of victims and equipped to deal with the increasing complexity in areas of specialisation that is now apparent in the law.”
“We have seen a 33% increase in family law cases resolved in the District Court, a 13% increase in criminal cases resolved in the District Court and a 6.5% increase in civil cases resolved in the Circuit Court. Waiting times for civil trials in the Circuit Court have gone down from 50 weeks in 2023 to 31 weeks in 2025. We have also seen that waiting times for criminal appeals in the Circuit Court are down from 33 weeks to 24 weeks and there has been a 5.9% increase in resolved cases in the High Court between 2022 and 2025. It is also important to point out that the waiting time for bail cases in the High Court has decreased from 104 weeks in 2022 to 41 weeks in 2025, and priority custody cases decreased from 70 weeks to 28 weeks over the same period.”
“Traditional resourcing is essential to ensuring that the courts can administer justice efficiently and effectively for all our citizens. As I stated to the House at the outset, this Bill will give effect to the judicial party working group's recommendations to increase the number of judges. We have seen already that 24 have been appointed, and the purpose here is to appoint another 21. In terms of court sittings, we can see that there has been a marked improvement as a result of the appointment of further judges. There has been an increase of 14% in the District Court, an increase of 28% in the Circuit Court and an increase of 18% in the High Court. There are some improvements that are worth noting and that probably do not get sufficient recognition.”
“I think it is bringing forward individuals who are highly qualified for the purpose of judicial nomination by the Government. As you know, a Chathaoirligh, when a judicial vacancy is advertised, people are allowed to apply for that position. There is then an adjudication of those applications by the Judicial Appointments Commission. It conducts interviews in respect of a number of individuals who have applied and then it sends to me a list of three names, not in any order of preference, from which I have to make a recommendation to the Government that we nominate one of the three persons. If there is more than one vacancy, a greater number of names are provided. If there are two vacancies on a court, I will get five names. I think there are two for every three others that are identified there.”
“As Minister for justice, I am very much committed to ensuring that I try to improve access to the justice system for people in Ireland. In order to do that, I have to further modernise the courts. I also have to ensure that the facilities are in place to ensure that justice can be administered in those courts. I am the first Minister for justice to operate the appointment of judges under the new system that was given effect by the Judicial Appointments Commission Act. I have been able to appoint individuals to the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal under that new process. I have no previous experience as to how the old system operated but, just from the point of view of informing Members of the House, I am pleased with the way the system that operates at present is operating.”
“Judges are required to sit hearing very many cases, and that is the public-facing part of their job. Sometimes we forget, however, that at the end of a day sitting in court, a judge is required to go off and prepare paperwork, read further paperwork and, for the superior courts, prepare judgments in respect of complex issues that have been raised before them. I think everyone in the House agrees we are lucky in this country that we have an internationally recognised Judiciary. It is renowned for its integrity as well as its commercial awareness, fairness and sense of impartiality. Anyone who appears before an Irish court can, I think, be relatively satisfied that they will get a fair adjudication in respect of their claim.”
“The general scheme of this Bill was approved by the Government in September 2025, and further consultation was undertaken with various Departments. The results of those discussions have been taken on board in the published Bill. For reasons of urgency, as I said, particularly in the case of the amendments to the Gambling Regulation Act, we sought a waiver in respect of pre-legislative scrutiny. As I said, I thank Deputy Carthy and members of the justice committee for agreeing to that. Before turning to the main provisions of the Bill, I want to point out the reason it is important that we appoint more judges to be available to hear cases. If we want to ensure that citizens and people seeking access to justice in our courts get access to decisions and judgments more quickly, it is essential that we appoint more judges.”
“It is important that we in this House all recognise that the reason we are seeking the appointment of more judges is not in order that people can become judges but in order to facilitate individuals in Ireland who seek access to the administration of justice and who require access to the courts. We know from research and experience that the impact of additional judges can be extremely positive in improving waiting times and cutting the backlogs that existed in our courts for very many years. The Bill provides for a number of technical amendments related to the Gambling Regulation Act 2024, the Family Courts Act 2024 and the Child Care Act 1991 to allow for the more efficient operation of those Acts when fully commenced.”
“The purpose of this legislation is to ensure we can have 20 more judges available for appointment. Members will also notice, however, that we are seeking the appointment of one extra judge on the Court of Appeal as well. The reason for that is the decision the Government made, agreed to by Mr. Justice Michael McGrath of the Court of Appeal, that he would chair the commission of investigation into the handling of historical child sexual abuse in day and boarding schools. I commend him on agreeing to do that, but it does mean that under this legislation I am seeking a total increase of 21 judges across the various courts. The Bill marks the second phase of legislation to allow for the recruitment of these additional judges and, as I have indicated, 24 of them have been appointed to date.”
“The general purpose of this Bill is to increase the number of ordinary judges in four or the five jurisdictions that operate within our courts system. I want to increase the number of judges on the District Court, the Circuit Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal. There is no proposal in this legislation to increase the number of judges who can sit on the Supreme Court. You will be aware, a Chathaoirligh, that, previously, the judicial planning working group had made a recommendation that the country required 44 new members of the Judiciary. The previous Government agreed with that decision and the current Government will continue with that process of appointment of 44 further judges. It has to be pointed out that the previous Government appointed 24 of those judges.”
“I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." I am pleased to introduce the Courts and Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2025. I look forward to the debate and discussion here with Members in respect of this legislation. I acknowledge and thank Deputy Carthy, who is the Chairperson of the justice committee, for the fact that the committee has agreed to waive pre-legislative scrutiny of this short Bill. That is the appropriate decision to make, and I thank the members of the committee for agreeing to my request in that regard. I am conscious that the justice committee has a lot on its plate in terms of the legislation coming from my Department which does require pre-legislative scrutiny so I acknowledge publicly the work the committee does in that regard.”
“On many occasions it is to the advantage of the Department and me to have people who have deportation orders present in an international protection accommodation centre. We know they are there. Recent charter flights I have directed have been assisted by the fact we knew where the people with the deportation orders were. They were in an international protection accommodation services, IPAS, centre and we could remove them because of that. I do not profess to say that this is an easy issue; it is not. It is complex. The Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, and I are seeking to say that there is a rules-based system and if people comply with the rules, they will be satisfactorily responded to by Ireland.”
“The message has to be delivered fairly unambiguously that if people apply for international protection, are refused and are served with a deportation order, they must leave the country. Already this year, up to 31 October, I have signed 3,877 deportation orders and 1,770 people have had their departures confirmed through these pathways. Deputies will ask how it can happen that somebody with a deportation order can still be in the country. I think Deputy McDonald raised this issue in respect of the suspect who was arrested following the alleged sexual assault in Citywest. When a deportation order is issued, it gives a person a certain period of time to leave the country. There are mechanisms whereby he or she can seek to appeal that order, and there are mechanisms that can have an impact in delaying giving effect to the deportation order.”
“I think everyone in this House realises that there has to be a consequence when somebody is refused international protection. There is a consequence under the policy we are operating. Already this year, I have issued nearly 4,000 deportation orders and approximately 1,700 people have been removed from Ireland through voluntary returns, enforced deportations, deportations on charter flights or deportations on commercial flights. It is not something from which the Minister of State or I derive pleasure, but we would be neglecting our very serious responsibilities if we did not seek to do it. Voluntary return is the mechanism we prefer to ensure people will accept an assisted offer to go back.”
“I know some people in this House do not want to say that and they do not have to say that. I am not requiring them to do so. As Minister for justice, along with the Minister of State with responsibility for migration, Deputy Brophy, I cannot shy away from that. We would be remiss in our duties if we were to do so. When that happens, the question that must arise is what happens to people who have gone through the system and have been told they are not entitled to international protection. What should happen to them? The remedy is that we serve them with deportation orders. If it were the case that everyone who applies can stay, regardless of whether they are successful or unsuccessful, we would not be able to cope with the numbers who would come to Ireland. I want to be frank about what would happen if we were to adopt such a policy.”