Pádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I can assure the Minister it was an unintended pun. We were shattered by this. The approach the Minister has taken is fine. He has identified issues that need to be addressed and this is the vehicle to do it, but he used that approach to attack a perfectly good Bill that we were inviting him to amend and allow to go to Committee Stage. I take the opportunity to make that little complaint. I will try not to use any more unintentional puns for the rest of the speech.

I welcome the spirit of this Bill. While I and my party have some concerns as regards the need for safeguards, we are broadly supportive of the Bill and will seek to submit amendments to reflect this and improve it where we feel it may be lacking.

First, I will deal with the section with which I have most concerns, namely that which relates to reducing the application of the in camera rule in order to allow for reporting of the facts of child-care and family law cases by the media, provided identities are protected, of course. This is an important change, one which can increase transparency, and, in turn, public faith in the judicial system, and I understand and agree with the intention behind it. Child and family law are areas of the law which require and deserve great care and sensitivity. In all cases the identity of a minor should be protected. Failure to ensure that this protection is vindicated can lead to considerable difficulties, pressures and stresses, and adverse treatment of vulnerable young people. We need to avoid this at all costs. Such protections need to be preserved. However, the application of the in camera rule has been problematic and has limited the level of transparency in the system to the point where the faith of ordinary citizens in the system became an issue, perhaps with some justification.

I agree with the Minister when he stated that media access and the reporting of cases will add transparency to the conduct of family law and child-care proceedings and will provide valuable information on the operation of the law in this area. However, I am concerned about how this will work in practice. Should this Bill become law, it means that only bona fide representatives of the press would be allowed into court. I am particularly concerned about the term "bona fide representatives of the Press". Who are these persons and who deems them to be "bona fide"? Will there be an accreditation process in place to ensure that these persons are the appropriate ones to have access? There is a sense among legal practitioners that the term "bona fide" is generally understood across the board. Perhaps this is okay for the legal world, but will it offer much needed comfort to the young victims coming before a court? We need to ensure that the procedures put in place inspire confidence in these persons. My colleague in the Seanad, Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh, submitted an amendment on this issue calling for an accreditation process, which was not accepted. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider this. I will be submitting an amendment along the same lines when the time comes.

Another concern is the number of journalists who will be given access to certain cases. Is there a possibility that allowing more than one journalist into a court at a time could also be problematic? I note the Ombudsman for Children, Emily Logan, highlighted that this could be a problem:

Allowing more than one journalist into any case could be problematic given that each journalist may include and exclude different details from their reports which individually might protect the identity of a child but collectively could expose them.

She raised concerns about local media reporting of cases of this type and how this would make it all the more difficult to disguise the identity of the child in question. I come from a rural area and I can understand this concern. When a marriage breakdown occurs in a local area, there can be rumours. Two parties and their families are involved. People often fall out as a result and become estranged and there can be tensions. Narratives are sometimes put out by one side in order to demonise the other party. Information is often known and circulating in those communities. It would not be too much of a stretch of the imagination that a local newspaper, even when making efforts to protect the identity of the parties, might put a spotlight on the case. I ask the Minister to consider how to ensure that the element of local reporting does not draw attention to the individuals involved. It is a real challenge that we need to work through on Committee Stage.

The Ombudsman for Children also raised concerns about contemporaneous reporting of cases, as a child may hear or read a report of a court case and realise the story was about his or her case. There is a chance that this would deter a child from continuing with the case. I ask the Minister to reassure the House that safeguards will be in place to avoid such occurrences. He has indicated that he will address some of the concerns raised by the Children's Rights Alliance and the Ombudsman for Children. Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil and others will table amendments on Committee Stage, as will the Minister, and the concerns can be discussed further.

The second provision in the Bill is to increase the monetary jurisdiction of the District Court and the Circuit Court. It is hoped that in time this will allow for a reduction in the fees charged to clients and, hopefully, the costs of litigation in the long term. I am confident that this may ease pressure on the higher courts. The changes to the monetary jurisdiction of the District and Circuit Courts is a positive step, particularly as it is two decades since a review was carried out. Any measure that leads to a reduction in fees, thus reducing the cost of taking a case for ordinary families and businesses, is welcome. We hope that the knock-on effect will be to reduce the costs for the State over the longer term.

I also note the comments of the Law Society. It is concerned that the District Court, and particularly the Circuit Court, will not have enough resources to deal with the pressure that will inevitably be placed on them by the dramatically increased workload. There will be a need for more judges and more court staff in order to avoid delays, given that there is already too much pressure on the system. I ask the Minister to provide the resources necessary to ensure that the full benefits of this legislation can be implemented.

Part 4 of the Bill provides for additional judges for the Supreme Court, which is very welcome, as is the proposed constitutional amendment which will be debated later this week. The Supreme Court judges, who are very talented, will then be able to devote their time to dealing with issues of wider public concern. The Minister is correct to take advantage of this opportunity. Part 5 deals with juries and is a sensible proposition. It allows for up to 15 jurors to be sworn in to ensure a minimum number of jury members for lengthy trials. I commend the Minister on taking the opportunity in Part 6 to provide for legal advice and legal aid. This provision is overdue. Part 7 is a technical provision relating to the Personal Insolvency Bill. The Minister indicated that he reserved the right to introduce further amendments on Committee Stage, which Sinn Féin will monitor carefully. The Opposition has real concerns about some key aspects of the Personal Insolvency Bill but the Minister's amendments seem to be technical amendments relating to how the courts will deal with personal insolvency cases.

This Bill is a welcome development, albeit with our caveats and concerns. I look forward to engaging with the Minister on Committee Stage to see if the Bill and the protections it proposes can be strengthened.

See this speech in context