Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I welcome most or practically all of the provisions in the Bill. Its objectives need to be realised. However, I have some concerns about the in camera rule and its easing as envisaged in the legislation.

Particularly since I became a Member, I have received many communications, as have all of us, from fathers who have gone through the family courts complaining about the difficulties experienced there. There appears to be a bias against fathers in the operation of the family courts. However, owing to the in camera rule, it is very difficult to obtain independent information to determine whether this is the case. It may be that the bias is built into the legislation that the courts are working with in terms of family law rather than the operation of the courts themselves. The easing of the in camera rule may go some way towards removing the perception of bias and some of the concerns that arise.

When preparing to speak on the legislation and on reading the communication on the Bill by the Office of the Ombudsman for Children, I noted there were some concerns. Some should be addressed on Committee Stage to ensure the legislation becomes workable and practical. The Office of the Ombudsman for Children believes that a system for reporting should be rights-compliant, systemic, sustainable, non-deterring and independent. I was surprised to read that the office does not believe this Bill meets any of those criteria. It believes it will not result in the provision of systemic information, may lead to the identification of children and families in the courts, and may cause children to retract child abuse disclosures and, in doing so, deter parties from continuing in the courts. We need to be very careful about this. As others have said, one would need the wisdom of Solomon to get it right legislatively at this stage, but this needs to be considered. When the legislation is passed, it needs to be kept under very careful review to ensure we will not encounter problems, such as the identification of families.

The Minister stated in his contribution that there is an absence of reliable information on the operation of the law in this area, which is not conducive to confidence in our system of family law and child protection. Sometimes I wonder whether the media could give one information that would be reliable in terms of the operation of any of the courts. The nature of journalism and court reporting are such that journalists would probably not be allowed to or given the time to get into the details of the cases. The same applies to publications. Therefore, it might not actually lead to much useful information coming out of the courts. We may see some sort of voyeurism or otherwise on the part of the media regarding cases taking place in the courts. We must protect against this very carefully. The legislation provides that the judge can restrict access by the media in family law cases but we must exercise caution on this to ensure that the restriction is operated fairly and properly.

It is necessary to have contemporaneous reports such that people can examine the legal issues and update themselves thereon. They should be able to see what decisions are being made that could have an influence on their circumstances. This could lead to an understanding of what is happening in the courts.

The family law reporting project operated on the basis that barristers and solicitors were allowed to sit in on court cases and write reports thereon. A problem was that the publication of the reports was delayed, which might not have contributed to people's overall understanding of how the family courts worked. This is something we should be addressing and I hope the Minister can create a better public understanding of the issues that arise in the family courts and how they work. He should remove the perception of bias that may exist among some members of the public. It would aid us in our work in dealing with people who feel hard done by and who believe they have been wronged by the family courts. We may be able to bring about greater understanding when talking to them and ease some of their difficulties. Many who are in contact with us are extremely upset and frustrated, so a little more understanding could ease things for them. They are going through very difficult family circumstances that people do not take too well. It may not help that much.

The other recommendations suggest amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1998 and the Personal Insolvency Act 2013, but I agree with previous speakers who raised concerns about that. While I acknowledge the amendments are technical, I would like the Minister to amend section 105 of the Personal Insolvency Act, which permits banks to extend the period in which a person can be in an insolvency procedure. That should have been deleted from the Act in the first place. Perhaps the Minister will consider this to restrict the banks. The Government has been too lenient on them and they have been given too much time. We need to place restrictions on them to make sure they deal with people who are insolvent in a proper way, which allows them to recover and get their lives back on track.

I welcome the provision to appoint two additional Supreme Court judges. That needs to happen. It is an interim solution and the Minister intends to create an appeal court. We will debate that legislation later this week. There are concerns about the legislation. However, it is important to increase the number of judges in order that the courts can process more cases because the massive delays in cases coming before the courts undermines the judicial system and the operation of the courts.

See this speech in context