Alan Farrell (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his presence and for bringing the Bill before the House. I echo the opening remarks of Deputy Feighan. It is a rare thing to have legislation that is so extensive and complex going through the House uncontested. Anyway, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the legislation.

As we are aware, the legislation aims to make two significant changes to our legal system. The first relates to the transparency issue with regard to the in camera rule for the family courts and the second relates to efficiencies and affordability with regard to the Courts Service.

For many years family experts and rights advocates groups had have been pressing for the abolition of the in camera rule, citing reasons of lack of confidence, transparency and mistrust of the legal system, with particular reference to the family courts structure. While it is a constitutional requirement that justice is administered in public, there is no question that the existence of the in camera rule has served a real and significant purpose for individuals who have found themselves in family law proceedings. The purpose may be more relevant now than ever, especially in light of the number of significant changes the Government has put forward, not least of which is the Legal Services Regulation Bill.

The right to privacy during proceedings, which are by their nature very personal and sensitive, is something that we as law-makers cannot take for granted, particularly in the world in which we live. As a society we have barely come to terms with the pace and tone of online communications, not to mention the irreparable damage that loss of anonymity can do to individuals, particularly children. In theory, transparency and justice are intrinsically linked, as our justice system is our ultimate instrument of accountability. In reality, family law cases are personal, sensitive and often psychologically damaging to individuals, particularly when children are the subject of the case. The in camerarule was derived from the principle that some proceedings are so sensitive that it served the public interest to protect the litigants' confidentiality.

While I fully accept the flaws it has masked in the family law system, not least some of those remarked on by the Deputy from Roscommon-South Leitrim, I welcome the restrictions on reporting by the press under this Bill, such as the creation of a robust system of intolerance of any reporting that may identify litigants. Some have criticised the strength of restrictions on the press, stating that although they will deter reporters, deterring individuals from seeking justice on family matters for fear of identification and humiliation is a far more damaging concept. The Ombudsman for Children reiterated in her contribution to this debate, which of course was most welcome, that the right to privacy is a fundamental consideration and the right not to be identified must be guaranteed.

I believe the best practice for reporting of family law cases will involve the establishment of a panel of journalists who would be allowed access to all family law proceedings. This would be somewhat similar to the system in the Houses of the Oireachtas. The strategy would ensure that members of the press with significant expertise and respect for the courts would be appointed by their publications and allowed to access and report on proceedings, allowing the development of a culture of trust between the press, the legal profession and its clients. I would also welcome a move by the courts and agencies such as the CSO to play a part in communicating family law proceedings through the publication of reports and statistics that could be made available through websites and public libraries. This would be particularly useful as we approach the referendum to establish a new family law court, which the Minister recently announced for 2014.

In respect of journalists' access and the terrific reporting function of local newspapers in particular, I have a significant concern that relaxing the in camerarule in such a way as to permit our local papers across the country to report on family law matters might not be a good thing. I have seen local newspapers report on traffic offences, as Deputy Feighan mentioned, and other matters, and it seems to form a large and significant part of their content. I would be concerned that an opportunity such as this may be difficult for them to resist, notwithstanding what the Bill sets out in attempting to ensure anonymity for all persons in the case. The Minister is to hold the referendum which will set in motion a radical overhaul of our family law system as set out in the programme for Government.

Last week, Deputy Stanton and I attended a family law seminar at the Incorporated Law Society in Blackhall Place and heard some very worthwhile contributions from stakeholders and international experts in the field. I was particularly interested in the experiences of a judge from Australia, who made some interesting observations. While all the contributors bore in mind the impact of the in camerarule on transparency within our family law system, our own professional experiences as well as evidence derived from the Law Reform Commission in 1996 and the Family Law Matters report 2007 make a compelling case for urgent reform. Given that the report of the Law Reform Commission was published in 1996, it is high time there was some movement in regard to family law structures in this State. The contributions at the seminar highlighted the mutual and serious factors that make our system so difficult and traumatic for litigants. Emphasis was placed on the significant inadequacies of experts in family law within the courts, inconsistency among judges when dealing with some cases and a lack of information, inadequate dispute resolution, waiting times, pressure on staff to help with litigants' paperwork and the legal environment which has proved to be an inappropriate place for such sensitive matters. For example, Ms Muriel Walls, the chairperson of the Legal Aid Board, described a conversation with a client in which she said she would draft a bill and affidavit and a notice of motion for her case, and her client had no idea what she was talking about. From this simple example we can understand the frustration and confusion that litigants face when entering the court system.

Another issue highlighted in the report was that many litigants are left with no choice but to represent themselves if they are unable to access legal aid or to afford representation of their own. For these reasons I very much welcome the shift towards minimal legal jargon and access to information within the family courts in order to make the system more user-friendly. One point that was mentioned was the dropping of Latin phrases, which might seem like a simple matter, but having reflected on the statements made at the seminar I agree with the proposal. So many different phrases are used in our court system, such as locus standi, and there are all sorts of others that I have to look up. As a legislator it is my responsibility to do so, but I imagine it would make things much easier for lay litigants to be presented with the English language and no jargon in family courts.

The monetary limits for the District and Circuit Courts have remained unchanged since 1991. The level for the Circuit Court is just over €38,000 and that for the District Court is €6,384. This is forcing modest civil matters into the High Court, thereby increasing costs for litigants and wasting the resources of the High Court. I understand the average cost of a case increases by 30% if it is brought to the High Court and it is in the financial interest of the middle-income business person or member of the public to remain within the remit of the Circuit Court to retain more reasonable costs in making modest claims. This is a sensible measure and I would like in time to remove the potential for further appeals to the Supreme Court, which is dealing with delays of up to four years. I acknowledge the concern about the impact this will have on the District Court as these changes are implemented. I strongly urge the Minister to continue to engage with and monitor this process in order to ensure successful progress.

The reform of the Supreme Court must remain a priority for this Government. The average waiting time for a case is four years. This is incredibly unfair. To those who wait it is an obstruction of justice, and it is unsustainable for the staff and personnel working within the system, not least the litigants. The Chief Justice, Ms Justice Denham, has already called a halt to any further appointments of priority cases to the Supreme Court, which now stand at 70. This crisis within the justice system requires a multifaceted and robust approach which I believe this Government has begun to undertake. The appointment of two additional Supreme Court judges to tackle the delay is essential as an interim measure. This will bring the total number of Supreme Court judges to ten.

However, it is the referendum to establish a court of appeal, due to take place in September of this year, which will allow real reform of the entire system. Under this establishment, appeals will no longer be under the remit of the Supreme Court. Instead, a dedicated court will be established with the function to deal with the appeals within reasonable time periods with frequent settings covering civil and criminal matters. This reform will begin with the amendment to the Constitution.

In conclusion, I acknowledge the many reforms to the Irish legal system undertaken by the Government and Minister, namely, the legal services Bill, the personal insolvency legislation, the two planned referendums to establish new courts and the variety of significant changes proposed in this Bill which will increase affordability and access to justice in the court system and improve transparency within the family court system. I commend the Minister and the work of his Department in bringing forward this Bill within the lifetime of the Government.

See this speech in context