Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank all of the Deputies who contributed to the debate on this Bill today and the last day. This is an important Bill which provides for much needed reform across a number of different and important areas of the law.

As regards the proposed changes to the in camera rule to which so many Deputies made reference, what I am providing for in this Bill is a careful balancing of the need for privacy with the need for public access to important information on the operation of family law, child care and adoption proceedings in our courts.

Part 2 of the Bill will retain protections for the privacy of the parties, including the privacy of any child to whom the proceedings relate in respect of such court proceedings whilst providing that bona fide members of the press can be admitted to the proceedings. Access to information about family law and child care proceedings insures that should any issues of concern arise out of the manner in which the law is being administered within the court system, the general public, Government and Oireachtas will be informed. This means that any necessary legislative action can be taken.

Unfortunately, for far too long this area has been shrouded in secrecy. For many years I have been of the view that reform is required. It is necessary that we seek to bring a greater degree of openness and transparency to how our law is being administered, but we must do so in a manner that does not create any barriers to those who need to use our court system to resolve family conflict from feeling free to do so, and we must ensure that the anonymity of individuals is appropriately protected and, more particularly, that the welfare and best interests of children are protected.

As Deputies have said, this issue requires careful balancing. The right of press access to the proceedings will be balanced with the strict prohibition on the publication of any information that is likely to identify the parties to the proceedings or any child to whom proceedings relate. It will be a criminal offence to publish information in breach of this prohibition.

I am also providing that the courts will retain the right to exclude or restrict the presence of members of the press from all or part of family proceedings in certain circumstances. This very important balancing power has been carefully drafted to ensure that the courts, in deciding on the issue of press access or publication of evidence, will have to have regard to the privacy rights of persons, including children, as I said earlier, who are involved in any individual case.

Some Deputies raised specific concerns on matters such as numbers of journalists who may attend a particular case, difficulties that might arise from contemporaneous reporting and the possibility of persons from rural areas being more readily identifiable from local media reports.

Since the Bill was published in March last I have received a number of helpful submissions from bodies with an interest in this area of the law which also raised similar concerns.

Other Deputies were concerned the provisions may allow the courts to be unduly restrictive in providing for press access. In drafting the provisions of Part 2, the Department and the Parliamentary Counsel were conscious of all of these concerns and the provisions have been designed to address them. The court may determine whether to exclude or otherwise restrict the attendance of representatives of the press, or whether simply to prohibit or restrict the publication or broadcasting of some particular evidence or any part of such evidence. In deciding whether to do any of these things the courts will be bound by the criteria set out in the relevant provisions. They will start off from a prospective of seeking to promote public confidence in the administration of justice. The Judiciary has been given a broad discretion in applying the specific factors detailed in the legislation in determining the controls to apply in individual cases as appropriate. This will allow the courts take account of issues such as those mentioned by many Deputies during the course of the debate.

It is clear from the provisions of the Bill that no court can automatically decide in every case to exclude the media. Each case will have to be determined on the circumstances of the individual case and the background matters of relevance. Having considered the submission of the Ombudsman for Children, and also taking account of views submitted by the Children's Rights Alliance and Barnardos, I moved an amendment on Committee Stage in the Seanad to further enhance the rights of children and other parties to proceedings by providing the court will be obliged to hear the views of the parties and of any child to whom the proceedings relate.

I intend to keep the provisions of the legislation under review. If it turns out it is not being applied in the manner intended or it gives rise to unintended consequences or difficulties it is important that we address any such issue as early as possible. It would be very useful if following enactment of the legislation, there could be some agreed protocol, as some Deputies have suggested, with media outlets as to how they will report family cases to ensure there is a degree of consistency in non-disclosure of sensitive information or any other information which could identify individuals.

The suggestion has been made by some Deputies there should be a pool of journalists identified who would be the only ones with access to family law and child care proceedings. Consideration was given to the creation of such a pool but such a pool has not proved necessary in the context of reporting other types of cases in the criminal law area which are sensitive. The concept of bona fide representatives of the press attending proceedings is applicable in rape cases and other cases of sexual assault. There has generally been a responsible approach taken by the media to the reporting of such matters in a manner which does not result in the identity of individuals being revealed, or information being revealed which could result in others identifying individuals. I hope the press would approach family proceedings and child care proceedings in a similar way.

The legislation makes provision to allow the court to direct that particular types of evidence not be disclosed, and there is explicit provision to allow for members of the media to be excluded, for example when particular evidence of a sensitive nature is being given, such as evidence on matters directly impacting on the welfare of the child which if reported could clearly result in the child being identified, or if the view was that if reported it could be contrary to the best interests of the child because the child might read of the report, which would cause the child greater additional distress. A broad discretion will be conferred on the court to either exclude journalists or expressly direct that particular matters be not reported.

I have tried to deal in a general way with some issues raised by various Deputies. I will now turn to some of the issues specifically raised by individual Deputies. Deputy Niall Collins suggested the level of penalties for publication of information likely to identify parties or children involved in family law or child care proceedings are too high. As I stated earlier, Part 2 aims to provide a balance between openness and transparency in family law proceedings and the need to protect the privacy of persons involved in the proceedings and to protect the welfare and best interests of children. For this reason it is vital to have a strong prohibition on the publication of material which may identify persons involved in family law and child care proceedings and to have meaningful penalties available to be applied by members of the Judiciary in accordance with their discretion based on the circumstances relating to any violation of the provisions of the Bill. I am not convinced the penalties provided for publication of information in breach of this prohibition are excessive in the circumstances. It would not be too far-fetched that if some sections of the print media became aware that a particularly prominent individual was engaged in a difficult and contentious family dispute they may weigh up, if the penalty was a low financial one, whether the financial and commercial gains and benefits of reporting on it would make it clearly worth taking the chance or worth paying such penalty. It is important there are meaningful penalties, so the law is complied with, and which can be imposed if it is not.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn raised the issues of determining bona fide representatives of the press and whether a system of press accreditation could be put in place. This is of a similar nature to having a panel. As I stated, this is a matter for the Judiciary to determine. If there is an issue as to whether somebody is a bona fide representative of the press it is a matter which can be drawn to the attention of the court by lawyers representing parties, or the parties themselves, or it is an issue a judge can question. The Judiciary has not to date had a difficulty in this area and members of the Judiciary have properly and carefully dealt with these issues in other areas of the law.

See this speech in context