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

I think we have resolved the confusion at this stage. On Second Stage in this House last week, I explained that the provisions in Part 2 provide for a careful balancing of the need for privacy in child care and family law proceedings with the need for public access to important information on the operation of this very sensitive and difficult area of law. In that respect, Part 2 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 while providing that bona fide members of the press can be admitted to the proceedings.

Amendment No. 1 provides for restrictions on the number of press members who can attend such proceedings. I agree it is important that the courts can impose appropriate restrictions on press attendance where it is necessary to do so. The power to do so is already provided for in the Bill. I refer the Deputy in particular to sections 5 and 8. These sections provide the court with a power to exclude or restrict the attendance of bona fide members of the press at family law and child care proceedings, in particular where it is necessary to do so to preserve the anonymity of a party to the proceedings or any child to whom the proceedings relate. Indeed, the provisions go even further and give the court the power to prohibit or restrict the publication or broadcasting of any evidence given or referred to during such proceedings.

It is important to understand that my proposals in this Bill have been carefully drafted to ensure that the courts, in deciding on the issue of press access or publication of evidence, must have regard to the privacy rights of persons, including children, involved in any individual case. I believe that the approach in the Bill provides the right balance to ensure that information is made available to the public on the operation of family law and child care law in our courts while at the same time safeguarding the important privacy needs of the parties and of any children to whom the proceedings relate.

In amendment No. 2 the Deputy is proposing a system of accreditation for the attendance of members of the press at family law and child care proceedings. The Bill does not propose to regulate the members of the media who may or may not be permitted access to relevant child care, family law and adoption proceedings. The Bill leaves it to the court to allow bona fide members of the media to be present in certain circumstances. It is a matter for the individual court to be satisfied as to the bona fide nature of a press representative in this respect.

The same approach is used in many legislative provisions, including those relating to criminal proceedings in serious sexual offence cases. Those legislative provisions also use the term “bona fide representatives of the Press”. The experience to date is that the approach works well and I am happy it is the correct approach in the circumstances of these provisions also.

It is consistent with the existing legislation applicable to other areas of the law.

As I said on Second Stage, I agree with the Deputy that we must have very careful rules with regard to publishing material about family law and child care cases. It would be very useful if, following enactment of the legislation, there could be some agreed protocol with media outlets as to how they would report family cases to ensure there was a degree of consistency in the non-disclosure of sensitive information or any other information that could result in individuals being identified.

My view is that the concerns of the Deputy are indeed valid, but the amendments he proposes are not appropriate. The concerns are, I believe, fully and properly provided for in the very carefully drafted provisions of Part 2. I do not, therefore, propose to accept these amendments.

See this speech in context