David Norris (Independent)

I am very grateful to my colleague, Senator Henry, for allowing me to share time. I only need a short amount of time because I have just a couple of points to make upon which I have been briefed.

The first point, which may have been covered, is the question of the time limit for taking legal action. I have had strong representations on this point and although it looks more efficient to reduce the limitation from three years to 12 months, I have been persuaded, and I ask the Minister to at least keep an open mind on this issue, by the information given to me. In particular, reference was made to the tragic case in the Drogheda hospital where a number of women had their wombs removed and other apparently unnecessary gynaecological procedures imposed upon them. That is traumatic. The history of this area illustrates that one needs a certain amount of time to do it and I would like to record the type of thing that has been made clear to me. In the initial phase, people do not normally take action with a view to getting compensation. They are looking for information. They want to find out what happened and that often takes a considerable time, perhaps six months to a year, during which time they are fobbed off. They may go to their general practitioner. They could be nervous and they gradually realise that something has happened that was not quite right, and eventually they go to law. At that stage they start looking for records and very often there could be obfuscation in that regard. It is only when this process has been exhausted and they start going to law and seeking legal advice. Very often this is a desperate plea for help at that point and it may be that the 12 months has been exhausted through the initial concern, confusion, talking to the GP, not quite knowing what is going on, getting more anxious and perhaps even a little angry. They then start looking for records and find that the records have been mislaid or it takes a long time to get them. There may not be a sufficient number of staff in the health services or whatever. By that stage a year may have passed and under this proposal they will be in considerable difficulty.

The other point made to me on this issue is that it will probably increase rather than decrease legal fees because there will be the additional defence of delay in medical negligence cases. This may well increase the number of cases initiated.

The other issues are more directly concerned with the in camera rule. Like Senator Henry, I welcome that aspect of the Bill because it is particularly important that we have this information.

I hope I am not rehashing material but specific actions have been requested by groups that approached me which I believe are important. I am assuming they have not been put in detail on the record; if that is the case I am happy to quickly do so. There is a recommendation that a significant feature of all family law cases to be heard should include the following: the age, gender, nationality and if necessary, family status of the applicants; the age and number of children; the number and nature of applications and whether any previous orders exist; whether domestic violence was alleged as part of the application; legal representation, whether availed of and the type, private or legal aid; Garda and health board intervention, if any; and the outcome of the application.

It is worthwhile putting these things down to ensure we get all this material. Under the Domestic Violence Act 1996 the information gathered should include the nature of the alleged violence, whether physical, psychological, emotional, sexual, social or financial and whether children were abused, the use of a weapon, details of breaches of orders and the outcome of applications to include sanctions imposed by the criminal courts. This information should be collected by a registered officer of the court.

Another useful suggestion is that the family law reporting project should be resurrected. I know perfectly well the Minister knows a great deal more about this than I do. However, so that somebody subsequently reading the record may know what I am talking about, it was a pilot project undertaken by the Courts Service of Ireland for the period of one year to report on family cases in the Dublin Circuit and District Courts. Its aim was to give the public, court users, legal practitioners and the media a more consistent picture of the working of the family courts and the approach by which judges made decisions. It provided general information to the public and collated meaningful statistics on the work of the Family Court. This goes to the heart of the idea of openness, transparency and accountability. For justice to work it is always useful for the public to know the way in which it works and to have access to the maximum of information, but I accept that people's privacy should be respected. Under the Bill being introduced by the Minister this will happen and there will be the two objectives of protecting the privacy of the individual and at the same time collecting information that is useful both to the general public and in the formation of policy. We ought to know as much as possible in this sensitive area.

I would like to raise a final matter that one could argue is related since I have raised the issue of privacy. I appeal to the Minister to look at a particular situation. I speak as a fully paid-up member of the National Union of Journalists. I refer to the noxious practice widespread throughout all newspapers, not just the tabloids but also the broadsheets and those that regard themselves as the pinnacle of excellence in this country, of printing the names, addresses, family details, job status and sometimes the photographs of the individuals and the residence of persons who are accused. That should be put outside the law. I know it is said the court is a public place. It is a public place for those who go there. No subsequent retraction can redress the damage done to individuals. If the details of one's house, occupation, name, number of children etc. is splashed across the pages of newspapers and one is acquitted or found not guilty ten months later, the damage is done. Even if a there is a front page retraction, there is the residue effect that "there is no smoke without a fire". That is grossly unfair and I do not think a public good is served by printing the names, addresses, occupations and photographs of persons who are accused. This is often done in rather difficult, unpleasant and squalid cases.

I wish to refer to a situation which did not, in fact, involve an accused person. In today's newspaper is a sad tragic story of a young girl who, for whatever reason, made completely bogus allegations of rape. Supposing she had accused somebody and that the man had his photograph, name, address and job printed in the newspaper, what good would an apology do? It is not good enough to plead he was only accused and the record would be put straight by printing details of his acquittal on the back page. I suggest the Minister should look at that. I believe he would have the support of the House if he did something in this area.