Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

I am grateful to the Senators for their remarks. This is an area where we must get the balance right. I said I was not disposed to accept these amendments because, well-intentioned as they are, they do not quite achieve the right balance. For instance, would it be desirable that members of the public could enter courtrooms where such proceedings were going on and listen merely out of curiosity? Would it be desirable that an employer, for example, should send someone to a court to listen to the family law matters of an employee? That would not be acceptable. Such situations could expose people, particularly those in public life, to severe pressures. For such a person to be watched in the course of a family law case by people who, even if prohibited from identifying the person, might well chat about it in the pub afterwards, could grossly inhibit the proper conduct of family law cases and the proper decision-making process in issues as sensitive as the custody of children, their psychological well-being and so on.

We must bear in mind that while we are dealing with a matter where privacy is an important issue because the entire process is essentially a private matter, we must also have some sort of system whereby State interference with those private matters in the form of judicial arbitration is subject to some degree of accountability thereafter. Striking that balance is not easy. I need a little more time to come up with a formulation and I accept that it would be more desirable if I could have done so by today. The thinking caps are on in the Department regarding this matter, and the formulation to be brought forward will cover all the points made today and will be more protective of privacy than the current text appears to be.