Mary Henry (Independent)

I, too, welcome the Minister back to the House.

The Minister will be well aware that the family courts are some of the most important in the country and are, quite rightly, held in camera. He will also be aware that the Law Reform Commission report on the family courts published in 1996 expressed concern about the disadvantages of in camera hearings. Page 15 of that report reads:

In the Consultation Paper, concerns were expressed about some of the consequences of holding family law proceedings behind closed doors. It is increasingly recognised that the absence of any opportunities for external scrutiny of family proceedings, even if it does not in fact affect the quality and consistency of judicial behaviour, creates an unhealthy atmosphere in which anecdote, rumour and myth inform the public's understanding of what goes on in the family court. Comments and submissions on this matter echoed these concerns, but were allied to a strong desire to continue to protect as far as possible the privacy of family members.

While there have been certain changes within the Judiciary in that there is now far more discussion between members of the Judiciary about cases, I do not know how far these can extend into the family courts. The Law Reform Commission recommendations in regard to the privacy of family proceedings states:

Bona fide researchers and students of family law should be permitted to attend family proceedings. Access by a bona fide researcher to family proceedings should not be refused by a judge except on the basis of compelling and stated reasons. The attendance of students of family law should be at the discretion of the judge.

There should be a general principle, applying to all family proceedings, prohibiting the publication of information which tends to identify the parties and members of their families.

Court staff should be enabled to record more judgments in family cases and thereby make available more transcripts of final reports.

That recommendation provides for a greatly changed scenario.

Some years ago, when the Tánaiste was Attorney General, the Courts Service appointed a young barrister to the family courts to act as an intermediary between it and the general public. It is particularly important that Members of the Oireachtas have some idea of the complexity and seriousness of what takes place there. However, I recall that when Attorney General, the Tánaiste decided that in camera meant in camera and this was reflected in the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, which allows for the reporting of law court proceedings and for persons approved for search purposes to attend at family law court sittings.

In early June this year, the Courts Service placed an advertisement in the newspapers inviting proposals for the provision of family law reports, judgments, trends and other statistical information. It was stated that experience in the area of legal reporting, the collection and analysis of statistical information and its presentation and publication were essential. It further stated that the Courts Service proposed to commence reporting arrangements on a pilot basis in a selected number of High, Circuit and District Courts. It appeared from that advertisement that more than one person would be involved. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me what progress has been made on this important issue.