Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

The second group contains amendment No. 4 which was inserted in the Dáil and is an amendment to the Child Care Act 1991. The purpose of amendment No. 4 is to modify the in camera rule in child care proceedings, set out in section 29 of the Child Care Act 1991. Section 29 of the Child Care Act 1991 is the section which creates the jurisdiction to take children into care and the in camera rule applies to the exercise of jurisdiction under that section. The purpose of the amendment is to allow for the attendance at and reporting of child care proceedings in specified circumstances and by specified classes of persons. Given the need to use an evidence-based approach to policy making and in the context of keeping the workings of the 1991 Act under review and the important role of the courts in the child care system, there is a need to open up these proceedings to scrutiny in a balanced way.

Senators will recall section 40 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004 which modified the in camera rule in family law proceedings. There is a concern that when a rule provides for an absolute in camera ban on proceedings, bona fide research cannot take place into the operations of the courts in certain jurisdictions. In 2004, the rule was modified in the context of family law proceedings by section 40 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act. The recent publication of the first report on foot of that was a detailed investigation into matrimonial proceedings compiled by Carol Coulter, the legal affairs correspondent of The Irish Times, who was contracted to do this report which shed light on the exercise by the court of its jurisdiction in this area. It would be very valuable to have a similar report on the operation of child care proceedings.

Senators will recall that when I prepared and published the amendment to the Constitution Bill relating to children, one of the matters which was raised was the danger that children were being removed from their parents in an unwarranted and unjustified manner. That concern was entirely groundless, but it throws into relief the importance of having proper focused research into the operation of the courts in this area. What would be of great concern to me is the suggestion of inconsistencies in the approach of the courts in taking children into care. For all these reasons I recommend this amendment.

The precise details of the amendment are that persons falling into certain specified categories may attend proceedings and have access to relevant documents and prepare a report for publication of child care cases under the 1991 Act, subject to rules of court, the directions of the court hearing the case and the very important proviso that no information would be used which would enable a child who was the subject matter of the proceedings or any party to the proceedings to be identified. The amendment provides that decisions of the court hearing proceedings may be published but subject to the same stipulations.

The court has discretion, or if special circumstances apply in a particular case, to direct for stated reasons that the person may not attend and report on a particular case. The specified categories include barristers, solicitors, those representing and authorised in writing by the Children Act advisory board which will be set up in another group of amendments before the House today following consultation with the Minister for Health and Children, and those specified in regulations made by the same Minister after consultation with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.