Deirdre Clune (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on the Bill, which I welcome. It will introduce a positive approach with more openness and transparency with regard to decisions in family court cases and child care cases. I am conscious of the concern about this issue.

In general, the public is not aware of the details of decisions in such cases. The in camerarule originally was introduced for a good reason, which was to protect individuals and children in particular and to ensure they would remain anonymous and that the decisions, which in general are very personal and private in such areas, would remain within the system and not be made available to the public. This was the thinking behind the in camerarule but there has been a call for a long time to have it changed and adapted. I was made particularly aware that this was a concern, particularly of fathers, during the recent referendum campaign on children's rights. I do not know whether they are right or wrong, as I am not familiar with family court or child care cases, other than what I read or hear. However, the steps being taken with this legislation will ensure there is greater transparency and the public will be informed of the decisions.

I looked at some figures produced in the context of last year's Bill on the Courts Service and in the area of family law, I note that in 2011, there were 1,352 applications for separation and 3,354 applications for divorce. In general, the public is aware of neither the content nor the details of such decisions and it would be a very good thing were this information available, albeit with protections for the anonymity and privacy of the individuals concerned because they are special cases. While there certainly is a public interest factor, in general their privacy must be protected and those details are particular to those individuals. I note the Law Society has welcomed the move in this regard provided for in this Bill, which is positive. I share some of the concerns that were raised previously as to who will make decisions on when bona fide members of the press can or cannot be present. It is important for the Bill to contain clear guidelines in this area. However, the legislation makes it clear that judges will be able to prohibit press access when they are satisfied it is in the interests of justice to do so or is necessary to preserve anonymity.

Section 6 will insert a new section to prohibit the broadcast or publication of matters likely to lead to the identification of a party in family law proceedings or in child care cases. I was conscious, when considering this subject and the issue of the present state of broadcast and social media, that there are so many platforms from which information can get out and it will be important for the Bill to provide for serious repercussions. In this context, I note fines of up to ¤50,000 or imprisonment for up to three years can be imposed and it is important to provide for such sanctions because this is a serious issue. While such details may be a story to some people, it is private information relating to individuals, which can be sensitive and could have a serious impact on them were it made publicly available. Nonetheless, this is a positive reform which is to be welcomed. I look forward to reading about and hearing of information from family law and child care cases in order that the public be made aware of decisions that are made in the courts and which are not available to them at present. A previous speaker mentioned that since the introduction of divorce in this country, one does not hear about it any more. Consequently, in the public interest, this is a positive Bill which I welcome and I look forward to further contributions in this regard.