Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators for proposing the amendment. I deliberate in a deliberate and focused manner and was conscious of this issue. We might be dealing with this Stage at some speed, but obviously these are issues that were given consideration during the drafting of the various provisions of the Bill.

I agree that there must be very careful rules regarding the publishing of material about family law and child care cases. As Senator Averil Power said, it is important that cases be reported carefully and responsibly and that there be sufficient insight on the part of journalists to ensure that in their reportage they do not reveal identities or other information. Of course, there are specific provisions in the Bill that seek to ensure this does not occur. As I said on the last occasion, it would be useful if, following the enactment of the legislation, there could be an agreed protocol with and between media outlets on how they will report family and child care cases to ensure there is a degree of consistency in the non-disclosure of sensitive information or any other information that could identify individuals. This has worked well in the context of the reporting of criminal prosecutions for sexual offences and where such reports are made by bona fide members of the media, there has been no major difficulty arising as to whether an individual is a bona fide member of the media.

The Bill does not take a prescriptive approach to regulating the members of the media who may or may not be permitted access to relevant child care, family law and adoption proceedings. The Bill leaves it to the court to allow bona fide members of the media to be present in certain circumstances. It is a matter for the individual judge to be satisfied as to the bona fide nature of a representative of the press in this respect.

I reiterate that where this terminology has been used in other circumstances in respect of court proceedings it has not given rise, in practice, to any major difficulty of which I am aware. As I said, the same approach is used in many legislative provisions and they also use the term "bone fide representatives of the press". If that term has allowed for matters to be reported in a matter that preserves people's anonymity and does not provide for the disclosure of information that would be an identifying feature in serious sexual offences when they are taken to court and prosecuted, there is no reason for it to give rise to any unexpected difficulty in dealing with family law matters. The experience to date is that the approach works well. I believe it is the correct approach in the circumstances of these provisions also.

Unfortunately, I do not intend to accept the amendment, but I hope a protocol might be agreed with the media with regard to consistency in reporting and the protection of people's identities. I think that would be a desirable thing. It is my hope and expectation that the reporting of such proceedings will be undertaken with a degree of responsibility. Of course, if reporting occurs that identifies individuals, that will constitute an offence under the legislation and will create a particular difficulty for the reporter and media outlet that so breach the legislation.

I would expect that there would be care and caution in the use of this. Of course, if a difficulty arises that is not anticipated at the moment we will always have recourse, if needs be, to further changes in the law. I am very conscious that this is a new departure in family proceedings. Whereas I think it is desirable that we bring transparency to this area, the legislative structure we have provided is a very cautious one. It gives rise to myriad circumstances in which the press may still be excluded from reporting particular family, child care or adoption proceedings, including circumstances in which it is in the best interests of the child that this occurs.

This is a very careful approach because I am conscious, as someone who has worked in this area, of the huge importance of ensuring no barrier is placed in the way of individuals having their personal issues addressed in the courts and that there is no fear that matters of very personal nature could get publicity for sensational reasons where there is no real public interest in their reportage. One bit of me has a reluctance to go down this road for fear that it may well be abused, but I think there is an overwhelming case for greater transparency so that people who use our court system have some understanding of how family proceedings take place, that there is some transparency in how justice is administered and that there are some insights into the approach taken and the consistency in that approach. That may also be of assistance to Members of this House as legislators in determining on occasions whether laws as enacted are working as envisaged or whether there is a need for reform because the original intent of the Houses of the Oireachtas is not necessarily reflected in the manner in which cases are being heard and determined. This a very sensitive and difficult area of the law which causes great emotional stress to any individual who finds himself or herself coming into our courts, particularly in circumstances of family breakdown, child care issues or conflicts in adoption cases, which can give rise to a great deal of stress and understandable emotion.

I thank the Senator for raising this. It is a seriously intended amendment. It is important that we tease these issues out. It is important, as I have said on other occasions, that we acknowledge none of us has a monopoly on wisdom.

However, the creation of the type of committee the Senator is suggesting could result in bona fide individuals assigned to report on family law proceedings having to go through a labyrinthine procedure or unnecessary delays before they can have access to the courts to report properly and responsibly on these matters. That is a cause for concern.

The proposal in this amendment has not proved necessary in the reporting of serious criminal sexual offences in our courts, and I do not consider it necessary for the reportage of family law. Any judge hearing a family case who sees a person sitting in the court will be in a position to query that individual's presence and to seek a validation, if need be and if there is any suggestion otherwise, that he or she is a member of the press. The likelihood is, as is the case at present in other court proceedings, that reporters in family cases will be well known to the court clerks, registrars and judges because they are regularly reporting matters before the courts. It is very unlikely that there will be myriad different reporters descending on the court system on different days. As it stands, a large number of cases are litigated in the criminal and civil areas on a day-to-day basis, the vast majority of which never see the light of day in newspaper reports. Only a minority will generate coverage by either the broadcast or print media.