Legislative Measures
1. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if he will support the introduction of protection orders for victims of sexual violence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54195/25]
The Minister may know that I introduced a Bill to the House in June, entitled the Victims of Sexual Violence Civil Protection Orders Bill. It was drafted by my office in response to discussions we held with a number of victims and survivors of sexual violence, who made it clear to me that having a provision to protect them after the release of the perpetrator of their attack would have a profound positive impact. Is the Minister inclined to support the Bill when it comes before the House?
I thank Deputy Carthy for his question. I did indeed have an opportunity to read the Victims of Sexual Violence Civil Protection Orders Bill he introduced to the House on 26 June. Deputy Carthy's Bill seeks to provide that at the same time as somebody is convicted of a serious sexual offence on indictment the court would impose an order restraining the person convicted of the offence from approaching the victim. It is legislation I will keep under consideration. Before I make a conclusive decision on it, I have to take into account the legislation that is there at present. I am sure he will agree there is no point in enacting legislation that simply repeats what is there in our statutory framework already.
Under Part 5 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 there is capacity for an order to be granted by the court restraining an individual from approaching or coming within a certain distance of other individuals. This legislation was designed and passed as stalking legislation but it is a statutory mechanism that is in place.
I should also point out we already have in our legal system protection orders in the context of domestic violence, which would cover sexual offences in many respects. Under section 10 of the Domestic Violence Act 2018 there is a provision for the granting of protection orders. Similar to the safety order, it restrains a person, meaning the respondent remains in the home but is ordered not to use violence, threats or molestations. It imposes protections on the victim.
I should also point out the Sex Offenders Act is in place and it provides for specific requirements regarding somebody who has been convicted of one of the offences set out in Deputy Carthy's legislation.
While I welcome the statement by the Minister that he will at least consider the legislation, I can tell him, from speaking to victims and survivors with real-life experience, that there is a legislative gap in place. What this means in reality is that for many survivors of sexual violence their fear intensifies the longer the sentence of the person convicted of the offence goes on. They fear that on the release of the perpetrator they could end up having an encounter. They have told me about the impact this has on their lives and how they feel they are on a countdown to the release. In some cases these are people who have exerted control over them for many years as part of the abuse. In some cases there is genuine fear that a perpetrator would seek retribution.
Does the Minister agree we need to empower victims and survivors of sexual violence and help them as much as possible to have a sense of safety and security to rebuild their lives? At the moment of the court case there is an opportunity to put in place a protection that will last beyond release.
I agree with Deputy Carthy when he says we need to empower victims. One issue I may have in respect of his legislation is that the proposal is that at the time of conviction the protection order would be placed on the individual. If we think about it, under the legislation Deputy Carthy proposes the protection order would be put in place at the same time that an individual is sentenced to ten to 15 years imprisonment for a very serious sexual offence, but it would only come into effect at the time the individual leaves prison, which could be ten, 11 or 12 years later.
Conditional release and terms of release can probably be better set at the time the person is being released. Most victims would be satisfied when somebody gets a lengthy sentence and they know they will spend a lengthy period in prison. The victim has to be informed when the person will be released. As well as this, we should ensure there are conditions placed on the individual from the date of release. I am concerned that imposing these restrictions at the time of conviction may not take into account the full circumstances that apply at the time of release.
The Minister is on the record as acknowledging the trauma often involved for victims and survivors going through the judicial process in the first place. The system essentially makes it necessary for them to go through it again to seek a protection order on the release of the perpetrator. This is why this legislation allows the victim and the State to put in place the protections at a much earlier stage. We have had many discussions on this. The committee was dealing with a miscellaneous provisions Bill last week and we heard victims again speak directly about the issue of counselling notes. This is something we need to deal with. What should happen for a survivor is that conviction is day one of rebuilding their lives.
If it is day one in rebuilding their lives but a clock is ticking in the victim's mind counting down to the perpetrator being released, creating genuine fear, the success that might have been is undone. Is the Minister amenable to at least allowing the Bill to pass First Stage and Second Stage so that we can deliberate on the nuances in committee?
I will give consideration to the Bill but I do not want to progress legislation that is unnecessary. In circumstances where a person gets a life sentence for a very serious sexual offence such as rape, when it comes to that person's release many years later, conditions of release will be imposed upon that person. Those conditions can direct that the person shall not go anywhere near the victim or that he or she shall stay away from a town where the victim has resided. I would not like the message to go out that there is no mechanism by which the State can put in place conditions after a person has been released. As I have said, I am concerned that the legislation the Deputy is suggesting imposes an obligation that would probably not kick in until seven, ten or 12 years later. I am happy to look at the imposition of controls on persons convicted of a sexual offence who are subject to immediate release, but such a mechanism already exists in the Sex Offenders Act, which imposes very strict obligations on those convicted of sexual offences.
An Garda Síochána
2. Deputy Alan Kelly asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration the reforms of An Garda Síochána he will be encouraging the newly appointed Garda Commissioner to introduce. [54472/25]
What reforms is the Minister going to encourage the new Garda Commissioner to introduce? I will concentrate on financial controls and reform in An Garda Síochána. The Comptroller and Auditor General has issued a report about hundreds of thousands of euro being lost in connection with policing the Europa League final. Later today, my colleague Deputy Eoghan Kenny will meet with the Garda Síochána anti-corruption unit with regard to a senior garda having stayed in a very plush five-star hotel during the Biden visit, which obviously came at a serious cost to the taxpayer. What reforms is the Minister going to encourage the new Commissioner to introduce, particularly with regard to financial management and controls?
I thank Deputy Kelly. I will come to the issue he focused on, which was financial concerns within An Garda Síochána, but his general question was about the reforms I am going to encourage the new Commissioner to operate or continue with. I have had many engagements with him. One of the priorities I have emphasised to him, which is a priority of my own and of Government, is that I want to see greater Garda visibility. That means having more members recruited into the force and ensuring that, when people are recruited as members of An Garda Síochána, they are out in our community and that people get to see them. It is absolutely essential for safety and the perception of safety that there is widespread Garda visibility in our towns and cities. I have also emphasised that an area of reform I want to see is the greater use of technology by An Garda Síochána. I have secured considerable funding in the budget and in the national development plan to ensure that each member of An Garda Síochána will have access to body cameras. I want to see these rolled out rapidly next year.
The Deputy focused on issues relating to Garda resources and what the Comptroller and Auditor General has correctly presented as a misuse of financial resources by An Garda Síochána. He highlighted how accommodation for the UEFA Europa League final last year was purchased at an excessive cost and that many of the rooms that were acquired at a total cost of up to €250,000 were not used. I have spoken to the Commissioner in respect of this matter. It is absolutely essential that, when significant resources are provided to An Garda Síochána, those resources are used carefully. Money used to acquire resources is precious and we need to ensure the money we provide to An Garda Síochána is used for the purpose of protecting the public and keeping them safe. I was very disappointed at what I saw in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report but I am pleased that the Commissioner and An Garda Síochána have accepted all of the recommendations contained within it. I do not believe we will see such a waste of money again.
On Deputy Kenny's meeting with the anti-corruption unit of An Garda Síochána later, I hope that internal promotions of those who are the subject of the ongoing investigation will not occur until that investigation is concluded. I am sure the Minister will agree. It is not just that, however. There is a culture. There was a contract worth €500,000 for holsters but these were defective and ended up being destroyed. There were other holsters that only had an issue with a strap but these were also destroyed at a cost to the taxpayer. Defective ammunition was also destroyed, at a cost of €160,000. A Walther LP500 air pistol for which An Garda Síochána had no use was bought at a cost of €2,000. Why does An Garda Síochána even have that pistol? It has nothing to do with policing. The Minister might investigate that. There is also a large-scale scanner that cost €44,250. With licence renewals, that cost comes to more than €93,000. It has never been used. There is obviously an issue in An Garda Síochána that needs to be taken up with the Commissioner. Changes need to happen with regard to financial management.
In respect of the issue the Deputy highlighted regarding his colleague Deputy Kenny's meeting later today, I am obviously not going to get involved in any individual investigations that may be initiated by An Garda Síochána. With regard to the other items the Deputy highlighted, I cannot shy away from the fact that there have been examples of unwise expenditure in the past. I have emphasised to the Commissioner and will emphasise again here publicly that, when Accounting Officers are spending public money, they have to ensure that it is spent carefully on behalf of the people of the country. It is essential that we do not have a situation whereby money, a valuable resource, is provided from the budget to an Accounting Officer who does not spend it carefully and cautiously. The current Commissioner is very aware of the fact that any moneys he receives via Vote of the Oireachtas have to be spent very carefully and cautiously. However, we do need to provide resources to An Garda Síochána to improve technology. The Deputy has identified some instances where he says money has been wasted but there has also been expenditure on items that have been very beneficial to the Garda and to the public at large.
It is quite ironic that the Minister mentions improvements in IT. He will know that our automated fingerprinting system, AFIS, was said to be out of date in 2016. Some 17,000 sets of prints have been lost forever. God knows what impact that has had on policing and crime. That system has been out of date since 2016. At the time, replacing it was quoted at €20 million. It has been renewed every year at a cost of €5 million. Some €40 million has been spent on a system that has to be replaced. How is that a good use of taxpayers' money? How is it a good example of using money to solve crime when 17,000 sets of fingerprints have gone missing? The Minister is right; we need to update our IT system. Gardaí need that. However, how is it acceptable that the misuse of this amount of money, this inefficiency and this loss of potentially crime-solving data is continuously allowed to happen? Why was this not dealt with many years ago?
When it comes to financial mismanagement in An Garda Síochána, my primary concern is highlighted by what is in the Comptroller and Auditor General's current report. I note the Deputy has referred to issues that took place back in 2016. They are of concern but my primary concern-----
They are still live.
-----is to ensure that the issues identified in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report are confronted by senior Garda management.
Some 17,000 sets of fingerprints were lost.
The Deputy will have seen the response from the Garda Commissioner and senior Garda management. They accept the recommendations of the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is a very valuable constitutional office because those who are charged with spending public money must be aware that, if they mismanage the spending of that money, it will be exposed, discussed and debated in this House. I have emphasised to the Commissioner and senior management that they have to be extremely careful with moneys provided to them but the main portion of the money going into An Garda Síochána relates to pay, recruitment and numbers of persons within the force. That is money that is well spent. The technological advancements we are giving to the Garda such as body cameras, improvements to the fleet, helicopters and aircraft are all necessary for the people of Ireland to be kept safe by An Garda Síochána.
International Protection
3. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if, following the issues identified in the annual report of the Comptroller and Auditor General regarding the management of international protection accommodation contracts, he will initiate a full and thorough look back review into the way in which public money has been spent on IPAS accommodation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54196/25]
The Comptroller and Auditor General's annual report contains a chapter on asylum accommodation that details a litany of issues in respect of the management of contracts for IPAS accommodation. As the Minister of State will know, the State is due to spent approximately €1.2 billion on such accommodation this year.
The report is what I would call a damning indictment in terms of due diligence and cost controls. Will the Government now initiate a thorough review of how public money has been spent on IPAS accommodation?
My Department is taking action across all aspects of international protection accommodation to ensure we improve value for money, strengthen governance and compliance, and renegotiate contracts with providers. This forms part of the overall reform of the international protection system that is already working to speed up the processing of applications and move away from commercial provision to more State-owned accommodation. This reform will help to drive down costs. The Minister and I are absolutely committed to driving down the costs in this area.
My Department took over responsibility for international protection accommodation from 1 May last and has worked closely with the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General on carrying out an extensive review of costs and processes within the international protection accommodation system. This was published last week as part of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s Report on the Accounts of the Public Services 2024. All recommendations in the report have been accepted and implemented by the Department, with one recommendation to be implemented in 2026.
The report examined overall processes and sampled 20 IPAS contracts. It acknowledges the extensive challenges posed to the State to source accommodation during what was an unprecedented period, namely from 2022 to 2024. During this period, over 45,000 additional international protection applicants arrived in Ireland. Prior to this, a typical three-year period would have seen close to 8,000 or 9,000. Today’s standards of pre-contract assessment and negotiation could not be applied to accommodation between 2022 and 2024, basically because of the pace at which people were arriving.
While applications this year have, thankfully, reduced, they remain high compared with pre-2022 norms. This has given sufficient space to put in place greater controls over the IPAS accommodation portfolio. We have put a range of updated and strengthened systems and procedures in place and these are already beginning to have a genuine impact.
IPAS has put improved processes in place for appraisal, validation, contracting and payments. A new rate-card pricing structure is being applied to all new or renewing contracts, which has resulted in savings of over €52 million across 104 contracts since May of this year.
That was a long way of saying the Government does not plan to carry out a full review of every single contract. A full review is required. As the Minister of State rightly said, the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report deals only with a sample of contracts. From this, it has found that pre-contract due diligence records were significantly incomplete. In more than a third of the cases examined, invoice rates were not clear and could not be verified as signed contracts were not available. There was clear evidence of substantial overcharging in some instances, and the pre-payment checklist used by IPAS did not include a check to verify the correct capacity or occupancy.
The Minister of State cannot simply argue we will be doing what is required in the future and that we were under pressure in the past. This is about a substantial amount of public money, taxpayers’ money. It has enriched a very small number of individuals and companies to the tune of millions of euro and in the process caused tension and anger across communities. As a result of the damning findings in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report, is anybody going to be held accountable? The only way somebody can be held accountable is if every single contract is examined for flaws. Without that, the public can have no confidence that there will be any transparency.
To outline the position again, we have accepted the recommendations in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s report. We absolutely recognise them. We have put in place contract reviews designed to deliver genuine savings. We recognise that due to the surge that took place from 2022 to 2024, we were not in a position to have the relevant structures in place, but we now are and we are actually delivering genuine savings.
The most important point related to this has two aspects: first, we must ensure that, going forward, we have the contracts in place delivering savings; and second, reflecting the position we have taken and on which we are absolutely focused, we must move where possible to having State-owned services that actually deliver substantial savings rather than having commercial providers. These two steps combined will deliver much better value for money in the system, which is what we all want to see. In partnership with doing that, we are also looking at all those contracts as they come up, with a view to putting in place a new contract rate card that also delivers savings.
None of that is good enough. Every single week, we hear about another scandal in respect of an IPAS contract. Huge sums of money were paid to people with no track record and there is no explanation as to why this was the case. We do not get these revelations from the Minister of State’s Department, by the way; it is usually journalists who give us information that is in the public interest and that we as a House should have control over. Take, for example, the most recent issue, that of Ryevale House in County Kildare. We found out through the media that the company in question, which has secured a substantial IPAS contract, cannot even provide water. In fact, according to newspaper reports it is alleged the company is actually robbing public water from a fire hydrant. How does that happen? How do we have circumstances in which somebody named by CAB as potentially involved in gangland crime can get an IPAS contract? How do we allow a system that sees a company move from having a café making a profit of €2,000 to paying the directors almost €5 million in wages? We need to ask these questions. If experience tells us anything, it is that if we do not tackle the misuse of public funds at source, with full transparency, mistakes will be repeated time and again.
As I have said to the Deputy, all contracts we are now putting in place have checks and balances in respect of tax clearance certificates.
How is the Ryevale House issue arising now?
We are totally transparent in publishing details of all payments made, and we do that regularly. We believe the contracts we are now putting in place are absolutely clear and deliver on some of the things the Deputy is asking about.
I understand that, in the case the Deputy mentioned, the water provision issue has been completely addressed and what he described is not happening at this point. However, it is important that contractors provide their service in the correct and proper way to the State. Through the contracts we are putting in place now, we are determined to deliver in this regard.
Legal Aid
4. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration when he will review the disposable income threshold of €18,000 for accessing civil legal aid, which has not been updated since 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54227/25]
The disposable income threshold for civil legal aid is only €18,000. Incredibly, it has not been updated since 2006. Think of all the cost-of-living crises and everything else we have been through since then. How much additional funding is provided for civil legal aid in the budget? Will it allow for the raising of the threshold very significantly and for abolishing it entirely in cases where domestic violence is a factor?
I thank the Deputy Murphy for this important question. As he has identified, some additional funding has been provided for legal aid in the budget announced this week. I was very pleased to secure an additional €8 million in funding for the Legal Aid Board. I also managed to secure a 50% increase in funding for free legal advice centres. As the Deputy will be aware, in order for the administration of justice to operate effectively, people must have access to the courts. In many areas, we do provide funding for access to the courts. Individuals who are prosecuted for criminal offences and who do not have means get representation under the criminal legal aid scheme. I am pleased to say I have managed to achieve the full restoration of the fees in that scheme next year, subject to agreeing a number of reforms in the area.
The specific issue identified by Deputy Murphy is the fact that, at present, the income threshold applied in order to gain access to civil legal aid is €18,000. A report I recently received from former Chief Justice Frank Clarke recommends it should be increased to €23,500 in disposable income. I agree with that recommendation and would like to see it implemented. However, there are a number of things I need to do before I can announce its implementation.
In the first instance, I recognise that there has not been a change since 2006. There needs to be. Second, if I raise the threshold, which I hope to do, it will necessarily result in a larger cohort of people eligible to receive legal advice from the Legal Aid Board. I need to ensure, in advance of raising the threshold, that I have the solicitors and legal advice providers available to ensure that, once it is raised, the advice can be provided. I am in the process of getting advice from my Department on what level of further legal expertise will be required to facilitate the raising of the threshold. I want to raise it. This has been on my desk for a couple of months now but I am aware of the urgency because of the fact that the threshold has not been changed since 2006.
I agree this is a question of access to justice. Some people are being denied justice because they are just over the threshold and therefore cannot afford it. A woman has come to me whose daughter is dealing with an abusive ex-partner and is fighting for full custody. She is €50 per week over the current threshold and has therefore had to spend €45,000 on a custody case, which is horrendous.
I note the Minister mentioned the figure of €23,500, which obviously comes from the majority report reviewing the whole scheme. I point out to the Minister and ask him to consider the fact that there is a minority report that argues that figure is still not high enough and will continue to exclude people who require the civil legal aid scheme. I have not done the figures, but I presume if we were just to adjust the figure of €18,000 for inflation from 2006 we would end up with more than €23,500.
I am aware of the minority and majority reports. In many respects, it is beneficial to have two reports. Being realistic, though, my best chance of implementing recommendations is to implement those in the majority report. The Deputy has identified an important area. The area of family law and domestic violence which requires civil orders to be granted is one where it is hard to get other elements of funding provided to it. If somebody wants to take a personal injury case or a contractual case, if they have a good case a principle operates in the legal profession of no foal, no fee. Lawyers will represent the individual concerned and if the case succeeds - and their belief is that it will succeed - they will get their costs paid at the end. In family law, that type of arrangement does not really exist, so this is the area where we need to ensure adequate funding is available.
To tease that out a little further, does the Minister agree that a different threshold or abolishing the threshold entirely would be appropriate in cases where domestic violence is a factor or in family law cases like that for precisely the reason he outlined? Can the Minister provide any sort of timeframe for when this consideration is likely to be complete? I underline the point that it is not simply about the thresholds; it is also about the amount of resources and the availability of lawyers. Otherwise, people will be able to qualify, but if no lawyers are available and they end up on waiting lists forever, then it will not be worth a whole lot. The figures are quite striking. Figures from February 2025 show a waiting time of up to 46 weeks for a first consultation in Sligo, 37 in Longford, 34 in Tallaght, 31 in Kilkenny and 30 in Cavan, so this issue also needs to be addressed.
Due to the limitations on resources, I do not think I could find myself in a situation where I would just abolish thresholds. In terms of having different thresholds for family law cases and domestic violence cases, applications to the scheme at present predominantly arise in respect of international protection advice being sought and, indeed, family law advice. Those are the two big cohorts of it. My first priority is to try to get the threshold up to €23,500. That would protect a lot of people in the family law sphere.
In terms of a timeframe, I hope to be in a position to make a decision on this matter next year. I am sorry, perhaps this is not sufficient for the Deputy, but I do not want to set unrealistic expectations. Turning to resources, there is obviously a difficulty in trying to recruit solicitors. They are much in demand in Ireland at present. Many of them are attracted to bigger firms and higher earning areas. It is an issue we need to reflect on regarding what we can do to get solicitors recruited into legal advice boards or aid boards around the country.
Family Law Cases
5. Deputy Paul Nicholas Gogarty asked the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration if there has been progress in removing the in camera rule in the family courts, subject to protection of identity, in order that media reports can be carried out in the interests of transparency; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [54521/25]
The most recent time I raised this matter last June, I criticised the current state of Ireland's family court system and highlighted delays, poor facilities and, in particular, a lack of transparency due to the in camera rule. In response, the Minister acknowledged the widespread public frustration with the family law processes. He said that the full removal of the in camera rule was unlikely due to the need to protect children's identities, but that reform was on the way via the family law implementation group working on this issue. He also said we need better environments for hearings and to find a way for the child's voice to be properly heard. Can the Minister please outline the progress made?
The primary principle must be that justice should be administered in public. However, there are exceptions to it. The in camera rule is one of them, which applies generally in family law proceedings. As the Deputy knows, it does not preclude newspapers or journalists attending in courts where family law disputes are being heard, but it does preclude them from publishing the identities of individuals. I am pleased to say we have seen some progress in the area. Greater reporting is now taking place in respect of what is happening in the family law courts. We frequently see on a Monday in one of the newspapers that there is a weekly report of a family law case proceeding there.
As I said, research was commissioned and published by my Department on the operation of the in camera rule in family law proceedings, and that report contains 21 recommendations. A number of the strategies that have arisen on foot of that report include the publication of the review of the role of expert reports in the family law process too. The Deputy may be aware this issue is quite contentious and is one that is coming within my consideration of family law strategy. I would like to see the lifting of some of the in camera rule restrictions. Many people who have been before the family law process have expressed their concerns about it. An excellent report was produced by academics recently. It was commissioned by my Department and provided to me. It outlined a lot of general dissatisfaction with the operation of the rule. I have not been able to get recommendations together as to how we should proceed in terms of changing the law. Work is ongoing in the Department in this respect. It does take time, consideration and consultation with parties to assess how we should move on. The work, though, is ongoing and I hope to be in a position to have further information for the House in due course.
We do need to shine more light on these situations. In family disputes involving children, people will sometimes attempt to alienate the kids. The Minister referred to reports. In relation to section 32 and section 47 reports, we have had cases where people have almost treated parental alienation as a proven case when it is not. It is almost like a cult. Immersion therapy is recommended, where children are taken away from their mother for months on end. This is often used as a form of coercive control by a partner who has no real desire to spend time with the children but is using it as a way to punish and control their former partner. In some cases, it has been alleged by a number of people I have met that the judges have said expert Y is very good and they have taken their view. There is no scrutiny or transparency in this regard. It needs to be brought out into the open to protect children. Otherwise, they will be the next generation of abuse cases.
The Deputy is right that the term and concept of "parental alienation" is highly contested and contentious. It is the case with virtually all family law disputes that they become very contested and contentious. I want to try to ensure that when it comes to a family law dispute involving a child there is a mechanism in place to ensure the voice of that child is heard. The system at present probably relies too much on the production of the reports we spoke about a few moments ago. There is a level of dissatisfaction in respect of those reports and I think some of that dissatisfaction is understandable. I need to try to identify another mechanism whereby the voice of the child can become apparent or heard by the court. It is obviously easier in circumstances where there is a teenage child who is able to express their own views to the court, but when it comes to children under the age of ten it gets much more difficult and, as the age declines, it is sometimes virtually impossible to decipher what is in the best interests of the child. It is something we have to keep working on.
I believe it is important to keep the pressure on and to keep working on this issue. In many instances, these so-called experts are not actually qualified, and in many instances they are actually being paid by one parent to produce the report because the other parent cannot afford to have a similar report. It is not a fair situation and the more the media are able to shed light on the situation and the more scrutiny put on it, the less likely it will be that these types of cases will occur in future.
Just to let the Deputy know, in terms of the recommendations of the review I referred to a few moments ago, one is that we produce guidelines on the commissioning, content and use of welfare reports. The Chief Justice has established a judicial committee to develop guidelines on the commissioning, content and use of welfare reports.
It is being chaired by Ms Justice Nuala Jackson of the High Court and is being supported by my Department. It is expected to conclude its work shortly. We need to ensure, if reports are being produced for a court, that we are satisfied that they are based upon arcane expertise that is of benefit to the court. All courts are dependent upon getting expert evidence. In some cases, it is appropriate that there is expert evidence to assist the court in deciphering what the wishes of the child are, what the voice of the child is, how the child should be heard and what the child is saying. I can understand why that may be necessary in certain circumstances, particularly for younger children. It is absolutely essential that the system retain confidence in that. That is why I am waiting for the proposals from Ms Justice Nuala Jackson.