As the Minister knows, family law remains one of the most overlooked and under-resourced areas of our justice system. The attitude to family law is epitomised by the huge site earmarked for the headquarters of the new family law courts back in 2014 that has been lying vacant and waterlogged on Hammond Lane in Smithfield for years. Planning permission was granted in 2024 and it might be completed by 2029, if we are lucky. None of these delays have anything to do with environmental law or judicial reviews, by the way. This is just a failure by Government to prioritise family law. In the meantime, our existing family law courts, which are spread over multiple different venues, are overcrowded, dilapidated and lacking in privacy and spaces suitable for dealing with the tragic and sensitive disputes at play. I welcome this motion and thank Deputy Gogarty for proposing it. It is a worthy objective to seek more transparency and clarity in our courts system for the benefit of all court users. The notable thing about this campaign for reform of the in camera rule is that it has been led by survivors. It is grounded in the lived experiences of women and children who have experienced intimate partner violence, abuse and coercive control and who are trying to navigate a decrepit family law system that is failing them. Our system does not always manage to achieve the best outcomes for children, who are at the heart of many of these disputes. Attempts at reform in this area are welcome. Accessibility is vital in our justice system. Even the name of this rule, the in camera rule, is archaic and outdated. I welcome the Department's announcement of plans to retitle the rule into plain English to ensure that it is understood by all family court users, not just those with a legal or Latin degree. That is really simple but very important. Let us just call it "the privacy and transparency rule". It is vital that this rule, as long as it still exists at all, be clearly and consistently defined and understood and that its operation does not impede parties accessing support services outside the court. Of course, we should always be encouraging, in every way possible, the resolution of family disputes outside the confines of our courts. There are many other pressing issues in our family courts at the moment. These include the need for a statutory agency to pursue child maintenance. I welcome the child maintenance guidelines that were issued earlier this year. These will help parents to decide and come to an agreement on the appropriate level of maintenance outside of the courts. However, as the Law Society has recommended, we still need an agency to assist in bringing court applications to determine maintenance where disputes arise and an agency to act as a collecting agent for maintenance payments and to engage in the enforcement of maintenance and the collection of arrears. I reiterate my support for the motion.

Sentiment score: 0.24