I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. There is clear evidence of the need to reform and change the in camera rule. In practice, the rule restricts evidence and protects perpetrators rather than victims. It has created a culture of secrecy that shields abuse and effectively acts as a gagging order. While in theory it protects privacy, in practice it often prevents public accountability and hinders supports for vulnerable people through its misapplication. In the Minister's amendment, he mentions that a detailed examination is being undertaken by officials and also mentions findings and recommendations from the report on the operation of the in camera rule, including a review of the Transparency Project and the use of transparency orders in England and Wales. When is the Minister going to take action on foot of recommendations for reform, including the introduction of transparency orders? The independent research report was published almost a year ago. We need a commitment to transparency as a priority rather than just an acknowledgement that the Minister values it. On the specific issue of transparency orders, the reply I received to a parliamentary question sidesteps the question and says that officials are examining developments in England and Wales. We need an indication that such orders are being actively considered for Ireland. There is a clear gap and we need a structured transparency regime such as that provided by transparency orders. There is a notable emphasis throughout on privacy as opposed to transparency. It feels like the groundwork is being laid to push back against the deeper reforms that are necessary. It has become internationally accepted that the blanket enforcement of in camera rule-style procedures in family law matters is unacceptable. We need to at least see a pilot on changes to the rule. Women have come to my clinics and tell me that the in camera rule is a cloak of invisibility for the failings of the family courts. I have been contacted by women who have been threatened by judges with the Dóchas Centre and having their children removed from them for non-compliance with contact orders. When they try to challenge these decisions or explain, they are shot down and often told that it is the woman the father has a problem with and not the children. The comments are made in cases where the father is accused and sometimes convicted of domestic and sexual violence against the mother. While the in camera rule is in place, there is no accountability for the manner in which some judges and barristers treat women in court. I support the amendment Deputy Gibney is going to move. We need access to relevant case law on the Bench. Australia's National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book provides a good example. We need to introduce something like that here.

Sentiment score: 0.04