I welcome the opportunity to have a debate on family law transparency and the need to prioritise child welfare at all times and to discuss the reform of the in camera rule. I thank Deputy Gogarty for bringing this to the Dáil because these issues are raised weekly, if not more regularly, with me in my capacity as Chair of the justice committee. These issues also come to my constituency office. The remarks of the Minister tacitly acknowledge the general consensus that progress in terms of reform of family law and the implementation of the Family Courts Act has been far too slow. The Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, have told us that family law is the single biggest area of unmet legal need in the State and pointed to a sharp rise in queries from people who were representing themselves, with a high proportion involving family law disputes. This highlights the difficulty many face in accessing legal representation in family law courts. The Minister will know that I have raised with him the crisis in civil legal aid a number of times, which has direct consequences for family law, in particular those seeking legal representation. These issues have not been addressed. It seems that the discussion just goes on and on. The Family Courts Act 2024 introduced much-needed reforms of the family law system, including the creation of dedicated family District, Circuit and High Courts, yet no new family courts have opened to date and there has been little progress on the purpose-built law complex on Hammond Lane. The latest response to a parliamentary question I received from the Minister suggests that construction will not start until 2027. This is a far too familiar story when it comes to projects under Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. Progress is slow. The family courts building was first announced in 2014 and was originally expected to be operational by 2017, yet we are now being told it will be 2027. I have met a number of people at the busiest family law court, Dolphin House in Dublin, who told me the experience was horrendous. It is an outdated and overcrowded building that is not fit for purpose. People have articulated very well the problems the in camera rule presents and the need for it to be reformed. I want to report that our committee has heard from numerous victims and survivors of domestic violence, as well as others, who have experience of the family courts. They pointed out that the in camera rule severely limited accountability, prevented them, as they saw it, from sharing their experiences and left them silent, isolated and unsupported during family law proceedings. Others have argued that the in camera rule has shielded perpetrators from scrutiny and limited public accountability. Essentially, it has allowed harmful behaviour or litigation tactics that have exacerbated that harmful behaviour to go unchallenged behind closed doors. Measures such as more anonymised judgments would increase transparency. Following the publication of the review of the operation of the in camera rule in family law proceedings last May, which found widespread confusion, inconsistent application and a lack of transparency in family law proceedings, changes needed to be implemented as a matter of urgency. The Minister described the changes as critical, yet as far as I am aware, few if any of the recommendations have been implemented to date. Having spoken to people who have come through the system, again acknowledging survivors of domestic violence, they feel absolutely silenced by the rule. I believe the recommendation that litigants in domestic abuse and coercive control cases should be able to seek the permission of the court to lift the rule to waive anonymity should be implemented as a matter of urgency. Another area of family law which has been widely criticised is the use of so-called experts in family courts. That needs to be addressed. Concerns about the use of expert reports include inconsistent expert quality, sometimes bias, high cost, delays and reports that assessments can lack transparency or robust standards. I know the Minister has launched new judicial guidelines, which are welcome, but consideration should also be given to ensuring minimum qualifications, independence and accountability for anybody who deems themselves to be a family law expert. I want to repeat my commentary in respect of Tusla, which I have made on a number of occasions. I agree with the previous speaker who said there are many very hard-working, dedicated and committed people working for Tusla but the organisation, as a whole, continuously falls short of the standards we should be demanding. Tusla has charge in many instances of the most vulnerable children in our society and there are far too many cases of children in Tusla care who not only did not receive the support they deserved and that we should expect as a society but who have actually come out harmed as a result of their interaction with Tusla. Somebody has to take charge and ensure those deficiencies are fixed.

Sentiment score: -0.04