I thank Deputy Gogarty and his staff for putting this motion together. It seeks to reform how our family law system operates, not by removing protections for children but by modernising a system that is too secretive, too closed and too unaccountable for the level of power it exercises over families. Family law cases are sensitive, but sensitivity cannot continue to be used as an excuse for blanket secrecy. The in camera rule, as currently applied under the Guardianship of Infants Act and the Child Care Act, has created a system that operates almost entirely beyond public view, lacks transparency and is doing harm. Under the current system, proceedings are held fully in private, reporting is almost entirely prohibited and parents are often unclear about what they are legally allowed to say. When a system operates without transparency, it operates without accountability. When there is no accountability, mistakes are not corrected and they are repeated. That is not good enough for families, and it is not good enough in the context of child welfare. Parents are telling us the same thing again and again. They feel silenced, disempowered and excluded from decisions that affect their children. Many of them leave family courts confused, distressed and fearful of speaking out even when they believe serious errors have occurred. That completely undermines confidence in the system. This motion recognises that parents must be protected from unjust exposure but they must also be protected from institutional silence. The motion also directly relates to concerns we have raised consistently in this House about Tusla. Tusla exercises enormous power within family court proceedings. Its assessment and recommendations carry decisive weight, yet its actions are largely shielded from scrutiny by the in camera rule. In recent years, we have raised concerns about inconsistent decision-making, delays in implementing court directions, poor communication with families and an imbalance of power between the State and parents. These issues are extremely difficult to change when everything happens behind closed doors. Secrecy does not protect Tusla from criticism; it prevents improvement. The family law system exists to protect children, but protection requires oversight. Where there is no scrutiny, poor decision-making can persist, groupthink can develop and under-resourcing becomes normalised. Parents raise concerns about children repeatedly experiencing emotional harm, trauma and long-term mental health impacts. Children suffer when systems are hidden from view. This motion is about ensuring that child welfare outcomes improve. It is not about opening courtrooms to the public. The motion also raises legitimate concerns over the role of unregulated or weakly regulated experts. Court-appointed experts can have enormous influence, yet standards, accreditation and oversight are inconsistent. If expert evidence is to shape decisions about children's lives, it must be properly regulated, evidence-based and accountable. This is responsible reform. Ireland is falling behind. England, Wales and Northern Ireland have already moved away from blanket secrecy by allowing accredited journalists, legal reporters and controlled reporting with strict anonymity protections. The evidence shows no breaches of anonymity, increased public understanding and improved accountability. The motion simply asks Ireland to learn from what already works. It does not call for open courts or unrestricted reporting. It proposes replacing the blanket in camera rule with controlled transparency, strong and enforceable anonymity protections, judicial discretion to restrict reporting where necessary, transparency orders that clearly define what may be reported, regulation of experts and stronger oversight of Tusla's compliance with court direction. This is balanced and proportionate reform. We have huge difficulties regarding areas in respect of which reform is still needed. I wrote to the chief superintendent in west Cork in recent days about a young child. We have been working with her parents. The child, who is 15 or 16 years of age, has been in continual communication with some kind of paedophile in the UK who is in his late 30s. There was huge upset in the home, obviously, which led to the child being taken into foster care for the time being. One of the parents is very distressed as a result of their daughter being violated by this gentleman. The laws do not seem to be able to protect them or put a stop to what is happening. The person in the UK seems to be protected by laws that Irish lawmakers cannot seem to cover. That is not something that has happened in the past week or two; it has been going on for a number of months.

Sentiment score: -0.03