I regret I am not able to accept this amendment because, first of all, I feel that it is faulty techically. It is not clear as to what the amendment as worded actually means. A possible interpretation is that family law proceedings would be in private only; if written reports of the proceedings were made available, such reports should omit identifying particulars. On this interpretation, if written reports were not to be made available then the proceedings would have to be in public. This would be an absurdity since I presume that the Deputy's intention is to maintain the anonymity of the parties to the proceedings.
I can only presume that in her amendment Deputy Colley intended that the written reports be made available of all proceedings, under this Bill. If that is the intention, then I am opposed to the amendment on the basis that it would involve a substantial charge on Exchequer funds.
There would seem to be only two ways of providing reports. One, by way of experienced newspaper reporters, or by official personnel. The first would clearly be at odds with the idea of having hearings in private. What must be intended, therefore, is the production of some kind of official report made out by an officially appointed court reporter. My Department does not get involved directly in the provision of court reporters, it is left to the Incorporated Council for Law Reporting. At present it reports on the more important cases. If the council were to take on the extra work required by this amendment, which would involve reporting on every judicial separation case in every court where such a case arises, it would undoubtedly need a substantial addition to its annual State subvention. The matter of reporting on every case would need to be examined further and the council would need ot be consulted but it seems obvious to me that only certain cases will raise important issues of law which will merit a report in the law journals. Having regard to the position I could not support this amendment.
