Yes. I agree that, if all other things were equal, it would be desirable that the family law courts, like all other courts, would be open and the cases reported. Without question it would be helpful to practitioners. However, all other things are not equal in family law cases. There is a serious difficulty having regard to the nature of the material which is adduced before the courts in family law cases which gave rise to the present restriction in virtually all family law cases. Admittedly, the Law Reform Commission suggested some reform but Deputies will see that even what it proposes is rather limited as it recommends providing access to bona fide researchers on the one hand and students of family law on the other.
I am broadly sympathetic to considering some relaxation of the present rule provided schemes can be devised to protect the identity of the people whose cases are involved. It is really a problem which would give rise to difficulty in more rural areas outside the large urban centres. It would not be such a problem in the large concentrated urban areas where anonymity, from description of a case, would not be so readily destroyed. In rural areas people would readily be identified from the description of events and I would not wish that to happen.
As I indicated in my initial reply, when the Department has disposed of its other legislative priorities we will look carefully at the in camera rule to see what variation can be made. When we do that we will take into account the comments of the Law Reform Commission and, indeed, other comments made by Members of the House.