asked the Minister for Justice whether he has any proposals to modify the rule of in camera hearings in family law cases so as to permit the press, with due regard for the non-disclosure of the parties' identities, to report and comment on the administration of justice in this context; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

(Limerick East): As the Deputy is aware, the position is that in some family law cases, for instance, cases under the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act, 1976, the law requires that the proceedings be heard otherwise than in public whereas in other cases the court has discretion to exclude the public.

I recognise — as indeed did my predecessors — that this can create a problem. Each individual exclusion can be justified by reference to the intrusion into personal and family privacy that hearings in public would entail, an intrusion the risk of which could deter people from seeking legal remedies to which they are entitled. On the other hand the cumulative effect of exclusions could be that we would have a situation where, in a considerable area of application of the civil law, justice was not being administered in public.

While recognising that there is at least potentially a problem, I have not received from any source evidence that would suggest that the situation has developed to the point where the balance of public interest calls for a change. If a change were to be made, I accept that the Deputy's proposal would be one of the options to be considered but I am not sure that it would be the right option or that it would not give rise to more problems than it would solve.

At this stage all I can do is to undertake to keep the matter under consideration.

I understand the Minister's caution but would he not agree that from time to time every Deputy gets grumbles from individuals in regard to the functioning of the first category of court he mentioned and that the only way to allay such grumbles is to afford some limited access, under appropriate safeguards for the legitimate privacy of the people involved, to those courts so that the quality and style of their administration of justice can be observed and the spirit of the Constitution in Article 34 — even if not the letter in this case — can be respected?

(Limerick East): The difficulty is in balancing the privacy of individuals in family matters against the public interest that justice should be seen to be done, and to be done in public. The solution suggested by the Deputy would give access to the press and perhaps to a junior reporter — which might be no harm at all — without serious journalistic intent, but, at the same time, it would deny a seriously interested politician, an academic or a social worker access to the same court. If we were providing access it would have to be done on a wider scale. At the moment the balance is in favour of not changing, but I will keep the matter under consideration.

Will the Minister not agree in view of recent developments in cases of this nature that there is reason for him to review the situation to see if some change could be effected in existing arrangements? The Minister must be aware that there is much concern about the matter and that there is a need for a change in the present restrictions governing the reporting of cases of that nature.

(Limerick East): I am aware of some concern but I am also aware of the major concern that would be aroused by a change which would allow people who were not directly involved to have access to family courts and to hearings that are held in camera at the moment. There is concern on both sides. It is a question of balance. At the moment I tend towards the position that we should not change now, but I will keep the matter under consideration.