Expert witnesses in family cases are to be named under the next stage of opening up the family courts to the media, although social workers' anonymity will be protected, ministers have announced.

Jack Straw intends a two-stage process in which the media will initially be denied the right to publish sensitive material under proposed legislation for the next Parliamentary session.

Under the first phase, which will last 18 months, the media will be able to name professional expert witnesses but not social workers, unless judges direct otherwise.

If that is successful, there will then be a move to an open reporting system, but with the anonymity of children always protected.

The two-stage plan will go some way to appeasing judges, magistrates and lawyers who were opposed across the board to initial plans allowing the media access to confidential court papers and to name parties in a case, subject to protecting the confidentiality of a child.

The new clauses in the Children, Schools and Families Bill build on changes announced in April that allowed the media to attend most family proceedings for the first time.

The legislation aims to balance the need to make family courts open and accountable against the need to protect the welfare of children and families involved in family proceedings.

The first phase will allow reporting of family proceedings, including placement proceedings for the first time, with a strict indefinite ban on the publication of the identity of children and families involved.

It will also prohibit sensitive personal information from being reported, unless the court directs otherwise.

The Ministry of Justice said: “In the interests of open justice and to improve public confidence, experts who are paid to provide evidence to the court may be named. The legislation will not change the current rules that permit applications for access to court documents.”

“The overall aim is to move to an open reporting system where information would be reportable unless the court specifically prohibited it in an individual case, whilst still protecting the anonymity of the children. “

A review after 18 months will judge whether some or all the reporting restrictions could be removed in the interests of greater transparency, whilst maintaining a total ban on identifying the children and the families involved.

The second stage, which might then allow the lifting of restrictions on witnesses and sensitive personal information. would require a vote of both Houses of Parliament.

Jack Straw, Justice Secretary, said: “We want to create a system that is transparent, accountable, and inspires public confidence in its good work, whilst still protecting the privacy of children and families involved.”

He added: “Greater media access to family courts will lead to greater trust in family courts.

Finding the right balance among many strong views will take time, which is what this Bill will allow us to do.”

He welcomed comments by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, earlier in the week, asserting the importance of media access to the courts.

Lord Judge said in a speech to the Society of Newspaper Editors: “Just as an independent press can expose the errors made by local authorities and governments, so too, the administration of justice in the courts should be open to the public scrutiny which an independent press provides.

“You have the right to be present in court unless the right has been taken away. Unless the right has been expressly taken away, your right to be in court is no different to and no less than the right of the lawyers, the advocates, even the judge himself or herself. You are not performing the same function as the judge, but you have a valued function to perform.”

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• The best legal yarns this Christmas
• Legal school 'earned £1m by exploiting bar course'
• Axe may fall on 5,000 more City lawyers