Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I broadly welcome the thrust of the Bill. It is about recognising the reality of family life as it exists today and as it has always existed, contrary to the propaganda and ideology. The reality is more than one third of births in Ireland are outside marriage. Three hundred thousand children live with lone mothers, 100,000 children live with unmarried cohabiting couples and more than 40,000 children live with lone fathers, while more than 200 same-sex couples have children. The Bill states that these children should not be discriminated against because they are in non-marital families, and they have a right to a legal relationship with the people who play the role of parents in their lives. They should not be discriminated against in this sense. In particular, I welcome the provision whereby unmarried couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual, have the right to adopt children together and be parents together.

It is already clear from the debate that those on the religious right in this country are going to attempt to use this provision to try to whip up opposition to the referendum on same-sex marriage. The only argument they have is to claim that people will lose their mother if these two things go through. On this basis, they will try to stop a referendum which, I believe, the vast majority in society favour.

Those of us who support same-sex marriage and are opposed to discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people should consider how we respond to that argument. We should be upfront about it and make the point that the overwhelming weight of the evidence suggests that two gay parents are as capable of being good, loving, caring parents as heterosexual couples. We should defend absolutely the right and ability of gay couples to rear children. There is no evidence to suggest any problems whatsoever with that. To be honest, any belief that there is an issue is rooted, I believe, in a homophobic outlook which views this as problematic. It is simply looking for problems in this situation.

I welcome in particular the commitment and centrality of children's interests and rights. However, the Government must match this in terms of policy provision. Separately, we have seen an explosion in child poverty. A recent UNICEF report stated that child poverty rose from 10% to almost 30% between the years 2008 and 2012. Similar figures have been produced by Barnardos. We know that tens of thousands of parents will be cut off from the lone-parents allowance. The Government can have a rhetorical and legal commitment to the rights of children but these must be matched by action and funding.

I welcome the provisions relating to assisted human reproduction. However, the reality is that for vast swathes of society the option is simply beyond them. It is very expensive and is not covered by the public health service. At a minimum, one go at in vitrofertilisation costs approximately €5,000, although in most cases the costs are significantly more. In reality, these vast costs put the right of people to try for a family beyond many working class people, be they gay or straight. As part of the process of recognising the rights of people, we should hold that all couples, including gay couples, should have the right to assisted human reproduction, provided free through a public health service.

Another point relates to making all of this real and the necessity of legal and financial resources behind the legislation. This is complicated and rather court-focused legislation. It could result in a significant increase in court cases. The reality now is that there is a year-long waiting list for people to get access to free legal aid for family law cases and a significant backlog of family law cases in the District Court. If these rights are to be accessible to people, we need investment in resources in legal aid, including the expansion of legal aid in order that people can get access to the type of expertise that, at the moment, is mostly not available to people availing of legal aid. We also need assistance for low-income families who do not qualify for legal aid.

I support the calls for reform in two areas from the Children's Rights Alliance. The alliance has called for a central register for statutory declarations for joint guardianship because, at the moment, the situation is similar to that of wills in that they can be lost and there is no central repository. The alliance has also called for the establishment of a comprehensive court welfare service to support the roll-out of this legislation. This must be backed by the resources necessary to give people access to the rights legally given through this Bill.

There are further particular legal points and questions. None of the provisions will come into force until a ministerial order is commenced. This is rather unusual. Will the Minister explain why this is the case? Is it because the Government or the State will not have the resources to implement it? Is it for political reasons?

Reference has been made to recognition of the father and the 12 months requirement. I do not imagine it was the Government's intention but, as it is currently drafted, the provision seems to have retrospective impact. This could be seriously complicating and could create a minefield. I presume that is not the Government's intention. Clarity could be provided, perhaps with the introduction of amendments. There are other related difficulties not covered in the Bill in terms of where the burden of proof lies in the case of a conflict between a mother and a father. What kind of evidence can be deduced to back up a claim that someone has been cohabiting for a period of 12 months?

Section 51 allows for applications for access by a relative of a child. It was previously the case that a relative had to have leave of the court to make an application. As it currently stands in the Bill, this has been withdrawn. Why is that the case? This could potentially create complicated situations whereby estranged relatives could apply for access without having leave from either the courts or the parents.

See this speech in context