Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the publication of this Bill. As other speakers have said, it is a substantial, detailed and intricate piece of legislation. It would take some time for any Member of the House to fully digest it. The legislation will be a fundamental building block in how we acknowledge family formation in the years ahead and the diverse make-up of families in modern Irish society. The Bill was published last week and we are now on Second Stage, so the pressure is on to rush it through the Houses of the Oireachtas and ensure that it is not running into or being confused with the marriage equality referendum. That, however, is doing a disservice not only to this legislation but also to the debate on the marriage equality referendum.

It was unfortunate that it was delayed, because we have had just one week since its publication to assess, adjudicate, engage with various stakeholders, take our own soundings and advice, and make an informed contribution to it in this debate.

I listened with interest to Deputy Shatter's contribution. Even if I had not been speaking after him I would have come in to listen to him, given his intimate knowledge of the Bill. He made some very valid points about the delay in the Bill and the need for us to have an informed debate. There are a few issues, however, that will need to be teased out further. That is why I hope that on Committee Stage ownership will not be taken by any one side. I also hope that the constructive views of both Opposition and Government Deputies will be examined impartially. As the Minister knows, Opposition amendments are often ignored or reasons are found to block their passage through Committee and later Stages. As much as possible, this Bill should be handled in a non-partisan way. We are not talking about Opposition views on Government legislation; we are talking about how we form society in the years ahead. That debate should be as consensual as possible in the time available. I know the timeframe will put the Minister under pressure, but we should allow as much debate as possible in order to have a consensus in amending any parts of the legislation where there may be deficiencies.

Reference has been made to the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 and the fact that it is quite an archaic law based on legislation prior to Independence. In drafting the Bill before us, I wonder why there was not a full repeal of those Acts. In that way they could have been subsumed into one substantial piece of legislation that reflects modern Ireland and the changes in our society over the years.

We have unearthed much evidence of sadness in society in the past because of our view of what a family had to be. Lone parenthood, for example, put huge pressure on women to hide their shame by going to England or giving up their babies at an early stage. We now have a more modern, caring and compassionate view of what a family is. It does not have to be the traditional nuclear family of one plus one and children flowing from that. There are many circumstances and reasons why families are formed in different ways. We have to be able to accommodate that and ensure that children's rights are at the centre. Children's interests must be best served by the legislation which underpins their rights and entitlements concerning guardianship, custody and access to parental lines. All those things are positive but they do need to be fleshed out a lot more.

Deputy Shatter referred to stem cell research and hereditary diseases, and I would like the Minister to clarify those points. In addition, deficiencies can now be identified in the ovum and rectified with third-party DNA. Thanks to major scientific advances, hereditary diseases can be identified and treated with interventions by medical science using third-party DNA. There are now great opportunities for parents to avoid the transfer of a hereditary gene that may cause disease or illness. I am not an expert in this area and, unfortunately, I have not had time to delve into it detail. Hopefully, however, we can revisit it on Committee Stage. In the meantime, the Minister may wish to examine that area of stem cell research and embryology, whereby third-party DNA is required to prevent the transfer of hereditary diseases. It may be covered in the Bill, but at a cursory glance I think there could be deficiencies in that regard.

It has been said that children are at the centre of this legislation, which is correct. I assume that is the reason behind the Bill, but there is a deficiency in the area of a father's right of access to children. As a society we have not faced up to this issue. There is a strong body of opinion that fathers who want to have access and play a meaningful role in rearing their children are sometimes unable to do so. There is not much in this legislation to address that particular issue, which is of fundamental importance. Week after week we can see the difficult, confrontational attitudes that are adopted when fathers try to gain access to their children. As Deputy Shatter said, children can almost be used as pawns or battering-rams to try to inflict damage on the other parent. That matter has to be addressed.

The family law courts are doing their best but they need to be underpinned with modern, progressive legislation to give the Judiciary a steer on what we believe is the right and entitlement of fathers to access their children. We can see that problem arising week in and week out. It is a major deficiency in this legislation. If a father is being denied access, that is certainly not in the child's best interests. Access and bonding are good things, as is knowing one's parentage. However, there is a lacuna which is sometimes being abused and exploited. With the best will in the world, our family law courts are still adversarial. On many occasions it is a winner-takes-all approach, but that is not inherently in the child's best interests, so we have a lot of work to do in that area. Many organisations have been actively campaigning, and often with a lot of pain, to try to get this issue remedied.

I do not believe we have gone the full distance with this legislation. I say this having had a cursory glance at the Bill, as it was only published last week. The Minister has an intimate knowledge of the legislation, as has her predecessor. Most Deputies, however, are trying to peruse the Bill, which was only published last Thursday. It comprises more than 100 pages of detailed, intricate data whose language is technical in nature.

It is critical that we be given adequate time on Committee Stage to discuss the Bill's proposals which some Deputies may have concerns about. Deputy Timmins said that this debate should be held in plenary session in this Chamber, which is an idea.

I would like this legislation to go through the Houses of the Oireachtas, head off to the President and find that it has consistent support in defining what we view now as guardianship, custody, modern family, access, etc. For that purpose, it would be important.

Surrogacy is not addressed in the Bill. There has been reference to a Supreme Court case at the time it was being drafted. The Bill went over and back between the Office of the Attorney General and the Department, as is normally the case. The provision in question was taken out for that reason and it will stand alone. However, it is critical that there be no further prevarication or delay in addressing the issue of surrogacy. I am concerned that when this legislation is passed it will bring down a very arbitrary line in one way. Many people who have availed of assisted human reproduction will still need to go through the courts process to get clarity about guardianship, parentage, custody and all of that. I hope we can deal with the Bill in a timely manner, but that the issue of surrogacy will not be allowed to drift on for one, two or three years.

I do not see how there can be much that is confrontational or divisive in the issue of surrogacy. Most people in this House accept that, with advances in technology and science, we should facilitate people who cannot have a child naturally in doing so through surrogacy and assisted human reproduction. Of course, the questions of commercialisation, anonymous sperm donation and other such issues can be teased out. However, the broad principle of surrogacy is accepted across the House. We should not prevaricate and delay. Many people who will be availing of this in the meantime will find themselves in no man's land when this legislation is passed.

Fianna Fáil welcomes the Bill, which has been a long time coming. That is not casting any aspersion on the Minister. It is something that needed to be done. Many of our custody and guardianship laws are archaic. They are based on previous times in a different world where there were different attitudes and different views of a simplistic family make-up. We now find ourselves in a very changed society where family breakdown may result from difficulties in a family, or, simply, family formation may be different from what we traditionally assumed. At the centre of all that, the child's best interests must be served.

This brings me back to the issue of parents who have just become completely irresponsible in the area of parenting, where there is child neglect or possibly abuse, including severe physical abuse. We still have a problem in that area. This goes back to the broader issue of just not giving support to families but considering cases of complete dereliction of parental duties. I do not believe the State has fully addressed how it will intervene in those cases. I know this is a broader issue that goes beyond the Bill.

There has been the most appalling abuse of children in this country in recent times, with cases in which it would have been obvious to a passive observer that there were difficulties in a home. Yet it seems the State was incapable of dealing with that. We have had some tragic cases in very recent times. This is not something that happened in the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s, but very recently. Of course, the debate always centres on when the State is infringing on the rights and entitlements of parents.

Equally, one must ask if the State is disavowing its obligation to act in the best interests of children. That balance needs a long discussion in society and in the Dáil. We have a Constitution and the very narrow interpretation placed by the courts on the make-up of the family, giving sanctity and protection to the family, which are all very welcome. However, at times the State can be reluctant to enter a home to assess potential abuse of children. That is something that needs to be addressed. For instance, the State dealt very badly with a recent case involving Roma children in the midlands and this has had a devastating impact. There may be other cases in that context. To take it more broadly, if the State intervenes and it is found that there was no abuse, then we castigate the officers, the social workers and the system. Equally, we then expect the same system to respond on every occasion where there is potential neglect or abuse. I believe we are putting social workers, members of An Garda Síochána and many other people in an invidious position. They must ask whether they should act and, if they act, what the sanction might be. There can be very serious vilification.

I have come across cases in Cork in which neighbours were very concerned about particular children - they saw children with lice in their hair, who were scruffily dressed, badly turned out or absent from school. While there were major concerns, it was unclear whom they should approach. Should it be the social workers or the school attendance officers? Where does the system take us in terms of making an assessment and acting upon the perceived best interests of a child at that time? They may get it wrong from time to time, but I always believe it is better to err on the side of caution and intervene if there is a suspicion.

It is inappropriate to turn our backs on vulnerable children because we are unsure in legislative terms, and in terms of basic logistics, supports and services, whether to intervene. That is another critical area we have to address. The Bill addresses many matters, but there needs to be a more formalised approach to the support and assistance provided to care and social workers, school attendance officers, medical professionals, front-line gardaí and teachers who may observe cases of neglect or abuse. We need to ensure that we do not have professionals saying, "Look, if I don't intervene the worst that can happen is that I could be called incompetent, but if I intervene and I am wrong then there could be very serious sanction and vilification." I do not want or expect the State to confer powers on individuals to break down doors and check to see whether a baby's bottle of milk is warm. However, we need some understanding of what can happen. Abuse has happened behind the doors of houses over many years and is probably happening today. Where there is suspicion of abuse or neglect of children, or there is a very obvious pointer that it is happening, the State is often reluctant to get involved for many reasons. That is something that must be dealt with. It is as important as any other area in the context of putting children first, which is the key focus in all of this.

We need to ensure that children's rights are vindicated, that they have knowledge of their parentage and that there are proper discussions on custody and guardianship. We have had referendums to ensure that the rights of the child are vindicated if there is neglect or abuse, or if one parent is denying the other parent access.

All these things must be dealt with, not only in the context of legislation but in terms of a fundamental mind shift regarding how we protect our children. I commend the Bill to the House but I hope the Minister takes on board the broad discussion and tries to facilitate as much debate as possible here in order that we can all leave this Chamber knowing we have done a good day's work in ensuring our children are first in this legislation.

See this speech in context