Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

I, too, welcome the recognition within the Bill of the diverse range of families we have in this country. Let us be clear. It is not that forward-thinking, because for decades there has been diversity in family types in this country. The Bill is recognising that reality. For example, there are 308,000 children being raised by lone mothers and about 44,000 children being raised by single fathers. Almost 400,000 children in the country are being raised outside the idealised scenario that is painted by some of the critics of this Bill and the marriage equality legislation. Many children are being brought up without a father or a mother in their home. I welcome the fact that the Bill recognises cohabiting couples, step-parents, grandparents and relations, foster parents and lesbian and gay parents.

The anti-marriage-equality lobby is attacking this Bill and linking it with the upcoming referendum. According to some in the Iona Institute, we could have mothers marrying their daughters if the likes of this Bill is passed. These family formations already exist, and the idea that putting a law in place would prevent such families from forming is not correct. In the past, Ireland, because of its unique history, has had matriarchal families, children raised by relatives and all sorts of family setups due to emigration and the poverty that blighted this country. The biggest threat to the family in Ireland is the ongoing austerity and poverty which is hitting families and making it extremely difficult for them to exist in a happy and safe place with a roof over their heads.

While I welcome the Bill, I have some concerns. Unlike a couple of previous speakers, I would raise a question about automatic guardianship for a father who has lived with a woman for 12 months from the point of view of women in situations of domestic violence. Women's Aid has highlighted that one in five women in this country are victims of domestic violence, which is quite a lot of women. Men who are violent and not good fathers could have control that they do not currently have because of this provision on automatic guardianship. They could be in a position to prevent women from getting passports and so on for their children. I would like people who raise this matter to demonstrate that there is a problem. Today I spoke to a family solicitor who assured me that any father who applies for guardianship in the courts gets it unless there is a serious reason he or she should not. If people are saying otherwise, I would like them to demonstrate that this is the case. I have a genuine concern about this.

Some 30% of women who experience domestic violence experience it for the first time when they are pregnant. It is the most dangerous time to be in a such a relationship. A woman could be with somebody when she is pregnant and leave him after three months. He would have played no role in the child's life, but would have automatic guardianship because of that short experience. Many women are single parents for a very good reason, namely, because the birth father is not a good father. Unfortunately, that is a reality. I am not for one moment saying that men should not play a role in children's lives; they should. I do not think any woman would prevent somebody who is a positive influence on a child from playing that role, and no court would do so. However, I have a concern about automatic custody. I understand that in Britain one applies at birth for custody.

There is a danger that women could be brought under the orbit of controlling or violent men from whom they are trying to escape, using the children, as they do in such situations. They would then have to go to court to get a father de-selected as a guardian. I welcome the idea of a child-centred approach.

It is quite interesting that the other day in this House a case was raised and a school was cited. For example, the Stay Safe programme was argued to be quite dangerous as it was child-centred and not in line with Catholic ethos. There was a conflict in the past when too much emphasis was given to families staying together over a child's interest. I welcome this progress. I raise a concern regarding women in violent relationships. Their safety must also be considered, along with that of children, and there can be conflicts in this respect. I ask that this be taken into account in the Bill.

I spoke to some family solicitors and their daily work is in the family courts. They raised quite a number of criticisms of the way the Bill was written and did not think it was clear. They argue that there are many difficulties with it. One which is well known is that courts are not in a position now to deal with all the processes proposed in the Bill. There would have to be serious levels of investment but there would still be an unbelievable backlog in free legal aid. If people did not have the means to pay for legal representation and get the best advice, there would be a serious problem.

This is a very large Bill and it is not possible to deal with all the elements in five minutes. I welcome that assisted reproduction is being brought into the equation. The Bill only deals with offspring created in a clinical setting. That can raise issues, as many people cannot afford in vitrofertilisation and may look at other means to this end. Such an exclusion might mean a partner would not be entitled to guardianship, which should be considered.

See this speech in context