Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister's officials for their briefing on the Bill. I have no doubt they put a great deal of work into this very detailed and progressive legislation, which I welcome. The Bill seeks to acknowledge the reality of family life in Ireland today and, in that sense, is long overdue. We have moved a long way from the conception of certain people of what a family is supposed to be. It is good that we are finally acknowledging the diversity of family life in Irish society, be that families comprising same-sex couples, lone parents, new relationships following break-ups and the often complex interaction of new and old relationships in terms of children. The Bill also deals with the issue of assisted human reproduction and how advances in this regard have helped people who otherwise would not be able to have children to have them; adoption issues and the rights of the children in situations of adoption in terms of parentage and the right to know their biological parents and so on. Things have gotten complicated but, to my mind, in a good way. Our society is better for it. Ancient Irish society is often romanticised a little too much. Family relationships in ancient Ireland were very different. At that time we had more tribal extended families and multiple people bore responsibility for children. The nuclear family comprising a mother and a father and their children, which some institutions in this State believe is eternal, is not eternal at all.

It never was. In fact, for most of human existence on this planet, human relations were much more diverse and they have changed dramatically throughout history in various historical epochs. Some people in this country and elsewhere, as we are not unique in this matter, had a single notion of what a family looked like and everything that was outside the conception of the nuclear family was considered abnormal or defective. It was perceived as a lesser relationship.

There was the appalling, obnoxious concept of illegitimacy. It was awful. Certain words were used to refer to children who were supposedly illegitimate, that I will not mention in the Chamber, which became curse words. Some of that was not so long ago. I am old enough to remember the incredible stigmatisation of lone parents in the 1980s and how awful it was. That emanated at the time from some in the political establishment. It has not gone away, although I am pleased to say such a blinkered, utterly conservative view of family life still exists to some extent but thankfully it is no longer dominant. We can almost laugh at it now. Some of the headlines have been bordering on the hilarious in terms of the attitude of some religious institutions. One headline in The Irish Timesreferred to a bishop saying there was no obstacle to gays marrying, just not to each other. That is brilliant. It is the sort of view which I will not call prehistoric because in those times there were far more enlightened conceptions of human relationships, and gay and lesbian relationships were par for the course.

A particular mentality developed, largely in the latter half of the 19th century, spearheaded by some of the worst and most reactionary elements in British society and, sadly, adopted by the Catholic Church in this country. Some of the early victims of that mentality were people such as Oscar Wilde. People tried to create a particular notion of family relations and set that up as the norm and anyone who stood out from that was literally persecuted. Their reason for doing that was often very crudely about social control and cost efficiencies. Rather than providing decent child care for people they essentially forced the cost onto the nuclear family, often with pretty awful consequences in terms of the pressures that were subsequently put on families which contributed to domestic violence. This is a very welcome and progressive attempt to move the situation on, acknowledge the reality and, as speakers have repeated throughout the debate, put the child and the interests of the child at the centre but also to try to be fair and reasonable to all the parties involved.

Some concern has been expressed, some of which I suspect has been disingenuous on the part of opponents of the legislation - people who oppose it on principle and fundamentally - but they try to cloud the issue by saying we should not rush the legislation. There is probably a legitimate concern and we must be careful in terms of something so complex that there are not unintended consequences, anomalies or problems. Other speakers have alluded to issues we must consider but that should not stop the passage of the legislation. I hope the Minister will be open to genuine, well-intentioned amendments on Committee Stage and Report Stage. I hope she will say that the Bill is a work in progress and that we can always come back to aspects of it if there are any particular difficulties further down the road. That would also help to dispel some of the red herring arguments. Almost inevitably, issues will arise.

Assisted human reproduction is an anomalous area. It is a very good thing that we can help couples, or individuals for that matter, to have children who might not otherwise be able to do it, but it does create new dynamics, the consequences of which we might not fully know. That is not a reason to be fearful of it, but it is a recognition that things might subsequently happen for which we had provided. For example, the offspring arising from assisted human reproduction might decide he or she wants to have a relationship with the original donor. The question is what we would do then, and how such a situation would be managed. Situations will emerge but we should not be afraid of them. We must put the interests of the child first and be fair to all the parties involved.

In the short time remaining I wish to make one point by way of defence of the legislation. I am shocked and bedazzled by the hypocrisy of certain of the opponents of the Bill and of the forthcoming marriage equality referendum when they say they must defend the right of children to have a mother and father. The institutions that are shouting loudest in opposition to the legislation and to the proposed marriage equality legislation are the very institutions that separated more children from their parents, often by force, than any other institution in the State. The hypocrisy is unbelievable. It is stunning. They forced mothers to give up their children. They imprisoned the mothers of those children because they were not married. They forced adoptions. They put every obstacle in the way of those children and their mothers to make contact with each other and then they have the effrontery to say they are championing the rights of children to have both parents. Give me a flipping break. It is unbelievable stuff. I am completely onside. The point has not been made strongly enough in some of the debates and it is just beyond belief.

I very much support the Minister. A couple of issues arise, however. The stipulation providing for guardianship rights is problematic in terms of 12 months cohabitation prior to a child’s birth and three months after the baby is born. There are so many reasons why a father who might want to play a very serious role in bringing up his child might not fulfil those criteria. Fathers should still have the automatic right to be a guardian and not have to jump through extra hoops others do not have to go through. We must examine the matter. The Minister will respond that a declaration can be made but the provision is somewhat discriminatory and a little unfair and should be re-examined. Broadly, I very much support the Bill and I hope it passes through the House but we will obviously have to examine the details in the coming Stages. Finally, Ireland is moving into the 21st century.

See this speech in context