Shane Ross (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill, which has been welcomed by nearly all Members of the House. It has been a very long time coming but the end product is something which reflects the changes that have taken place in society, in particular in the family. The Bill reflects the complex nature of the word “family” in this country and is a genuine effort to accommodate the changes which have taken place.

I welcome in particular not just the cliché of putting the child first but the clause which provides for children themselves to have a say in their own future, in particular in cases of guardianship and adoption. The provision to appoint an expert who will ascertain the views of the child on whether the guardianship or adoption is suitable is an enlightened and very sensible innovation. Undoubtedly, children are the first people who should make the decision rather than parents or other outsiders. Their input is very important. I recognise the Government has made a great effort in this regard. Successive Governments have done that.

I echo the words of the previous speaker, Deputy Creed, who referred to the rights of grandparents. That is a new recognition of something which is happening more frequently in Ireland in that grandparents, partly because of economic circumstances and partly for other reasons such as relationship breakdown, are playing a larger part in the rearing of children. That should also be recognised in terms of access and the ability of grandparents to play a really economical and useful part in the rearing of children.

I have very little time but I wish to raise one particular issue in which I am deeply disappointed, namely, step-parents and cohabiting couples adopting children. I was under the distinct impression that the matter would be addressed in the Bill. I raised the issue with the Minister, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, on 10 October 2013 when she was Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. I do not question her bona fides but I wish to pin her to the wall in this regard. She said in the debate that she appreciated the difficulties and frustration the anomalies relating to step-parent adoption pose for many families. She went on to say that she had been advised some months before that – we are probably talking about two years ago – when she sought constitutional advice on the matter and whether there was a constitutional impediment to relieving natural parents in this case of the obligation to adopt their own children in certain circumstances. In most cases it is mothers who are affected and they find it deeply insulting and somewhat offensive. The matter was to be addressed. The Minister said:

However, I am now confident - on the basis of legal advice I sought and received - that there are no constitutional barriers to legislative change in this area. Many people will welcome that fact. I accept that some complex legal and policy issues remain and that these need to be resolved within the broader framework of the family law relating to parentage and guardianship. Where the natural father is still alive and where there may be ongoing contact or whatever, guardianship - if the position relating to it were to be made more flexible - might be the more appropriate legal option for step-parents ... I am working with the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, [that shows how long ago this was] who will be bringing forward a Bill in the near future.

One would be forgiven for being somewhat sceptical about words such as “near future” when they come from various Departments. The Minister then said, “Some of the issues I have just outlined will be addressed in that legislation.” That is the Bill before us and it is not there. The Minister also said, “I am preparing adoption legislation which arises on foot of the result in the referendum on children's rights.”

That is a great disappointment to many of those who are affected and who have been in contact with me. Prior to the publication of the Bill they asked me what would happen in this regard. I told them I was assured by the Minister that the matter would be addressed. That was what was said 18 months ago. I raised the matter again in October 2014 with the Minister’s successor, who gave me a similar assurance. That assurance has just been broken. This morning I asked the Department why the provision was not included and the reply I received is that the relevant provisions were not ready in time for inclusion in the Children and Family Relationships Bill. That is not good enough. The Minister and others have had fair warning of what she herself and her successor called an injustice. They gave assurances on it but it has not been addressed in a Bill where it should have been addressed. It is not good enough for the Department to say the issues will be addressed in due course. “In due course” means there are no plans or deadlines for introducing them. The same people are in the same limbo and lacuna and that is not acceptable.

See this speech in context