Clare Daly (Dublin North, United Left) | Oireachtas source

I feel sorry for the Minister having had to endure this process over recent days. It is not that the issues are not important, because they are critically important, but that the nature of how this debate is structured probably shows the inadequacy of the Chamber as a vehicle to discuss them adequately. People standing to speak and repeating points is not a positive way forward for dealing with the complex and critically important issues in the real lives of people.

To refer to the last point made by Deputy Wallace, the frenzy with which some people rushed to voice their opposition to the Bill, even before it was published, and to all the things it would and would not do was absolutely laughable. It is true that this Bill is an important body of work which, it is hoped, will dramatically improve the legal situation for modern families. Those families are no longer solely based on the notion of the nuclear family of Mammy, Daddy and children. Modern Ireland is clearly different from that. As the Bill is a substantial body of work, we must have the time to discuss it properly and comprehensively.

In that sense Deputy Shatter's contribution yesterday was very interesting. It was incredibly comprehensive and he made some seriously compelling arguments as to why issues around surrogacy should be dealt with. On the surface these are complex concerns, balancing rights and so forth, but other jurisdictions managed to do it so clearly we can do it in a balanced way as well. He revealed that much of this work has been done already, that it is nearly ready to go and that it is backed by international research and assessment. That is a compelling argument. The points he made about distinguishing between the health issues, which must be addressed afterwards, and the legal parentage issues were quite clear.

I am seriously concerned that this is the second instance where the Government appears to be relying on the input of the Attorney General, or suggested input in this case, not to proceed with something. Instead, we are given the promise of the Government dealing with it through a separate legislative measure. The reality is that no action will be taken for the small number of people in this situation. It will not be done in the lifetime of this Government. It is exactly the same approach as was taken with the fatal foetal abnormalities Bill. It appears to be becoming something of a hallmark. On the one hand the Government agrees that it must do something about an issue, because it affects people in an intimate, private and important way, but then says it will not do it but will let somebody else do it. That is not good enough. Members of this Parliament are paid to deal with complex issues. It appears that we can deal with the issue in this Bill, so I hope we will do that.

One of the important points about this is the child-centred approach and the child's right to identity, which is obviously one of the most basic human rights. One would expect it to be granted automatically. Sadly, however, it is not, despite the history of this country and the damage done to people where that right was denied. We have heard the horrendous stories of the forced adoptions, illegal adoptions, the registrations of births where people wrote that the adoptive parents were the biological parents when they were not, and all of the complex tragedy that flows from those situations and the air of secrecy that goes with it. It is an absolute disgrace. In that context, I welcome the fact that we are recognising the right to an identity in a more far-reaching way than previously.

The correspondence we received yesterday from the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was really ironic. On the one hand the institute appeared to be suggesting that more time for debate is required. That is accurate, in a sense, and probably fair, given the lack of openness in Irish history and so forth. However, everything else said by the institute sought to back up the culture that existed in the past, as far as I am concerned. It gives an insight into some of the issues with which we are grappling. The correspondence says, with regard to the area of assisted human reproduction, that we have a duty of care to the would-be parents in such cases. That is fair enough. It then goes on to state that the institute is alarmed at the suggestion that a donor-conceived person applying for a birth certificate at the age of 18 will be informed that there is extra information, saying it would be a traumatic experience for somebody to realise this. Of course, it would. It states that there could be legitimate reasons that the parents withheld the information. No, there could not. One either believes in a person's right to their identity or one does not. One cannot elevate the interests of those who are parenting, regardless of the circumstances. If we are seeking to have a child-centred approach, that correspondence went to the heart of what we are grappling with. If that is the hierarchy for the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, it is not too far away from some of the things that happened in the past.

Regardless of the parents' interests, it is about the child.

This is a huge step forward. Recognising the voice of the child, with the assistance of an expert who is able to evaluate and work with that child, is critical. It is ironic that, at the age of 12, children must account for their criminal activities in certain instances, yet they are not consulted on certain life-changing decisions. We are dealing, in the main, with relationship breakdown and acrimony. Sadly, bad behaviour is not confined to one gender. Some people use their children as bargaining chips in what is an ongoing toxic battle when a relationship breaks down. This is reprehensible. Legislation alone will not change this fact. In many ways, the bigger battle is to create a society in which people will not do this. We need to discuss and highlight these issues in addressing that fact.

The only way to legitimately deal with the situation is to ask what it is the child wants and to hear the child's voice. This is not straightforward and will depend on the child's development and age, but working with professionals can achieve this. All studies show that when the child is involved in the process, the tension between the warring parents is de-escalated and rationality and normality is introduced to the situation. This is the scenario we are trying to achieve.

We have all heard heartbreaking stories of people in non-traditional families. I have heard from a non-biological lesbian mother who had a great relationship with her daughter. When she split from her partner, she was given no access to her daughter and had no rights. After being bereaved of their own child, grandparents are being denied access to their grandchildren and face a huge uphill battle. Fathers are being kept away from their children and denied the right to see them grow up or have any contact with them. There are other instances. People split up and the courts award maintenance to a mother who is struggling to raise her children on her own, but the maintenance order is flagrantly breached by the mother's former partner. These things occur. The law will not stop them from happening, but we can make the situation easier. We cannot legislate for bad behaviour, but we can make it easy for people to get their rights and entitlements when they need intervention and help from the courts.

Many good points have been expressed. I echo them. It is important that we say that there is no such thing as "normal". Everyone has a right to be heard. Everyone has a responsibility to behave maturely and to take into account the children in these circumstances. The child should be the starting point. If we did this, we would de-escalate things considerably and make things better for all concerned. I welcome the fact that the Minister has brought the Bill to the House, and I look forward to dissecting it further later on.

See this speech in context