Lucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

There are elements of this Bill that I welcome and that I believe are long overdue. In a spirit of co-operation, it is important to mention this fact. While the Bill affords greater rights to fathers, it also by extension places greater responsibility on them. This is welcome, although I would like to see the Bill go further. Enshrining and supporting the rights and connections between children and their grandparents is a very positive step forward as well. This is something I strongly and wholeheartedly support, particularly at a time when families are splintered in our society. Children are often having their own children and bringing up their families in urban areas, perhaps away from where they grew up. The link can become severed or, at least, weakened. It is important to acknowledge that the link is enhanced in this Bill.

The rights of children must supersede all others when it comes to issues surrounding human reproduction, adoption and child safety and protection. It is all about the children. I do not believe the interests, desires or wishes of adults particularly come into play. That is my starting point. That is why I was happy to support the children's rights referendum in 2012. Its stated objective was to place children's needs and rights at the heart of our Constitution and, by extension, at the heart of our justice system. This was welcome and I was happy to support it. We have yet to see the fruits of the referendum because a lot of the legislation that was required has not yet been implemented, nor have many of the needed resources been put in place. We live in hope, and I hope that the passing of the children's rights referendum in 2012 will lead to greater and much enhanced rights, supports and protections for children.

I am concerned that elements of this Bill do the opposite. I am concerned that this Bill breaks or purports to break the link between natural, biological parents and their children in certain circumstances, in particular via the so-called donor-assisted human reproduction provisions. I have concerns about these provisions, and I know from speaking to members of the public that there is a very significant cohort of Irish people who feel the same way. Many of those concerns are not being represented in this debate. It is a very one-dimensional debate, as we unfortunately have come to expect in this Chamber in the past number of years.

Assisted human reproduction, particularly IVF, has massive benefits for society, parents who have difficulty conceiving and the children who are born as a result. We all know couples who have benefitted from this assistance and children who have been born into happy and healthy environments. This is to be welcomed. However, I fear that what is proposed in this Bill will sever the link between children and their natural, biological parents. Children will only have the right to find out about their natural mother or father at the age of 18. My view, when it comes to children's rights, is that children's rights kick in from the moment they are born or even before they are born, and not at the age of 18 when they reach the age of maturity. Their whole childhood has passed at that stage without their knowing or having any right to know who is their biological parent. This is a massive departure, which is being played down by the Government as inconsequential. It is not; it is a huge departure. It goes way beyond what most European countries are doing in the area of assisted human reproduction. I have concerns about it and I would like to hear the Minister address those concerns in her remarks. How does the Minister intend to safeguard against the risk of commodification of children through the abuse or potential abuse of assisted human reproduction and some of the clauses in this legislation? I do not have time to go into it in any great detail. However, I will participate on Committee Stage if I have the opportunity.

When it comes to the proposed changes to adoption laws, my starting position is that I support flexibility. There is no perfect model. We all know and hear endlessly from the Minister and others on the Government benches about the need to reflect reality and society. This is true, within reason. We need to protect the interests of children. This is true, without reservation. I spoke in this Chamber on the civil partnership Bill in 2010. The reality of children being raised by same-sex couples was ignored. This was wrong, and I said at the time that this needed to be addressed in order to protect the rights of children in those circumstances. Rather than a blunt instrument, I would love to see a recognition of the fact that individual circumstances apply.

Although the Minister does not agree with me, unfortunately, it is reasonable for me to state it is desirable in most instances for a child to be raised by its mother and father, where reasonable and practicable. There are many examples of where this is not the case. When it comes to adoption and recognising the rights of children, it must be noted children have a right to a mother and father in most instances, but there are exceptions. I am certainly familiar with exceptional circumstances. I know of a case in which a father has disappeared and has no interest or involvement in raising his child with the mother and, therefore, is not concerned with access or guardianship. The mother is in a relationship with another woman or man but that person has no right in respect of the child. Moreover, the child has no right in respect of that parent. In such circumstances, there has to be flexibility and I absolutely believe the legislation should reflect that.

Let me read into the record a response to a parliamentary question asked a few weeks ago. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs stated:

[I]t can be taken that the number of sole applicants adopting non-related children is extremely low and would occur only in exceptional circumstances, e.g. where a foster family intended to adopt a foster child and one of the couple died and the other proceeded with the adoption. The reasons for the exceptional nature of these adoptions are that birth mothers giving their children for adoption typically choose a couple and also that sole applicants are not automatically eligible to adopt but must satisfy the Authority that in the particular circumstances the adoption is desirable...

That is a reasonable standard and it has served us pretty well in this State. Essentially, what the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs is telling us is that the authority examines the circumstances and best interest of the child and tries to ensure the child will have a mother and father figure in its life, but not in every circumstance. In exceptional circumstances, that reality can be reflected. That is reasonable and it should continue to be the case. I fear that the Minister for Justice and Equality is moving far beyond that, which would be unfortunate.

I wish to touch very briefly on fathers' rights and, more important, the right of children to have a relationship with their father. This is reflected in the Bill and that is proper. We are all aware fathers have been discriminated against in family law, and will probably continue to be discriminated against for decades to come. This Bill perpetuates the injustice from the point of view of children. Deputy Shatter referred to this in some way yesterday. It is of concern that the rights of natural fathers can now be undermined by a third party who, because of a relationship with the mother, can become a third legal guardian. This will potentially discriminate against the relationship between the child and his or her natural father. Fathers already struggle in many instances to have proper access and a proper relationship with their natural child. The provision is wrong and I have concerns about it. I would like to hear the Minister address this.

I am deeply concerned over the fact that surrogacy is excluded from this legislation. It should be included, as was originally intended. Let me draw attention to a quotation from the Taoiseach in the Dáil on 30 September 2014: "I am concerned that if this [surrogacy] is dealt with in the context of the Children and Family Relationships Bill, the process would be delayed and it would not be possible to ask a clear question in the context of the marriage equality referendum." What I deduce from that is that the Taoiseach is saying that, since he wants the referendum to pass, he will therefore muddy the waters and leave the surrogacy issue until a later date. That is very dishonest. As a supporter of the marriage equality referendum — I have said I intend to vote in favour of marriage equality — I do not believe any couple should be discriminated against. People have a right to be treated equally before the law. Hiding the surrogacy issue until a later date to ensure the passage of the referendum is entirely dishonest. That the Taoiseach has essentially put that on record already leaves us without any doubt. That is unfortunate.

See this speech in context