Terence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I welcome the fact the Bill modernises family law and reflects the fact that not every child is born into a traditional marital family. As legislators in this Dáil, we have a duty and responsibility to ensure all types of families are reflected in our legislation. We all want to ensure the Bill is 100% correct. It touches on many issues affecting families, children and adults and their legal relationships with one another over many years. We do not want to see this legislation challenged in court, where various constitutional points could be argued. It is important that every section be fully teased out to ensure there will be no unintended consequences as a result of not debating every part fully.

As other speakers have stated, the legislation is very complex. It is a long Bill, with 172 sections in total. It really has not been possible for many Members to read it from beginning to end. As with some colleagues, I have concerns about some sections of the Bill. I am a little concerned that we seem to be rushing it through the Dáil. Committee Stage has already been scheduled for next week. Why can Members not be accommodated by having Committee Stage here in the Chamber rather than in committee rooms? We all know that rushed legislation is bad legislation. How much time will be allocated to deal with each section on Committee Stage?

As other Deputies have stated, the issue of surrogacy is not covered in this legislation. I would like the background on that. Since the Minister has decided to deal with it in separate legislation, why have issues such as guardianship, adoption and donor-assisted human reproduction not been dealt with through a stand-alone Bill? Why was it decided to deal with surrogacy in a stand-alone Bill?

Like other Deputies, I agree there are some positive elements in the Bill, particularly Parts 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12, which all seem good. They could be considered in more detail and amendments might be tabled on them in due course. I am worried, however, that certain parts do not seem to be child centred. I refer to the changes to the adoption law and donor-assisted human reproduction provisions. Deliberately depriving a child of two legal parents is wrong. What we are doing in this Bill is legally stipulating motherless or fatherless homes are acceptable. I strongly do not agree with that.

We know from the Bill that children of sperm or egg donors will not know the identity of their genetic parents until they are 18. Dr. Joanna Rose, a campaigner for the rights of donor-conceived people, feels the state is obliged to write to all those who are donor conceived by letter when they reach 18. Not every parent would necessarily have the relevant conversation with the child when he or she reaches 18 because it would be very difficult to explain how he or she was conceived. The child would not necessarily apply for a birth certificate to know fully the identity of his or her parents.

With regard to the donor's right to veto access to identifying information for the donor offspring if the donor's welfare requires it, what does the Minister mean by the "donor's welfare"? We all know people who have been adopted. A significant amount of legislation has passed through this House so people can discover who their parents are in the first instance. However, we are deliberately not allowing people to find natural-parent information.

As people grow older they become more curious about their origin and identity and about putting together their family tree, which happens frequently these days. We need to learn from the mistakes made in the United Kingdom in the area of donor-assisted human reproduction and heed the warnings about it.

Regarding access orders, why is that provision being dropped from the Bill when it was originally included in it? Deputy Alan Shatter said yesterday in the Dáil that sanctions would be imposed on parents who breached access orders. Obviously, that works for both mothers and fathers. Children should not be used as pawns at any stage, and making a parent in breach of an access order do community service would put a halt to that. The Minister might indicate why that has been dropped from the Bill when it makes perfect sense.

The provision regarding grandparents and their rights is very welcome. As a result of breakdowns in relationships, grandparents are left effectively to become parents to a certain degree, particularly if both parents work because of a huge mortgage or whatever. Grandparents are left to do a lot of the work, and it is only right that they should be recognised in this legislation.

We all know that reform of the family courts is badly needed. I would have preferred to see a bigger push towards alternative dispute resolution and mediation with the aim of keeping cases out of court, because it is a costly and traumatic experience for both parents to deal with a court system that we all know is backlogged. Courts should not be a final resort. Mediation and alternative dispute resolution should be used much more. The Minister might comment on that.

Children's voices are not being fully heard in this legislation. We had the children's rights referendum in 2012. However, this Bill will do very little in terms of allowing a child to have his or her say. The right of a child to express its views to the court should be included in all legislation. Currently, the court can appoint an external body to listen to the child's views, but this appointment of an external body is at the discretion of the courts. There is no automatic right to that. It is very important that children's voices be heard.

Regarding guardianship, a huge number of children are born every year who have no legal relationship with their fathers. That leads to major but unnecessary difficulties. Why has the Minister introduced the test in the legislation that the child must live with the mother in order for the father to gain access? Would it not be easier to make that an automatic right, which would keep it simple and fair? Obviously, there cannot be an automatic right in exceptional circumstances such as rape and incest, but in terms of guardianship, it should be considered further.

Regarding custody cases, where a parent is the biological mother or father and the other person has been raising the child with the biological parent, if they separate there is currently a presumption in favour of giving custody to the mother. Will this Bill address the issue of custody? Will the Minister indicate whether the biological parent's genetic connection will be considered as a positive factor when deciding custody?

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I have had mixed responses to the Bill but I hope the issues will be fully teased out on Committee Stage. As I am not a member of the select committee I will not have an opportunity to table amendments, but other Members might table amendments on Committee and Report Stages. I hope that people's genuine concerns will be dealt with and that there will be sufficient time to deal with all the sections and address questions that Members may have on the Bill.

See this speech in context