Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

First, I want to apologise for any confusion I caused earlier. I had picked up the Committee Stage amendments by accident - mea culpa.

I very much agree with the points made by Deputies Shortall, Boyd Barrett and Mac Lochlainn. What I would say that is a little different is that I accept progress is being made in this legislation in that more unmarried fathers will qualify for guardianship than would otherwise have qualified if the legislation had not been passed, which is welcome. I also welcome the changes the Minister is making through amendment No. 83, which is very significant and on which I will have questions later.

Nonetheless, this is still very discriminatory. Our law as it stands is very discriminatory, and this continues in that mould. It is particularly discriminatory against younger fathers. The idea that 19 year old parents would have to live together is just not the reality of the situation. Very often a family decision is made, including the grandparents, that the parents will not live together and that they will continue with their education, for example. Another point is that younger people are more vulnerable, more impressionable and more influenced by what their parents might decide for them.

In that regard, I was watching a programme last night in which people are helped to trace their parents who gave them up for adoption. There was a case in which a woman of 46 met her father for the first time. Basically, when he was 20 he was not really given any option to keep his child and the decision was very much taken for him and the mother of the child. We are very much perpetuating that treatment of young unmarried fathers with this legislation.

Another point is the societal problems that have been identified.

Young unmarried fathers are pushed away for many different reasons, including cultural reasons, the way our social welfare system operates and so on.

The idea that unmarried fathers would have to live with mothers is a very morally judgmental way of approaching the issue. It is not applied to any other type of parent or guardian in current legislation or the Bill. To say that a father must live with the mother for a certain period of time is a moral standpoint. I have problems with that.

The Law Reform Commission recommended going much further than this Bill and, with some qualifications, giving automatic guardianship to unmarried fathers. That has been done in other countries. I am aware of jurisdictions where if a father is registered on a child's birth certificate, he gets automatic guardianship rights. That is what the Bill should state.

Court cases, including at EU level, have highlighted injustices over the years, such as the fact that unmarried fathers have not been consulted about adoption. It is one of the rights and responsibilities that comes with guardianship, which is delineated in an amendment proposed by the Minister. The fact that an unmarried father would not be consulted on an adoption because he does not have guardianship status is a very significant problem.

I understand from what Deputy Boyd Barrett said that this is not retrospective. The Minister said one of the amendments is to make the criteria about living with the mother for 12 consecutive months clear. It does not apply retrospectively. For example, the law will not change the situation pertaining to an unmarried father who has lived with a mother for 20 years. There are no new options in the Bill for such unmarried fathers. What is being done for such people? There are men who may have lived with mothers for a long period of time, but no longer do so. If the Bill is not retrospective, how will such men be catered for? What advice did the Minister receive? Was it that the Bill cannot be retrospective? Can anything be done retrospectively for people who will not get the benefits of this Bill?

I refer to Deputy Coppinger's points. She spoke about domestic violence, which is to tar everyone with the same brush. Most people are not violent.

See this speech in context