Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I propose, as I have done throughout this debate, to be concise and to keep my comments directly relevant to the amendments we are discussing, which were tabled by me and Senator Norris.

Like Senator Healy Eames, I welcome the Minister of State's point that same sex-couples are currently fostering children. We allow single people to adopt, as indeed we should. I am glad we do not confine adoption eligibility to married couples but extend it to single persons also. As I said, perhaps we should consider extending these rights beyond that to cohabiting couples. We allow gay couples to foster; clearly, the next step is to allow them to adopt. When everyone is working in the best interests of the child, there is no policy rationale for continuing the discrimination against gay couples that precludes them from being considered eligible for adoption. It does not matter to me or to any gay couple seeking to adopt whether it is done through this Bill, the civil partnership legislation or another Bill. However, it is important that the Government commits to this as it is clearly in keeping with Government policy of ensuring the best interests of the child, which is to be in a loving home, whatever the sexuality or gender of the parent or parents.

I asked the Minister a direct question, which he did not answer, about regularising the position of children currently living in a home in which one parent is a birth parent and his or her — it is usually her — same-sex partner is a non-birth parent. The partner currently has no right even to be considered as a guardian of the child and therefore the child has no right to a legal relationship with that parent. Would the Minister of State consider regularising the position of those children in some other way so that their relationship with their non-birth parents may be recognised in law? This could be done in ways other than through adoption.

It might be less cumbersome to adopt something similar to the statutory declaration for cohabiting birth fathers, as I suggested earlier. It would be entirely in keeping with the State's admirable policy of supporting the best interest of the child and a secure and loving home.