David Norris (Independent)

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 13, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:

" "dependent child" means a person under the age of 18 years, or if the person has attained that age—

(a) is a person who is or will be or, if an order were made under any Act providing for periodical payments for his or her support or for the provision of a lump sum for the child, would be receiving full-time education or instruction at any university, institute of technology, college, school or other educational establishment and is under the age of 23 years, or

(b) is a person who has an intellectual or physical disability to such extent that it is not reasonably possible for the child to maintain himself or herself fully;".

All these amendments deal with the important matter of the defence of the rights of children. As I spoke on the Order of Business today concerning this matter, I do not intend to rehearse these matters in any great detail, but it is important that we put on the record the strong support of the majority of the Members of this House for the rights of children. I had tabled these amendments with considerable care before I received a very significant document, entitled Advice of the Ombudsman for Children on the Civil Partnership Bill 2009, yesterday afternoon from the Office of the Ombudsman for Children. The ombudsman is the person and office charged with vindicating the rights of children in this State. For that reason it is important that those who cherish the rights of children in this State, especially politicians and particularly in the passage of legislation such as this, should listen with due attention to what is in this document. I will, with the indulgence of the House, as it is directly relevant, quote briefly what I regard as the most salient points of this significant document. I would like the House to consider that I believe that these comments cover all the amendments I have proposed. I cannot speak for my colleagues who tabled the other amendments. Amendment No. 64 is in the name of Senator Bacik and her colleagues and amendment No. 63 is in my name. All these amendments represent the same point of view. I know that to be the case from my conversation with Senator Bacik.

In the introduction to this document, the ombudsman states:

[T]he Bill does not adequately address the rights and needs of children. It is clear that the situation of children was considered at length in the drafting of the Bill; it is unclear why that resulted in a Bill that did not prioritise the rights and interests of children.

That is very clear. It is not prejudiced. There is no intolerance and there is no name calling. It just states an objective fact, that it is clear the rights of children were considered but were omitted from the Bill and it is not clear why it did not prioritise them.

The ombudsman goes on in the document to indicate that this is not a hypothetical problem or abstraction, it is something that deals directly with a very real and existing situation. The ombudsman states:

The omission of robust protections for the children of civil partners will have real consequences for the young people concerned and it is in their interests that the law reflect and provide for the reality of their lives. Current research being carried out in Ireland on the experience of young adult children with same-sex parents has indicated that there is a strong awareness among these young people of the lack of recognition of the reality of their family lives.

I put on the record earlier the very clear results of the Swedish commission which was instructed to investigate this matter in 1999 by the Swedish Parliament. Interestingly, it acknowledged that there might be some negative consequences for children in same-sex relationships, but it also made it very clear that this came not from the same-sex partnership relationship but from peer group pressure. In other words, the children were expected to pay in their own lives for the prejudices of the society that some groups would still wish to foster. That puts the blame very squarely on opponents of these kinds of measures.

The ombudsman goes on to say in the document: "the failure to provide adequately for children in the Bill is concerning, particularly as no arguments based primarily on the interests of children has been advanced by the Government to support its approach to children in the Bill". I understand it is suggested that this will be addressed in other Bills. The Adoption Bill was passed recently and there was no hint that this issue would be addressed in it, although there were some interesting points made in the debate on that Bill. The Government did not take opportunities already offered to address this issue.

The Minister might feel a sense of pleasant surprise about this, as I did when I got this document yesterday evening. I had no inkling that the Ombudsman for Children was so deeply concerned about this matter that she would provide impetus politically for this kind of change. Even long before that the Minister will know very well, because he is not only a decent man he is a highly intelligent man, that the Colley report stated:

Given that the welfare of the child is paramount, in principle, same-sex couples who are married or in a full civil partnership should be eligible for consideration to adopt any child who is eligible for adoption. It should be noted that, rather than confer a right to adopt, this would allow registered same-sex couples the right to be considered for adoption subject to the existing rigorous assessment process for married couples and single adopters already in place under the Adoption Acts.

I emphasise that I will not be returning to make these quotations, so I apologise to my colleagues if they are long-winded but they are directly germane to the content, and I will not be repeating them.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that part of my amendment deals with the protection of "a person who has an intellectual or physical disability to such an extent that it is not reasonably possible for the child to maintain himself or herself fully". I would be interested to learn of an objection to that, particularly on, as we would say in Ireland, the day that is in it when a very large number of people campaigned outside the gates of these Houses for the rights of people with disabilities.

The recommendation of the ombudsman's document states: "Provision should be made in law for special guardianship orders, either in the Civil Partnership Bill or in other appropriate legislation, particularly in the absence of an amendment to the law governing the eligibility criteria for adoption." I respectfully say to the Minister that this is what I have provided. I hope the amendments I and my distinguished colleague, Senator Ivana Bacik, tabled with the support of the Labour Party will have the support of the Fine Gael Party. If I may allow myself an aside on this, some negative comments were made about Fine Gael from the other side of the House. I will not be negative in my response but I would like to take the comments positively and say that I am deeply grateful to Fine Gael, its Leader in the House, Senator Frances Fitzgerald, and Senator Eugene Regan for their dignified and courageous espousal of this cause. Even before that, in very difficult times when in their party there was a nasty attempt to amend the legislation decriminalising homosexuality, a wonderful group of Fine Gael people filibustered the amendment out of existence. I honour and salute them for it. I would not like Fine Gael to be excluded from the paean of praise which has been rightly paid to Fianna Fáil, Labour and the Green Party. All the parties have behaved with great honour in this process.