Rónán Mullen (Independent)

It is difficult when listening to the various contributions not to reflect on how increasingly complicated children's lives are becoming and it is not, it seems to me, in the direction of their well-being. I listened to what Senator Feeney said earlier. She spoke eloquently about a situation that can arise. I draw her attention to something that was said earlier about the existing possibility under section 7 of the Guardianship of Infants Act, whereby one can appoint a testamentary guardian to provide that in the event of one's death, someone else can take up the role of being a guardian. The difficulty with doing this in one's lifetime is that one must ask what price is the role of the absent biological parent. I do not want to be flippant but I was reminded of a song Brendan Grace used to sing when I was child called "I'm my own Grandpa". We are discussing issues of such complexity that such outcomes look increasingly possible with the twists and turns in people's lives. It is very much to be regretted if we are talking about situations where there are not one or two but three guardians, if one considers a civil partnership couple as the new de facto family. Therefore, one starts arguing in favour of a guardianship or formalised role for the non-biological parent. One is also trying to factor in what we could call the John Waters agenda which is valid and legitimate. The sheer complexity of the issue illustrates just how much we are losing our way as a society in failing to have a vision for what we want for our children. It is, of course, right and proper to consider de facto families.

One point which struck me while listening to the debate - I would like the Minister to consider talking to the Minister for Health and Children about it - concerned the policy of adoption authorities when assessing individuals. Does the State take the view that when it comes to adoption, a married couple is best, or is there a nod and a wink, whereby we say it does not matter, that we will use the exceptional circumstance of a single person as cover in assessing same-sex couples who wish to adopt? Are the organs of the State neutral on the issue? Perhaps we need answers on it. Perhaps it is a fit topic for a future debate because I do not believe the organs of the State should be neutral on the issue.

I have a concern because I hear much talk about children's rights. However, I do not hear much about what is the best context in which to bring up children. In that regard, I support some of Senator Norris's comments on our being willing to consider international evidence. It is one thing to be aware of the fact that sometimes the evidence is flawed, it is another to use that fact as an excuse never look at evidence. That is why the recent comments of the chairman of the Law Reform Commission were worrying. It is legitimate to consider her comments in a critique; it would have better if she had not intervened on one side of the debate in a television discussion programme because of the role she plays. It does not necessarily flow, however, from such a critique that one should immediately ask the Minister whether he has confidence in the Law Reform Commission. We are entitled to offer a degree of fraternal correction from the national Parliament when we see something like that happen which is not in the best interests of proper public debate and a thorough scrutiny of the issues.

On the issue of evidence and having said what I said about the concerns we should have for the increasingly complicated and compromised nature of child welfare because of fractured family structures, a meta-analysis was made by Moore, Jekielek and Emig in 2002 in which they said research clearly demonstrated that family structure mattered for children and that the family structure which helped children the most was a family headed by two biological parents in a low conflict marriage. Children in single parent families, those born to unmarried mothers, those in step families or cohabiting relationships, face a higher risk of having poor outcomes. I cannot remember when I last heard a State official confess to the reality which causes me profound concern. The meta-analysis of 2008 concluded that even in nations with the most extensive welfare measures such as the Scandinavian countries and France, a substantial gap in child welfare remained between those children who grew up in intact families and those who did not. It has been correctly suggested some of the studies cited do not refer specifically to same-sex parenting. There is a very good reason for this, namely, this area of life is very new in the sense of formal recognition of same-sex parenting and legal rights being accorded to it. I am not suggesting homosexuality is new. That is partly the reason festina lente should be our motto. We should be advancing with great caution. That is why I am very concerned about the potential radical reach of some aspects of the Bill.

One person whom we can trust is Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne who spoke on this issue in the Zappone and Gilligan case. She referred to Professor Green who had advanced evidence in support of the case for same-sex parenting. She said:

Taking on board the evidence that I also heard from Professor Casey and from Professor Waite, I think that one must have some reservation in relation to the conclusions drawn by Professor Green. The phenomenon of parenting by same sex couples is one of relatively recent history. The studies that have taken place are consequently of recent origin. Most of the studies have been cross sectional studies involving small samples and frequently quite young children. I have to say that based on all of the evidence I heard on this topic that I am not convinced that such firm conclusions can be drawn as to the welfare of children at this point in time. It seems to me that further studies will be necessary before a firm conclusion can be reached. It also seems to me having regard to the criticism of the methodology used in the majority of the studies conducted to date that until such time as there are more longitudinal studies involving much larger samples that it will be difficult to reach firm conclusions on this topic ... Having considered [Professor Linda Waite's] evidence it reinforces the view that there is simply not enough evidence from the research done to date that could allow firm conclusions to be drawn as to the consequences of same sex marriage particularly in the area of the welfare of children.

Clearly, the precautionary principle is being invoked. Evidence and studies are useful and will help us to make a decision, but they will not be the final decider because we have to factor in issues of principle. However, evidence will have a very strong role to play. The judge in that case said the jury was still out.

In addition to the lack of longitudinal studies and the small number of samples, there is also the point which arises indirectly as a result of something said by Senator Bacik when she referred to an Irish study that very often the studies are based on people self-assessing their well-being, a flaw in many studies one comes across. None of us can arrive at full conclusions on this issue, but it is clear that for the time being and a long time into the future the precautionary principle is the one we will have to adopt.