Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. I strongly welcome this Bill, which is a very progressive reform of family law. It is long overdue and is child- and family-centred reform, which for the first time properly recognises the diverse forms of family life in Ireland. Others have commented on the figures which show that the use of the term "atypical" is no longer appropriate, something the Minister acknowledged in her speech. It is extremely positive for many of us to have the Bill recognise that there is no longer any typical family form, which is what is reflected in the Bill.

Others have commented on the Bill's long genesis. It is indeed long overdue, and the Government is to be commended on its introduction. An original general scheme was introduced in January 2014. I was very privileged to be a member of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights which examined the Bill, held hearings on it in April 2014 and published a report last May, which, as the Minister said, fed into the Bill. I will mention some of our recommendations and the way in which the Bill took on board much of what we said at the time.

I very much welcome the fact that the Minister has engaged so closely with many of us who were interested, from the time the new scheme of the Bill was published in September to its publication and passage through the Oireachtas. It reflects some of what was said in report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction in 2005, as the Minister said, which shows how overdue it is.

The Children's Rights Alliance has said, very succinctly, that this Bill is to be welcomed for two key reasons. It protects the child's right to family life and ensures decisions are made in the best interests of the child. That encompasses the range of aspects of child and family law that are covered in the Bill. A broad range of issues are covered, including donor-assisted human reproduction, parentage and pathways to parentage for children, guardianship and adoption. The overarching theme of the best interests of the child runs through the Bill.

Some have commented on the Bill's relationship with the Constitution, but this is a Bill which does not require a constitutional referendum and is entirely separate. That is very clear to anyone who reads the Bill closely.

The Bill was broadly welcomed by the many stakeholders who made submissions to those of us on the joint committee. As we said, it is intended to create a legal structure to underpin diverse family forms. A nice way of putting it is that it creates a new architecture for family forms and guardianship, custody and access to children. We know our current law is rather dated, as the 1964 Guardianship of Infants Act still governs this area. Much of the Bill will amend the 1964 Act, the Status of Children Act 1987 and other pieces of legislation.

Senator van Turnhout commented on the language of the Bill. The joint committee recommended that new and revised forms of wording should be used to better reflect our day-to-day language. Instead of guardianship we should speak about parental responsibility, instead of custody we should refer to day-to-day care, and instead of access we should speak about contact. I appreciate that the Bill is primarily amending existing legislation and what is needed in the future is a much larger piece of codifying law to bring together all of the relevant legislation into one global statute to deal with this area.

I am also conscious that until the Supreme Court rules on the children's referendum there are other aspects that cannot be dealt with, such as the right of adoption for children who were born into a marriage. Some things will still need to be done.

As others have said, we know that family forms have become much more diverse. Some 35% of all children are now born outside marriage, and 500 couples participate in civil partnerships every year. Many couples, predominately straight couples, avail of IVF or assisted human reproductive facilities, something of which we are all aware. This Bill will reflect all of that.

I want to mention a couple of aspects of the Bill in more detail. I refer to donor-assisted human reproduction, which is set out in Parts 2 and 3 of the Bill. Like many others, I have been contacted by individuals and couples who are concerned about some of the provisions in the Bill, on which Senator Norris had a briefing earlier. It is a difficult and complex task to balance the interests of the people who contacted us with the pre-eminent right of a child to access information concerning his or her genetic identity. In the joint committee report we emphasised that the right to identity should be acknowledged and recognised in the Bill. That is the genesis of sections 24 to 38, particularly the introduction of a register of donor-conceived persons. Recommendation 22 of the report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction in 2005 was about the need to ensure a right to identity. That balance has been achieved effectively in this Bill.

I appreciate the real concerns of couples who have children born through donor-assisted human reproduction and want to have a genetic sibling. The three-year exemption will deal with that for some people. It may take some time to conceive a child through this method, and therefore some people are concerned that the period is too short. I am grateful to the Minister for her agreement to delay the commencement of those provisions, which will address many of the concerns of those individuals, families and clinics. Some lead-in time will be needed to establish the new procedure whereby certain information will be required for donations.

There has been a little bit of scaremongering around the idea of people travelling abroad. They are already doing so to avail of assisted human reproduction facilities in other countries for all sorts of reasons, something of which we have to be aware. A careful reading of section 24 gives some comfort to people who are concerned about this. I understand embryos formed pre-commencement will not be subject to the three-year time limit, but we need to clarify the effect on people of the provisions on access to information for children conceived in this way.

Issues in respect of guardianship have been raised. Section 49 is greatly improved and reflects a recommendation from the joint committee. The original provision in the Bill for unmarried cohabitant fathers was that they would have to cohabit for at least 12 months prior to a child's birth, which has been changed. The new provision is much more flexible. A careful balance has to be struck, as the Minister said, to ensure that the child's best interests are safeguarded. I am glad she said there would be a two-year review of the provisions on automatic guardianship.

It is very welcome to hear the Minister say that, in a non-statutory way, she has also arranged for procedures to be made simpler for people to sign a statutory declaration. Currently, many of us who have gone though a statutory declaration process do so with a solicitor, who keeps a copy, as do the individuals concerned. It is done in a very ad hocway by individuals who are aware of the process. The simple method whereby at the point of registration of a child's birth parents will be informed of the existence of a statutory declaration procedure will go a long way to ensuring greater recognition of guardianship rights for non-marital fathers, and this is very important from a child's perspective.

The joint committee recommended that a central register be established. I listened with great interest to what the Minister said about it, the difficulty of establishing it and the danger that it would result in more red tape. The idea of a pilot project for a voluntary repository will address the issue of people losing documents, wondering where the copies are and so on.That is another very welcome decision. In terms of the other aspects of the guardianship part of the Bill, the justice committee was concerned about sanctions for breaches of court orders on access and custody. I think section 60 reflects the committee's recommendation in this regard by ensuring the enforcement provisions will not penalise the child. For example, children should not be denied access because of breaches by parents. I am glad to see some creative provisions included in section 60, for example, requiring parents to go on parenting courses. That is very welcome.

I would like to welcome the adoption provisions in Part 11, which will ensure that couples in a civil partnership and cohabiting couples will be eligible to apply to adopt. As others have said, there is no right to adopt. It is very welcome that such people will be considered for adoption for the first time. Our adoption laws are hugely anomalous. Along with Senator Norris and many others, I pointed out during the debate on the Adoption Act 2010 in this House that it was anomalous that cohabiting or gay individuals could apply to adopt as individuals but could not apply as part of a couple.

I would like to mention an aspect of adoption that is not being reformed in this legislation. It is disappointing that it is not being addressed. The justice committee recommended that step-parent adoptions should be covered in this Bill. I know this issue has been raised with the Minister by some individuals. As Senator Power said, there were just 122 domestic adoptions in Ireland last year. The vast majority of those cases involved in-family adoption by step-parents who were usually adopting the child of the birth mother. I know plenty of people who have had to go through this ridiculously cumbersome procedure, which involves the birth mother relinquishing her rights so that she and her husband can re-adopt as a couple.

There should be some mechanism that reflects the reality of the diverse family forms in Ireland today. As increasing numbers of children are living in blended families, it should be possible for step-parents to adopt through a simplified procedure whereby the birth mother does not have to give up her rights in respect of the child. Again, it is in the interests of the child to have his or her parents regarded as such. We need to make a very important change in this regard. I know that other reforms to adoption law will need to be made, assuming the children's rights referendum is upheld. It may not be possible to make those changes in this legislation. I would love to see us amend this legislation to that end. I am conscious of the long genesis that this Bill has already had. It is important for us to see it brought in. I think the position of step-parents needs to be considered,

I will conclude by speaking about the broad issue of diverse family forms. As we all know, the text of Article 41 of Bunreacht na hÉireann - the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land - unfortunately still recognises only the family based on marriage. The definition of marriage may extend if the marriage equality referendum is passed, as I hope it will be. Nonetheless, it will still remain the case that only those families based on marriage will be recognised in our Constitution. I think there is a broader issue about looking to amend our Constitution at some point to reflect the diversity of family life that we have all mentioned and to ensure there is no sense in which there is a hierarchy of family types, or in which some family types are regarded as being superior to others.

This welcome legislation goes a long way to ensuring children have equal rights under the law regardless of the family form in which they are being brought up. I think that is what really makes us all welcome this Bill. Indeed, it is great to see it getting this very broad welcome across the House. I hope we will see it passed into law without delay.