——that a Deputy who is, not in years but in experience, a veteran of this House and of the slow process of legislation though this Chamber, and with his interest and his expertise in the laws, should stand here this evening, when we are concluding Second Stage of a Bill, which he admits is well and truly overdue, and say we should draw a breath regarding this legislation. If we continue to draw breaths at the slow rate at which we are drawing up legislation we will pass into unconsciousness. Sometimes I believe we have ceased to draw a breath regarding the introduction, implementation and enactment of legislation. That is why I welcome what I would like to believe is the first of many Private Members' Bills to hasten the process and progress of legislation through this Chamber, particularly in an area which has been so neglected, restricted, cut off and debated for so long. It is shameful for us in 1987 that we still have not got a set of fundamental children's rights.
We pay lip service to the importance of children, to our young generation, to parenthood, to family, the strength of the family, the recognition and nurturing of the family, confidence, self-possession and development within the family. Yet in 1987, as Deputy Shatter said when introducing this Bill, we are the only country in Europe who actually discriminates not just against illegitimate children — which we do because of another lengthy delay on the Status of Children Bill — but, what is well nigh impossible and certainly shameful, against legitimate children. That is why this Bill is not only important but urgent.
I fail to understand why there is a consensus in the Dáil, and has been since the reform started, on two levels, First, there is a need to introduce and pass legislation because of the backlog. Second, where there is consensus and general support for the principle of laws and legislation there should be no undue delay. Third, all of us in this Chamber have a mandate, and have been elected to be legislators, regardless of which side of the House we sit on. I find it incredible that it should be suggested that only a Government side of the House have the ability, commitment and competence to introduce legislation with a possibility of it being passed. It is outrageous and it is a denial of the rights of all of us as legislators, regardless of whether we are in Opposition or in Government. It is a further insult to an already very insulted profession to suggest that competent expert people who, because of an election, find themselves on the other side of the House, should suddenly be denuded of that competence and expertise which enabled them to bring in the legislation when they were on Government side. It is a total negation of what we would like our democracy to be in this House and to which all of us pay lip service, that is, that legislators on all sides of the House should be enabled to take part in their full capacity and not be excluded or ignored. That is why I appeal to the Government side tonight, who in their speeches up to now have said that they welcome broadly, and support in particular the introduction of such a Bill.
Deputy Shatter pointed out that his Bill is an amended version of what was a Government Bill, drafted with all the backing and resources which the Government now say that their Bill would need. That is nothing but an excuse for needless, total and dishonest delay. The Bill has been introduced by a Deputy who is recognised — both inside and outside this House — as one of the experts in family law. His books and judgment are accepted, not just by the legal profession but everywhere as being those of an expert. On that level there is absolutely no excuse for dismissing or neglecting this legislation. Let us come to the fundamental point as to why this Bill must go through the House tonight and why the Committee Stage should be introduced as quickly as possible. It is because this Bill addresses the most vulnerable section of our community, those who cannot, either through age or inexperience, claim rights for themselves. That is why we have a particular and special responsibility towards children over every other section of the community. That is why it is all the more embarrassing and shameful that we have failed them so dismally.
I wish to make only a few comments on the Bill because it has already been discussed during last week and this week, and I am aware that other speakers wish to speak. It should be recognised and recorded that the Review Committee on Adoption Services — which as Deputy Andrews pointed out was set up years ago and is why we have to operate in terms of years and sometimes decades rather than months which is a total disappointment to me — made the fundamental point, on the need for this Bill, that eligibility for adoption should not be determined on the basis of the marital status of parents. It came as a shock to me because, until Deputy Shatter mentioned this point in his speech last week, I was not aware that discriminated against legitimate children and their exclusion from being adopted in this country. This has led to some children being sent out of the jurisdiction. We may feel very concerned that our older, educated, experienced adult population have to emigrate, perhaps to return one day, but it is appalling to think that discrimination within our legislation could cause vulnerable children to go outside this jurisdiction to get a natural family upbringing and all the security that offers. I do not hear anybody on the other side of the House getting hysterical about that.
We have had submissions and reports from every organisation dealing with children, all urging us to proceed with this legislation. Not only have we consensus in this House but we have support and consensus outside the House. There is huge disillusionment at the slow rate at which all legislation regarding children's rights is crawling through these Houses.
Deputy Shatter has been extremely careful in drafting this Bill so that it fits within the constitutional restrictions. Even if it is tested in the Supreme Court I hope it will be shown that the constitutional rights of children have a place and a priority which in certain circumstances would supersede that of parents who have neglected them to the extent that they should have given up all natural rights and responsibilities. Deputy Shatter has been careful to make sure that there should be a rigorous examination of each application by the adoption board. Each application would then have to be tested and authorised by the High Court. There is no way in which the drafting of this Bill could be described as anything less than careful. If it were not for the constraints of the Constitution, I am sure Deputy Shatter would prefer to expand it and make it more open and child-centred, which the Constitution certainly is not. When we have a new Constitution and perhaps a more progressive attitude, I would like to hope that we would remove the anomaly which disallows widowers from adopting and look at the whole area of caring parents in a single or unmarried state who, because of a particular relationship with a child, should also be allowed to adopt. I am aware, however, that getting this legislation through is the first priority and we can amend and expand it in the future.
The whole thrust of this Bill is to put children first. Their security and their relationships of love and care with adults they can trust are of prime importance, not the property rights and the marriage rights which have dominated relationships in this country, sometimes to the total destruction of relationships.
I particularly welcome Deputy Shatter's provisions in relation to the important matter of fees and expenses. All legislation should ensure that people have full access to the courts, regardless of their financial status. This is especially important when their rights or the rights of their children must be tested. Formerly this matter was decided at the discretion of the courts and I welcome the provision in this Bill which will enable people to come forward with confidence knowing that they will not become involved in financial difficulties by so doing. If we want our courts to be open to people regardless of income or status, it is essential that this provision be supported.
Above everything else I applaud the general considerations at the end of the Bill and the explanatory memorandum which sums up what the Bill is about. The rights of natural parents will always be supported and protected but there are situations where there is a total breakdown. Every support should be given to prevent this happening, but when it does happen the reality is that children are placed in long term institutional care when there are loving couples desperately anxious to adopt such children. The explantory memorandum states:
There are, however, a considerable number of children in long term residential or fostercare who have long since ceased to have any relationship of any nature with their natural parents. The major provisions of this Bill extend to such children the possibility of a secure family life in the home of adoptive parents.
I wish to comment briefly on Deputy Cooney's suggestion last night that, since this Bill is fraught with constitutional difficulties, we might focus on fostering as an alternative to adoption. Deputy Taylor-Quinn has already pointed out some of the inadequacies of this. Fostering does not give the legal protection and the security both the child and the parents need. While fostering in certain circumstances is certainly to be encouraged, basically we need to give the same rights of adoption to all our children, regardless of the marital status of their parents and of legitimacy or illegitimacy. The sooner we get rid of all those discriminations the sooner our children will actually be cherished by the nation and realise that they have the same rights and the same status. It is intolerable that they do not have that status. They cannot fight for it themselves since it is pre-determined for them and can distort their development all their lives.
Once again I appeal to the Government to support this Bill, to give it the consensus it has got from this side, to allow us to bring one Bill regarding children's rights through fast without delaying it for party political reasons or because Private Member's Bills are seen in this House to be less credible than others. I reject that. There is not much point in talking about Dáil reform if that is one of the reasons that this Bill is turned down. If and when we bring this Bill through it will be an encouragement to other legislators on either side of the House to introduce other legislation which has been long delayed. It will also relieve the burden on the Government. We are all aware of the heavy demands made on Ministers in Government time and the many other demands on their time and energy. Surely it is practical that the competence and expertise of all sides of the House be used where other Members of the House might have more time in that area. If we are to consider this a working House this Bill must be accepted by all sides of the House and go through, otherwise it is a charade to talk of this being a place of legislative reform.
I appeal tonight across the House that everybody support this Bill and bring it through as fast as possible because it is so long overdue and discrimination against children continues at the most fundamental level. We have still to bring through this House the Status of Children Bill which has already gone through the Seanad. It is remarkably good legislation now and its passage through this House should not take too much time because there was a high level debate and a good Committee Stage in the Seanad. The Minister is here across the floor and I know his commitment to the Children (Care and Protection) Bill which, so long delayed and so necessary, has to go through the whole process in this House again. We accept what the Minister said, that because of difficulties and amendments that is the way it must be. I appeal to the Minister in the light of all the legislation outstanding — there is such a backlog — to support this legislation and get it through as a first step so that we can get on to the other legislation. I hope that at the end of all this we can leave this House, proud in the knowledge that we have assured rights for our children which at the moment to our shame and embarrassment we cannot claim.