Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jun 1988

Vol. 382 No. 2

Private Members' Business. - Adoption (No. 2) Bill, 1987 [ Seanad ]: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. Shatter

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, subsection (1) (a), line 5 to delete "if the health board considers it proper to do so" and substitute "if the health board considers it in the best interests of the child to do so".

This section sets out the procedure whereby a person in whose favour the Adoption Board have made a declaration under section 2, which we have accepted, can request a health board to make application to the High Court, in effect, for an order freeing a child for adoption. The position under the Bill will be that prior to a couple being in a position to make such an application they will normally have acted for a minimum of 12 months, and possibly for a good deal longer, as foster parents to that child. They will then have had to make application to the Adoption Board for the board to make a determination that they regard it as proper and in the interests of the child that an adoption order be made.

Before the Adoption Board can make such an adoption order and because of the constitutional position, it will be necessary for the High Court to make a determination on the basis of the criteria laid down in section 3 as to whether a child can be freed for adoption. Section 3 states that either a health board can make that application or it can be made by the foster parents. The intent of the Bill, as the Minister described it on Second Stage, is designed to ensure that in the majority of instances such applications be made by health boards. Despite the Adoption Board making a decision as to the appropriateness of a child being adopted, the health board will not be under a duty to make an application in respect of a child to the High Court to free that child for adoption. The health board will have a discretion which they can exercise in determining whether to make such an application. Under subsection (1) (a) a health board can make such an application if they consider it proper to do so. No other criteria are laid down that the health board must comply with.

I submit that where it is in the best interests of a child that the health board make such an application they should do so. There should be no ambiguity as to the basis on which a health board should exercise their powers or functions under the Bill. Accordingly, I am proposing that subsection (1) (a) be amended and that the words, "if the health board considers it proper to do so", be deleted and substituted by the words, "if the health board considers it in the best interests of the child to do so". I should like to ask the House to support that amendment. I submit that in determining whether an application should be made a health board must have some guidance. I do not know what is meant by the phrase, "if the health board considers it proper to do so". The Minister might explain in what circumstances a health board might consider it improper in regard to a child whose adoption the Adoption Board have already considered appropriate.

It is not the health board who will make the decision as to whether a child should or should not be adopted. Ultimately, it will be the High Court who will determine whether the child should be freed for adoption. The health board should afford the High Court an opportunity of making the appropriate determination, bearing in mind the constitutional rights of the child and of the natural parents and taking into account the reality of the child's family circumstances where a child has been in foster care for a lengthy period of time and where the adoption board have already, in a sense, acted as a filter to determine whether a child should be considered for adoption. To impose a duty on the health board, where they consider it in the best interests of the child to do so, to make such application would be to do something that this Bill is designed to do which is not only to balance the rights of parents and ensure they are properly protected but also to ensure that the welfare and the better interests of the children are protected. That would be the criteria to which the health board would have regard.

The health board, of course, are not compelled by paragraph (a) to make an application in any case. They have a discretion as to whether they should be so or not. The discretion should be exercised on the basis of the best interests of the child and not on whether the health board consider it proper to make such application. If the health board decide not to pursue the matter, the section allows the foster parents to initiate court proceedings. Problems arise with that and we can deal with some of them when discussing the substantive section. Problems could arise in the context of the risk the foster parents might place themselves in with regard to incurring legal costs for such court proceedings.

I ask for support for this amendment. In doing so I draw to the attention of the House that if this Bill is truly concerned with ensuring that children who have been in long-term foster care have the possibility of being adopted, the criteria the Bill lays down as to the basis upon which the health boards should make decisions are far too broad. For example, the health board consider it not proper to make such application because they have their own financial difficulties. They might regard themselves as being deprived by central Government of the necessary funding to carry out their functions. This Bill confers a power on the health board to make such applications but does not, in the context of the health board doing so, expressly provide any additional financial allocation to health boards with regard to the legal costs they will incur in processing High Court and, in some circumstances, Supreme Court cases.

It seems there are a variety of extraneous criteria the health board could have regard to such as I suggested on Second Stage. It would be possible for the health board, as a matter of policy, to decide, because they did not like the idea of abandoned foster children who were born to a married couple being adopted, that they will never make such applications. By ensuring that the health board operate on the basis of the best interests of the child rather than simply making decisions on the basis that they consider it proper to do so, it would ensure that that sort of eventuality could not take place and that the intent of the Oireachtas in this measure could not be frustrated by a recalcitrant health board who are unwilling to use this measure to protect the welfare of children or who wish to engage in some sort of political ball play with the incumbent Minister for Health in trying to embarrass him or her into providing additional funding for a health board who felt they had not got adequate funding to enable them to carry out their statutory obligations.

Minister for Health (Dr. O'Hanlon)

I do not propose to accept this amendment. In deciding whether or not to apply to the High Court for an order authorising the adoption of a child, the health board will have to take all the circumstances of the case into account. While the health board will clearly give first consideration to what is in the best interest of the child, the board will also have to have regard to the rights and interests of the natural parents of the child unless, of course, they have died or their whereabouts is not known. The board may be aware of the personal circumstances of the parents. They may know, for example, that the parents have suffered a spell of serious physical or mental illness but are now recovered sufficiently to be able to resume care of the child. The board may feel that in the circumstances it would not be proper to proceed with the adoption.

In effect, the health board will have to decide whether it would be proper, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, to apply for an order authorising the child's adoption. I feel, therefore, that the existing phrase more accurately reflects the decision which must be taken by the health board than that proposed in Deputy Shatter's amendment. There is a danger that if the amendment is accepted health boards would feel that they need only have regard to the interests of the child and this could result in grave injustice being done to the natural parents involved.

Mr. Shatter

Could the Minister confirm that I am right in my worries that it would be possible for a health board, as this provision is phrased, as a matter of policy, to decide that they would never make such applications? Could the Minister indicate how he would deal with that eventuality if this Bill is passed unamended in the context of this subsection? Could he indicate whether he would agree that it would be possible for a health board to consider it not proper to make such applications because they suffered some degree of financial difficulties and because they felt that they should not waste health board's funds on incurring legal expense in processing adoption applications? Perhaps the Minister could clarify how he envisages a health board would deal with those issues under this provision unamended.

Dr. O'Hanlon

First, I have more confidence in the health boards than Deputy Shatter has but in this instance it would not be possible for a health board to decide, as a matter of policy, not to operate the provisions of the Bill. Section 3 (6) of the Bill confers on the CEO of the health board the functions of the board under this Bill. Thus, the members of the health board will have no function and would not be able to take such a decision.

Mr. Molloy

I want to draw the Minister's attention to the wording of section 3 (1) which refers to persons in whose favour the board has made a declaration under the relevant subsection. If the board, having considered the matter, decided that it was in order for them to make the declaration, in what circumstances could the Minister see the board refusing to make the application to the courts? If they had arrived at the decision in favour of the persons who had requested them to consider the matter and had decided to make the declaration, in those circumstances, why would the health board refuse to proceed with the application to the court?

Dr. O'Hanlon

The adoption board do not take account of the marital status of the parents.

Mr. Shatter

It seems that is not correct. If one takes the proposed section 3 (1) (a) with section 2 (1) one will see the interaction that arises there. Section 2 (1) (c) states that the Adoption Board "having heard the health board in whose functional area the applicants ordinarily reside, any persons specified in paragraphs (a) to (h) of section 16 (1) (as adopted by this Act) of the Principal Act and any other person whom the board, in its discretion, decides to hear is satisfied that, if an order were made it would be proper, having regard to the Acts and this Act, to make the adoption order".

Two preliminary decisions must be made here. The foster parents have to get over two hurdles. The first hurdle is to satisfy the Adoption Board that it is appropriate that the child be adopted. The Adoption Board, in determining whether it is appropriate that an adoption order be made, must hear what the health board have to say. Presumably the health board social welfare personnel who will be largely involved in this decision-making process and whose approach to this will influence the CEO in determining the health board's attitude on the basis of what the Minister is saying, will raise whatever objections they have with the Adoption Board, which in a sense will be independent of the foster parents and of the health board. The Adoption Board are required to have regard to all aspects of the Adoption Acts, which presumably include having regard to the different manner in which children born inside or outside marriage are treated under the Adoption Acts. In other words, the Adoption board will consider all this and, because they are a statutory body, they are required to have regard to the constitutional rights of parents and children. Obviously, they will have to have regard to the position of the natural parents.

It seems that under this provision the Adoption Board could hear the natural parents. It would be possible for the Adoption Board, having heard all these people, to make a decision that it is appropriate that a child be adopted if the High Court make an order. The health board may raise objections and veto the processing of the application by deciding it was not proper that an application be made. In other words, even having had the health board's objections dismissed by the Adoption Board, who would be clearly independent of natural parents, foster parents and health board, the health board in effect exercise a veto. The Minister will tell me that the foster parents can make the application, but in doing that they will put themselves at severe risk of incurring substantial legal expenses which this provision, I assume, is designed to ensure they will not incur. This provision is designed to ensure that legal expenses will be borne by the health board.

I have some difficulty in understanding the Minister's response to Deputy Molloy, who raised a very valid point. All these differing and conflicting rights, duties, obligations and constitutional as well as statutory protections will be considered by the Adoption Board at a preliminary stage. The health board should only, for a reason relating to the best interests of the child, have a discretion to exercise in this area.

It appears that if the CEO of the health board or a group of social workers in the health board do not like the idea of children abandoned within marriage being adopted it would be possible, as a policy decision handed down by the CEO or a senior social worker within a health board area, that a health board would not make such applications despite the Adoption Board determining that it be appropriate that they be made.

Dr. O'Hanlon

As I understand it, the Adoption Board are not required to consider the position of the natural parents. They only look at the suitability of the applicants.

Mr. Shatter

Section 2 (1) (c) says that the board may hear any person whom the board, in its discretion, decides to hear, and any person can make application to the board on the basis that they wish to be heard by the board. Could the board not hear what the natural parent has to say by way of an objection to their child being adopted? The Minister is not suggesting under that provision that the board are excluded from hearing the natural parents.

Dr. O'Hanlon

No. What I said was they were not required to consider the position of the natural parents. They could hear them, but they are not obliged in law to hear them.

Mr. Shatter

They are obliged in law to hear what the health board personnel have to say. If they raise a serious objection on the basis of the position of the natural parents, the Adoption Board would hear the natural parents to ascertain their view. The Adoption Board could not properly act in dealing with the matter if they did not hear from the natural parents.

Mr. Molloy

I thought the Minister would reply to my question. I ask the Minister to recall that it is he who is proposing these new procedures and this is the only opportunity we have to question him on why he has chosen the particular formula of procedures and structures he is proposing in the Bill. As I understand it, applicants may apply to the Adoption Board and the Adoption Board may hear the applicants and others, including the health board. If the Adoption Board recommend adoption and an order be made, why should the health board re-enter with a discretionary judicial function in deciding whether they would refer the case to the High Court? Why does the Minister not make it mandatory on them to refer the case to the court for decision? It does not seem to make much sense.

Dr. O'Hanlon

The reason for the procedures adopted is to ensure that justice will be done to both the child and the natural parents.

Mr. Molloy

Would the Adoption Board not have the opportunity to ensure that that requirement was fulfilled when considering all the matters brought before them, including the right of the health board to bring matters to their attention for consideration when deciding whether to recommend that the adoption order be made?

Dr. O'Hanlon

The difficulty is that the one thing the Adoption Board do not do is to look at the position of the natural parents.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister is hanging his case on that.

Mr. Shatter

With respect, that is what the courts will do. The court will look at the position of the natural parent, the child and the prospective adopters or foster parents. In the Adoption Bill I introduced, the Adoption Board and the health board would not have been playing conflicting roles. In effect, the foster parents would have had it open to them to make application in appropriate circumstances without the layer of bureaucracy introduced here in the context of the health board exercising a further function. The Adoption Board assess whether it would be suitable for a child to be adopted. They hear the objections of the health board, the social workers, and the natural parents. Then they can decide, if the High Court is willing to free a child for adoption, that it is appropriate that the child be adopted. But if the Adoption Board decide it is not appropriate that the child be adopted, that is the end of the matter. If the Adoption Board decide it is appropriate, the body under this measure that should be weighing the rights, and the conflicting rights of the parents, the foster parents and more particularly the child, is the High Court, not the health board.

If we compare the position in this Bill with the approach in the Child Care Bill, in which an obligation is imposed on health boards to protect the welfare of children, it would seem to be consistent where the Adoption Board authorise that it is appropriate for an application to be made to the High Court and for the health board, on the basis of the best interests of the child, to make that application. There is no purpose in the Adoption Board first adjudicating on the matter, then the health board and then the High Court. It adds a layer of bureaucracy and difficulty that foster parents must surmount, which could in effect result in this Bill in theory, providing for the adoption of children who are abandoned within marriage but which in practice will not work.

By having this broad criteria, if the health board consider it proper to do so rather than basing it on the best interests of the child, this Bill provides such a wide discretion to a health board as to give no one any guidance in what circumstances any particular health board will ever make an application. It also seems to set at nought the authority of the Adoption Board, which can be undermined by a health board who consistently refuse to make applications with regard to children the Adoption Board deem should be adopted.

I would like to remind the Minister that the Adoption Board consider what the health board have to say and also the position of the parents, but at the end of the day it is the job of the High Court to balance the conflicting rights of everyone. I would like the Minister to explain, in the context of the High Court protecting the constitutional position of natural parents, why it is necessary for the health board to exercise a similar function?

Dr. O'Hanlon

The reason the health board are involved is because the health board will have placed most of these children in foster care and will be in ongoing contact with the families where the child is placed and therefore are in the best position to go to the High Court for the order.

Mr. Shatter

That is why the health board are playing the role that the Minister is giving them. They are in the middle ground and they can assist both the Adoption Board in making their initial decision by giving whatever information is available to them and can facilitate the High Court by giving whatever information is available to them. It does not mean that the health board should be in a position where they adjudicate on the basis of what is proper and what is not proper. Let me suggest that if the health board are given that broad discretion rather than being required to exercise discretion on the basis of the best interests of the child, the health board are setting themselves up in conflict with the people that they may be working with. A health board working with inadequate parents and providing them with social supports and using particular foster parents to care for a child can find themselves caught in the middle of a battle between natural parents and foster parents with no guiding criteria on which they should make their decisions. As a result, the capacity of the health board to fulfil their supportive functions for inadequate parents and their protective functions for children, can be undermined and some health boards, as a result of being locked into this situation without being required by statute to make the decision on the basis of the best interests of the child, will be locked into a state of paralysis because there will be health board social workers who will take the view that they cannot make these decisions because they are working as social workers with individual parents and they also have contact with foster parents. By giving the health board such a broad discretion the Minister is creating a situation in which, in effect, the health board may not be able to exercise the functions that the Minister is assigning to them. If the criteria were based on the best interests of the child, the health board would have clear criteria upon which they would make their decision and, presumably, in 99 per cent of cases where the Adoption Board have assessed the position, unless something exceptional arose, a health board would at least allow court proceedings to be initiated so that the courts would make the decision based on the best interests of the child. However, if the health board act as a block in this situation it really impedes the possibility of everyone's rights being assessed and ultimately the child's position being protected by the courts.

Mr. Molloy

The point that has been made has special significance as I understand from Deputy Shatter that a subsequent amendment of his has been disallowed on the grounds that it would involve a charge on the Exchequer. That amendment would have provided that the costs for applicants who made direct application to the High Court would have been met. If that amendment is not allowed we are not in a position here to alter those terms of the Bill. Therefore, the opportunity to change this would meet the point that he was making in that amendment. If this section were altered to make it mandatory on health boards to make application to the High Court and to allow the High Court to make the decision if the Adoption Board had made recommendation or a declaration, as it is called in the Bill, then all applicants to the High Court would have their costs met and that certainly would be the wish of the Opposition parties. We were hoping to hear the Minister's views on that when Deputy Shatter's amendment was to be put before the House but if that amendment is disallowed I am raising that point now. If the Minister withdrew the discretion that the health boards have and made it obligatory on them to refer to the High Court any case that the Adoption Board made a declaration on and if the Bill was so amended to provide that in all such cases the costs of the applicants would be met, it would meet other points that we wanted to raise during the course of this debate. I would like to hear the Minister's views on that. I would like to know if there will be an opportunity for amendments on Report Stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

By an order of the House, this Bill must be disposed of by 11 o'clock this evening.

Mr. Molloy

The order of the House also provides for amendments to be made on Report Stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

If we reach that stage, by all means.

Dr. O'Hanlon

To deal with Deputy Shatter's point, the health boards will have to exercise discretion given to them in a reasonable and responsible manner and I have every confidence in the ability of health boards to balance all the interests of the child, of the natural parents and of the foster parents. Deputy Shatter seems to be assuming that the health boards will not be co-operative. I believe that it is essential that there should be a balance in this legislation between the rights of the child and the rights of the natural parents. As I said earlier, I feel that the existing phrase in the Bill rather than that in Deputy Shatter's amendment, more accurately reflects the decision that the health board will have to take.

There is a danger that if the amendment were accepted health boards would feel that they only had to take into account the interests of the child and this could result in grave injustice to the natural parents. Indeed, earlier today we heard Deputy Cooney from that side of the House speaking on the Child Care Bill and making a point which is pertinent here about what happened in Sweden where a social worker made a decision which would not stand up in the normal course of events. It is important that we get balance into this Bill. Certainly the interests of the child are of fundamental importance and it is important to protect the interests of the natural parents as well.

On the point raised by Deputy Molloy in relation to costs, the position is that the foster parents or the adoptive parents may go to the High Court. If the health board decide that they are not prepared to make an application to the High Court on behalf of the adoptive parents the adoptive parents may go themselves. In the event of the case being successful the costs will be met by the health board. In the event of the case being unsuccessful then they will be responsible for their own costs.

Mr. Molloy

Why should they?

Dr. O'Hanlon

Because I do not think it is appropriate that the State should provide the costs for every person who takes a case. It could mean that in effect adoptive parents in every case where the health board refuse to go to court would take a case themselves if they knew the costs were going to be paid.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister is not showing very great confidence in the opinion of the Adoption Board who, bear in mind, have already made a declaration that they favour the adoption in the particular case. So if the Adoption Board have made a recommendation that an adoption order be made why should the parents who subsequently might have to make an application to the High Court themselves have to pay their own costs if their case fails, whereas if the case had been brought by the health board and had failed in the High Court the health board would have paid the cost? I cannot understand why that distinction is being made because it clearly emphasises the Minister's lack of confidence in the opinion of the Adoption Board. The Minister seems to be putting much greater faith in the decision of the health board which, of course, is not the health board as we know it, which comprises representatives of local authorities, the medical profession and others, but in fact is the chief executive, a single individual.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I have every confidence in the Adoption Board and I think everybody in this House who has been looking at the work they have been doing would agree with that statement. It is important in the context of this legislation that the Adoption Board are not required to consider the position of the natural parents. They look only at the suitability of the applicants. The health board will in most cases have placed the child in foster care and will be in constant contact with the family. They will have a major input when an application is made to the court and the court decides whether the child should be placed for adoption or not.

Mr. Molloy

Why should not all cases go to the High Court where there is the legal competence? Why should the chief executive of the health board have a discretion in the matter? Surely the rights of all concerned parties are fully taken into account in the court hearing. That should meet the point the Minister is making. I would ask him to reconsider his position on this matter.

Mr. Shatter

The Minister is saying that if a couple go to court and lose their case they should not have their costs met. These would be foster parents who had already made application to the Adoption Board and been approved by them, in circumstances where the Adoption Board would have reviewed the entire history of the child residing with them and the child's family history. No foster parents who surmount the hurdle of the Adoption Board could be regarded as people making a vexatious court application. They would presumably be acting in the best interest of the child.

The Minister says that if foster parents bring an application where the health board do not, and lose the case, they should not have their costs met by the State. The Bill as drafted provides that the health board in all circumstances will meet the costs of the natural parents. Adoption applicants may get over the hurdle of the Adoption Board and health board and win their case in the High Court. Then the natural parents may appeal the High Court decision to the Supreme Court in circumstances where they have very little chance of succeeding. Then there may be an entire Supreme Court case which the natural parents lose. The natural parents will then have lost in two courts and put the adopters at risk of substantial legal expense in two court cases, but they will have their costs met by the State. These natural parents may be entirely unmeritorious parents who may have violently beaten a child, abandoned the child permanently and shown no interest in the child for five or ten years, yet if they decide to oppose a High Court application to free their child for adoption they can be funded by the State to process and defend High Court and Supreme Court applications.

Deputy Molloy is asking why adopters should be put at risk in circumstances where natural parents are not put at risk. The adopters also have to surmount a hurdle which the natural parents do not. The adopters must first have their application processed by the Adoption Board. This is of relevance largely to the cost issues, but Deputy Molloy is right in saying that if the discretion of the health board were more curtailed in the context of prospective adopters having been approved by the Adoption Board, there would be very little doubt that most applications would be made by the health board and adopters would be protected against the risks they would be facing with regard to costs. I do not understand why the State should foot the Bill for unmeritorious parents, who might have battered their children and then totally abandoned them for years, and allow them to litigate through the High Court and the Supreme Court, while the State is unwilling to foot the bill for apparently meritorious foster parents who are approved by the Adoption Board and who bring an application to the High Court but do not succeed in having an order made freeing their child for adoption.

The High Court or the Supreme Court could refuse such order, not through any fault of the adopters or anything to do with the circumstances of the natural parents but for some obscure constitutional or technical legal reason which none of us may address this evening. Yet in those circumstances the foster parents who sought in good faith to provide security for the child placed with them would be left at a financial risk. If the Minister is unwilling to accept amendments with regard to ensuring financial protection for the adopters, there is a need to ensure that there is some curtailment of the extent to which a health board can exercise a discretion not to make an application to the courts once adopters have been approved by the Adoption Board. The amendment I have tabled would come three-quarters of the way to meeting that concern.

Mr. McCartan

I have listened long and carefully to the views of both the Minister and the proposer of the amendment. The wording proposed in the amendment reflects the basic law with regard to the custody and care of children. It reflects the principle on which we would expect the legislation to be founded, that is, that the interest of the child has primacy. The Minister has responded by suggesting that there is a need for balance. Clearly the legislation does not attack the balance which exists due to constitutional guarantees. The legislation is very narrow in its address and is designed to deal with exceptional cases. I would posit a situation where the interests of the child might require a case to be taken but the board for some peculiar reasons might decide not to proceed. We should seek not to allow such a situation under this Bill. All other criteria being met, if the interests of the child require it the process should proceed and adoption should be allowed.

I am concerned that the discretion given to the health boards is too wide and I commend to the Minister the proposal in the amendment. The Minister may prefer the wording in the Bill to stand but I would refer him to Deputy Molloy's argument relating to unsuccessful applications taken by prospective adoptive parents to the court. The Minister should use the same standards and apply the same tests. Where prospective adoptive parents acting in good faith think it proper to make an application to the court they should not run the risk of penalty. I would urge the Minister to look again at that difficulty. This is considered a charge and consequently something that cannot be addressed by an amendment from the Opposition, but it is clearly within the Minister's authority and remit.

It is incumbent upon us at this stage to impress on the Minister the unfairness of the situation. We all have been advised, and no doubt the Minister's Department officials have been, of the cases that arise constantly in court where adoptive or prospective adoptive parents come to court with on the face of it eminently sensible and desirable applications to be made in the best interests of the child and which the parents consider proper, but with all the quirks and rules of law they are ultimately ruled against. Because this is a recurring phenomenon the Minister should in all fairness allow for an amendment on Report Stage later this evening before we conclude our deliberations and the Bill passes into law. Could he give us some indication that he would look at the matter and consider an appropriate decision? On Deputy Shatter's amendment as it stands the wording is, because it reflects a fundamental law, a preferable one since it directs the mind of the authority, the board, to the fundamental proposition: the interests of the child as a primacy. I would be afraid that we would be allowing too wide a discretion on this issue and allowing matters not necessarily needed in the circumstances to be drawn in at this stage in the cause of balance, whereas this legislation does not in any way attack the balance which is very heavily weighted in favour of the constitutional family as it stands.

Dr. O'Hanlon

As I said earlier in reply to Deputy Shatter when he spoke originally on his amendment, the health board have to take all the circumstances into account and not just the interests of the child. The health board will clearly give first consideration to what is in the best interests of the child—I am satisfied about that. The board also must have regard to the rights and interests of the natural parents of the child. The board may be aware of the personal circumstances of the parents. They may know, for example, that the parents have suffered a spell of serious physical illness or of mental illness, but are now recovered sufficiently to be able to resume the care of their child. The board may feel that in the circumstances it would not be proper to proceed with the adoption. In effect, the health board will have to decide whether it would be proper, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, to apply for an order authorising the child's adoption.

As I said earlier, I am satisfied that the health boards would act in a reasonable and responsible manner. However, if the boards were not to do so and were to refuse to make an application, that refusal would be challenged by the foster parents through the courts by way of a judicial review. I am satisfied that the means and costs that are being provided in these cases are reasonable.

Mr. Molloy

How can the Minister possibly be satisfied? The Minister is giving a judicial role to the executive of the health board, when the proposal that we are making would allow these matters to be considered in the proper place, which is the court. The Minister and all the other parties here are already on record as preferring family courts for this type of case, but recognising that these are not yet in existence the High Court is the appropriate place for these cases to be considered. The rights and interests of the natural parents can best be considered, surely, by a judge in the High Court where there would be proper training and understanding of the law rather than, as the Minister is suggesting, that the decision be made by the chief executive of the health board.

It does not make much sense and I am coming to the conclusion, due to the lack of arguments in support of the Minister's opposition to what we are suggesting, that much thought was not given previously to this matter. Would the Minister consider, as has been suggested by Deputy McCartan, bringing forward a Government amendment on Report Stage? We could get to that stage if we had an indication in advance. This amendment would provide that all cases where the adoption board had made a declaration for an adoption order would be brought by the health board before the High Court for decision.

Dr. O'Hanlon

As I have said, the costs for the natural parents in all cases will be met by the State.

Mr. Howlin

It is not a question of that.

Dr. O'Hanlon

The costs for adoptive parents if the health board, having examined the case and the circumstances of the case, decide to go through the courts, will be met by the State. If the health board decide that they should not make an application to the court, it is open to the adoptive parents to go to the court themselves. In the event of their being successful, the State will meet their costs. That is reasonable.

Mr. Molloy

Has the Minister any idea of the amount of costs that can be involved in a case brought before the High Court? He is by his decision denying many people caught under these provisions the opportunity of having their case heard before the High Court. I do not think that that would be the wish of this House.

Mr. McCartan

The lack of money.

An Ceann Comhairle

May I say that it is a matter of indifference to the Chair how long members dwell on any given amendment, but I feel it my duty to remind the House that there is a time limit in respect of the business before us. I wonder if we have not sufficiently discussed this amendment No. 1.

Mr. McCartan

I want to clarify the position. Do I take it that the Minister has given a fairly comprehensive answer in his last contribution and that he is not disposed to consider this matter on Report Stage?

Dr. O'Hanlon

That is the position.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 54.

Tá

• Abbott, Henry.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Brennan, Matthew.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Conaghan, Hugh.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary T.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Foley, Denis.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Hilliard, Colm Michael.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lynch, Michael.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Mooney, Mary.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Dea, William Gerard.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• Power, Paddy.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Swift, Brian.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wright, G.V.
• Harte, Paddy.

Níl

• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Begley, Michael.
• Bell, Michael.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Carey, Donal.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Colley, Anne.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Avril.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Farrelly, John V.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Griffin, Brendan.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kennedy, Geraldine.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCoy, John S.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Nealon, Ted.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Malley, Pat.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, P.J.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies Flanagan and Durkan.

Question declared carried.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Shatter

May I raise something with you, a Cheann Comhairle, which relates both to this section and to an amendment of mine that has apparently been ruled out of order. Section 3 (3) makes provision that where someone is added into court proceedings the courts can make various types of orders with regard to costs. I tabled an amendment to that provision which, in effect, would not provide for any additional charge on the State. As that provision was contained in the Bill originally it stipulates that if legal aid is not provided by the State — which means that the State would be paying for it — particular types of orders can be made which would result in the State equally, through a health board, footing the bill. Yet that amendment was ruled out of order. I was wondering could it have been ruled out of order out of a misunderstanding of the impact of what is contained in the original measure. In effect, it does not add to the apparent cost to the State. It simply redirects the way the matter is dealt with.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Shatter, there is no doubt or ambiguity in my mind about the matter. The amendment is clearly out of order. The Deputy has been informed as to the reasons for its being disallowed. Indeed, I was under the impression that we had an appointment to discuss the matter further; that appointment never materialised. I wish to repeat that amendment No. 2 is out of order, as are others in the Deputy's name. I have informed him of the reasons and they may not be discussed in the House.

Mr. Shatter

May I then raise a query on section 3 (3)?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may discuss the section but not the amendment which is deemed to be out of order.

Mr. Shatter

Section 3 (3) (a) reads:

(3) The Court may, of its own motion or on application to it in that behalf, make an order adding such other persons as it thinks fit as parties to proceedings under subsection (1), and may, in the case of a person added as a party to any such proceedings under this section, make such order as it considers just in respect of—

(a) the payment of any costs in relation to the proceedings that are incurred by the person and are not paid by another party to the proceedings if legal aid in respect of them under any scheme operated by or on behalf of the State for the provision of legal aid has been refused, or

Let us assume for a moment that a health board does bring proceedings having been requested to do so by adopters and that the natural parents contest those proceedings. Let us assume, from there, that the adopters are then added to the proceedings as notice parties by the court. Clearly, under this provision it seems that in those circumstances the health board, as one of the parties to the proceedings, could be required by the court ultimately to foot the bill for the legal expenses incurred by the prospective adopters but it appears the health board can be required so to do only if the adopters have applied for legal aid and it has been refused.

I should like the Minister to clarify this. First, if prospective adopters are added to the proceedings, they themselves may know that their income is such they do not qualify for legal aid on a means-tested basis. Nevertheless, their financial position may be such that they certainly cannot bear the brunt of High Court proceedings and the legal costs they would incur.

Is the Minister suggesting that, in order to allow the courts to require the health boards to meet those adopters' costs they must go through the sort of useless formula of applying to a law centre, already overworked, for legal aid, to await the law centre refusing to grant it, thereby holding up the court proceedings possibly for weeks or months so as to become entitled to recoupment of their legal costs? It seems to me this is a very peculiar provision to be inserted in the Bill. It could mean that when adoption proceedings are under way in the courts— it is in the interests of a child that they be processed rapidly — a court could take the view that it is essential that the prospective adopters be a party to the proceedings but if the adopters want to seek a protection against incurring legal costs, even in circumstances in which they know their finances do not qualify them for legal aid — through a Government law centre — they will have to make an application and have it refused.

In a world in which law centres were operating efficiently because they had adequate resources that would not be a particularly large problem. It would give rise to a fairly useless administrative exercise but within a matter of days that problem would be resolved. However, in the most recent report published by the Legal Aid Board the position as stated by them is that they do not provide a comprehensive system of legal aid, that many of the part-time centres they previously ran have ceased to function and that some of the full time centres they run frequently close. In dealing with the Dublin area the report says:

Worse still, even in Dublin, where there are four law centres, the need for services so outstrips resources that applicants for legal aid may have to wait for weeks, or even months, for an appointment with a solicitor. The well known adage is that justice delayed is justice denied. I can only regret that justice has to be denied in so many cases.

What are adopters who live in Dublin to do if they want to make an application to a law center in the middle of court proceedings having been initiated by a health board? Will they have access to law centres that have closed down temporarily? What happens if the law centre cannot process the application even to the extent of refusing to grant it? Why should there be imposed on the staff of law centres, who are already overburdened, a necessity to process applications for legal aid from people who know that their means are such as to disqualify them from it, even though they cannot afford to bear the brunt of High Court costs in the context of what funds are available to them? This is a very peculiar procedure and it is even more peculiar because of the circumstances under which the law centres operate. I would like the Minister to clarify for me the reason for this procedure, how he envisages it working in practice and how he anticipates that the law centres will deal with these applications, in particular in the context of the law centres in Dublin and elsewhere that regularly shut their doors to new clients for periods of weeks or months, as the chairman of the Legal Aid Board admits?

Dr. O'Hanlon

What is proposed in section 3 (3) is quite reasonable and satisfactory. The Deputy suggests that we delete the reference to the civil legal aid scheme and the effect of this would be that, for example, where the High Court decided on the application of a health board to add the foster parents as parties to the proceedings, the court would be able to order that the health board meet the costs incurred by the foster parents regardless of whether or not they were entitled to avail of the free legal aid scheme. This has imposed an additional charge on the health boards, and through them on the Exchequer, and I am not prepared to accept it. What is proposed in the Bill is satisfactory. What the Bill proposes is that where the persons added as a party are entitled to civil legal aid, they should avail of it. Where they are not entitled to civil legal aid the court would be able to order the health board to meet their costs. Deputy Shatter would have the health board meet their costs in all cases. This would not necessarily result in any better legal service being provided for the foster parents. The only result would be an additional cost to be met by the State.

Mr. Shatter

The Minister has not responded to the questions I asked him.

An Ceann Comhairle

I will call the Deputy again. I wanted to bring in Deputy Pat McCartan, who offered earlier. Is Deputy McCartan giving way to Deputy Shatter?

Mr. McCartan

I do not want to deflect Deputy Shatter from the query he put, but I want to contribute on this matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

Fine.

Mr. Shatter

The question I asked was what would happen in circumstances where health boards are not even open to take applications? The Minister talked about additional charges on the State. Either the law centre or the health board in effect will pay the legal costs, so there is the same charge on the State. That is not an issue which we can now debate. I will not raise it as it is an irrelevancy. Will the Minister say how he envisages this working in the context of law centres which frequently close and which lack the capacity to cope with the clients they have? Will the Minister accept that we are now asking the law centres, so that these sort of orders can be made against health boards, to process meaningless applications for legal aid, so that someone has a letter which says his application for legal aid has been refused? Will there be any special arrangements made with the Legal Aid Board to ensure that, if such an application is made by a foster parent who wishes to process an adoption application, within a matter of three or four days or within some specified agreed time his application will be granted or refused so that he is not put in a position of having to wait for many months simply to make an application and then have to wait for it to be determined?

The question of making an application does not just involve the law centre or the Legal Aid Board assessing the financial position of the couple. It can result in the Legal Aid Board trying to get some initial legal opinion as to the possibility of a case succeeding. It can take months for these applications to be processed before a law centre will decide whether or not it will grant legal aid. In the context of the State bearing the bill for this either way, this is adding to the expense. We have the Adoption Board making a preliminary decision, the health board making a preliminary decision, the Legal Aid Board making a preliminary decision, and then one might get into the High Court. This is bureaucracy gone mad and a waste of the State's recources.

Mr. McCartan

If the Minister is not coming back to Deputy Shatter on that, I wish to raise with him an aspect of section 3. Before we move on from section 3, will the Minister assure the House that the health boards throughout the country will be adequately funded to deal with the requirements laid upon them under section 3(1) so that within three months they should respond to a request to them from the board that an application be made on behalf of prospective adoptive parents? Because of the rulings of the Chair, which, I fully accept, our amendments cannot be proceeded with as they are considered to involve a potential charge on the Exchequer; but consequently the regime as drafted by the Minister and incorporated in the section will stand. It is essential therefore that the health boards should proceed under the section to ensure that the onus does not by default fall onto the shoulders of the prospective adoptive parents. Section 3 (1) (b) is drafted to allow for a situation, even though the board may otherwise think it appropriate to bring an application but because of a lapse of time did not do so, where it falls on the shoulders of the prospective adoptive parents to do so. The time period is very short. It is essential that in cases where the board should do so the proceedings should proceed in the name of the board.

It has been drawn to my attention that prospective adoptive parents will have the children in their care and custody for upwards of 12 months, with all the costs that that draws on them, without any expense or support from the State and that they will have passed the scrutiny of the Adoption Board. Those two major factors obviously suggest to prospective adoptive parents that they are in good standing, but there are other legalistic factors that can come to bear on an application that might well make it unsuccessful. A recent application of this sort was drawn to my attention. It involved a couple who as foster parents had custody of a child of seven years, who proceeded to court but the natural mother was not prepared to relinquish rights and the court upheld her position, leaving the foster and prospective adoptive parents to carry the cost, of the order of £15,000. That type of situation presents an inordinate and unbelievable burden of responsibility on the shoulders of prospective parents. The natural mother was not prepared to relinquish rights at that stage and the court upheld her position, leaving the foster and prospective parents to carry costs of the order of £15,000. That type of situation which occurs presents an inordinate and unbelieveable burden of responsibility on the shoulders of prospective parents in this regard.

I urge the Minister to assure the House, before we move on from this section, that firstly, he would ensure that the legislation can be fully operated and that the health boards will not be hampered in any way in the carrying out of their duties and functions under this section by reason of non-availability of staff, funds or otherwise and that the section will be given full effect to and receive full support from the Minister's Department. Secondly, he should ensure —I know that a further amendment on the Order Paper is seeking to address this matter — that no narrow-minded approach, or definition, can be developed by any individual board or chief executive in the operation of the definition of what is proper to this legislation. Bearing in mind what has been said in the House by various Deputies, the Minister should retain a certain amount of supervision or review powers — I appreciate non-intervention would be too strong a word in this context—but should keep a ministerial and an administrative eye on what is going on to ensure that the full legislative intent of the House is not frustrated by idiosyncratic attitudes or for other reasons peculiar to any particular board, or member, or chief executive of a board. Those are two aspects of this section that concern me and I would like to hear constructive assurances from the Minister on them before we pass from this section.

Dr. O'Hanlon

In dealing with the point raised by Deputy Shatter, it is important to point out that in the majority of cases that will come before the health boards the health boards will make the application to the High Court. In cases where they do not do so it is open to the adoptive parents to make the application to the High Court. If the adoptive parents are successful the costs will be met by the health board. The number of cases that would be obliged to look for support under the legal aid scheme would be very small. Regarding the difficulties with the legal aid scheme, while I accept that there can be delays, they would not be our responsibility under this legislation.

Deputy McCartan referred to the case of a child who was fostered for seven years and the expense involved for the parents in applying to the High Court for an order for the adoption of that child. This legislation will not affect that particular type of case. The legislation to deal with that is the 1974 Act and that legislation remains in place. This legislation deals with the adoption of certain specified children.

Mr. McCartan

The scale of costs that can arise.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I take the point. I pointed out to Deputy Shatter what the position will be in regard to the present legislation. I should like to say to Deputy McCartan that I am satisfied that the health boards will be in a position to implement this legislation as soon as it is enacted.

Mr. Shatter

I see little point in further pursuing this issue. There seems to be a total incomprehension on the Minister's part regarding the issue being raised. Perhaps it is because he is not familiar with the way in which these issues arise in the courts. What the Minister does not seem to understand is that if the health board do not bring proceedings there is a cost problem which we dealt with earlier. If the health board bring the proceedings it is likely that the adopters will be still added as notice parties to the proceedings by the court. They will still incur legal costs and there is a major problem here. It seems that we are going around in circles and that we will not make any progress. The Minister does not understand what we are talking about, or he does not pretend to know what we are talking about and on that basis I will not pursue the issue any further.

In the context of section 3, I wish to raise a totally different issue. When this Bill was before the House on Second Stage, as in the case of my own Bill 12 months ago, the issue was raised in fairness to prospective adopters, or foster parents who might try to use this provision and who, when this Bill is passed, will ultimately put themselves, whether the health board brings the application or not, at serious risk of major legal expense, that it was essential that any adoption order subsequently made under the provisions of this Bill — section 3 sets out the basis upon which the High Court should make these decisions — be valid and secure and that there be no question of an issue arising later as to its constitutionality. In the interests of everyone concerned and to ensure that this Bill works — and is not proved to be a bit of legislation passed by this House to increase a perception that we have done something when in reality we have done nothing — it is essential that prospective adopters or foster parents who bring court cases to free children for adoption do not find themselves at risk of becoming embroiled in highly complex and extremely lengthy constitutional actions in both the High Court and the Supreme Court in which someone, be it a natural parent, a health board or some other person, seeks to test the consitutionality of this measure. In the context of both my own Private Member's Bill and of this Bill, I made the point that this Bill should be referred by the President, under Article 26 of the Constitution, to the Supreme Court, following its passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas, so that the court can give a decision as to its constitutionality and, in particular, a decision as to the constitutionality of section 3 and the provisions contained therein, which set out the criteria for which the court must have regard in making a determination.

The usefulness of such a procedure is that the Supreme Court can, once and for all, decide whether a measure is or is not constitutional. If it decides that it is constitutional it means that that issue cannot be raised in further court cases and cannot place prospective adopters, foster parents and natural parents at risk of becoming embroiled in a constitutional action. If the Supreme Court decides it is unconstitutional we will know, once and for all, and if there is a commitment in this House to extend the possibility of adoption to abandoned children born within marriage, that we require a constitutional amendment to tackle the issue. The matter should not be left in an obscure position. While I know that the Minister has no particular function in referring a Bill to the Supreme Court it is not unknown that Ministers when steering measures through this House make it known in their speeches that they would be anxious that such a step be taken to ensure that there are no difficulties at a later stage with the Bill. The worst scenario would be for no such reference to be made for a number of children to be adopted and for someone in four, five or six years' time to challenge the constitutionality of the Bill and, in effect, set aside all the adoption orders made under the Bill. I urge the Minister to put on record his view that this measure should, following its enactment, be referred by the President for no reason other than to use his authority to highlight the fact that there is a view in this House that it is in the general interest of ensuring the workings of this legislation that this issue be determined by the Supreme Court.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I do not interfere with other institutions of State by recommending to them what they should or should not do and I do not think it would be appropriate for me as Minister to say that at this time.

Before you put section 3, with your permission, I would like to move a verbal amendment to correct a grammatical error in section 3 (2) page five, line nine, after the word "understanding" a comma should be inserted to make the meaning clear. This will have no effect on the subsection but will simply improve the grammar.

Mr. Molloy

We are hoping for something more than grammar.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister's intervention was not an amendment, it was a correction.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, not moved.

Section 5 agreed to.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Shatter

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 7, before section 6, to insert the following new section:

"7.—(1) Each health board shall after the expiration of each year publish a report giving the following information in relation to that year—

(a) the number of requests made to the health board to apply to the Court for an order pursuant to section 3 of this Act and the decisions of the Bord thereon.

(b) the number of applications made by the health board to the Court pursuant to section 3 of this Act and the decisions of the High Court and, if any, of the Supreme Court on appeal thereon.

(c) the number of requests made to the health board in respect of which the Board declined to apply to the Court pursuant to section 3 of this Act and the reason in each such case for the health board's decision,

(d) the number of requests made to the health board in respect of which the health board—

(i) declined to apply to the High Court, or

(ii) did not decline to apply to the High Court within 3 months of the making of such request but in respect of which the Board made no application to the High Court

and where a person or persons in whose favour the Adoption Board made a declaration under section 2 (1) made application to the High Court pursuant to section 3 (1) (b) of this Act and the decision of the High Court and, if any, of the Supreme Court on appeal thereon in respect of the application to authorise the Adoption Board to make an adoption order in respect of payment of costs,

(e) the total sum in respect of legal costs discharged by the health board or for which the health board is liable by virtue of court orders made pursuant to section 3 (3) and 5 of this Act and the manner in which the amounts are apportioned or payable—

(i) to parents of a child who was the concern of such proceedings,

(ii) to a party or parties who applied to adopt a child,

and the sum so paid and the sum still payable,

(f) the total number of children within the functional area of the health board either—

(i) in residential care, or

(ii) in foster care,

for a continuous period of three years or more.

(2) Each health board shall present a copy of the Report to the Minister who shall cause it to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas."

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure some way of monitoring the manner in which health boards are operating the statutory functions conferred upon them by this Bill. As things stand, the health boards will exercise a very broad discretion under section 3 in determining whether they make any application at all. As things stand, there will be no means of monitoring what each health board are doing, whether any health board are processing these applications, which health board are refusing to process applications and which health boards are willing to do so. There will be no means of knowing if a health board are refusing to make applications where foster parents themselves bring court proceedings and regularly succeed in getting orders from the courts freeing a child for adoption. Up-to-date statistics are not available — this has been a problem for many years — through the Department of Health of the total number of children in any one year in long-term or short-term foster care or residential care. Any Dáil questions seeking to ascertain the number of children in long-term residential or foster care in the last four or five years have resulted in people being given statistics of how many children were in care in 1983. If this Bill is designed to ensure that children in long-term foster or residential care who have no prospect of residing with their natural parents are afforded the opportunity of adoption, it is essential that the Department of Health, first of all, have some means of assessing whether the health boards are using this Bill to provide the possibility of a secure family upbringing for children. This Oireachtas is entitled to know how the Bill when enacted is being operated by health boards and this measure should require the boards to report annually.

This is not a particularly unusual requirement. Since the Adoption Act was passed in 1952, an obligation has been imposed upon the Adoption Board to report annually to the relevant Minister as to how the board have operated their functions. The board have been required to give annual statistics with regard to the number of applications made for adoption, the number of adoption orders granted and refused, detailed information as to the background of the people adopting, whether they are married couples, widows, widowers, single people or relations of a child being adopted. Under the Adoption Act, 1952, the report of the Adoption Board submit to the Minister is laid before each House of the Oireachtas. We have been able to monitor the manner in which the Adoption Board have processed adoption applications ever since 1952 when we first provided legislation for adoption.

If it is desirable in the interests of children that Members of this House, the general public and the Minister of the day know what is happening in this area, if it is desirable to require the Adoption Board to produce such a report, it is equally desirable to require the Adoption Board to produce such a report, it is equally desirable that the health boards produce such a report because of the central role the health boards are given in this area. This amendment is designed to ensure that as much detailed information as possible is provided and made available by health boards. In this context it is worth knowing that under the Child Care Bill health boards are to be required to give annual reports to the child care committees of a number of matters that fall within their jurisdiction, though that Bill does not cover this area of adoption.

I hope this is not a contentious amendment and that the Minister will accept it. There is nothing exceptional in it. It is merely allowing Members of this House, the general public and the Minister to monitor the operations and workings of this Bill by health boards and ensuring a degree of accountability on the part of health boards for the manner in which they fulfil their functions under the Bill and, even more important, ensuring that if there are difficulties arising with the manner in which the Bill is working Members of the House are made aware of those difficulties and, as a consequence, have the opportunity to bring in any amending legislation that may be required. If this is not done there will be a complete absence of any definite information about what is happening and it will be impossible, even in this House, to table questions that will elicit a proper response from any future Minister as to how the Bill is operating and what health boards are doing. If a question is tabled without this provision being contained in the Bill a Member of the House will be told this is a matter which falls within the jurisdiction of the health board and the Minister has no statistics and does not keep information about it.

This very important, uncontentious amendment is designed to ensure the Bill works in the manner in which the Minister has told us tonight he believes it will work. It will ensure that we can ascertain that his aspirations for the Bill to fulfil its functions fully and for the health boards to work it will be realised. The Minister has the means of ensuring that what he intends is implemented and he has a means of redressing the matter if it is not implemented.

I conclude by hoping that, instead of getting what I would describe as the usual Governmental knee jerk to any Opposition amendment tabled to a Government measure — usually an automatic scrabbling around to find some semi-coherent reason to oppose it — we can get this particularly uncontentious amendment which seeks to ensure some degree of accountability under this Bill accepted without division.

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Mr. Leyden)

It appears that Deputy Shatter is seeking in this amendment that information should be publicly available on how health boards operate the provisions of this Bill. While I accept that this is desirable, it is an extremely cumbersome way to achieve that objective. In other words, he is introducing a great deal of red tape. It is quite unnecessary that we get ourselves bogged down here in the precise details of the information to be made available.

Essentially, it is an administrative matter and it can be dealt with without the need for such complex legislative provisions. The Deputy will be aware that my Department already collects information from health boards on an administrative basis on all aspects of the child care services, including statistics on child abuse and the number of children in care. The Adoption Board, for their part, have introduced an ongoing survey of adoption applications and this has produced a wealth of new information. I see no reason why similar arrangements cannot be made available in the processing of applications under the Bill without having to set down rigid legislative requirements. I am prepared to give an undertaking to the House that the type of information the Deputy referred to will be available to anybody who wishes to have it. I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. McCartan

The Minister of State has told us that the Government accept, in principle, the desirability of information being available to the Minister and the public about the working of the Act by health boards. Conceding that to the Minister, and without getting into the rights and wrongs of the detail — I agree the proposal is a very cumbersome one for a simple objective — I should like to know if he would be disposed to consider accepting a simple amendment to the effect that each health board shall after the expiration of each year publish a report giving the information on how the Act is implemented by each board. I would leave out all the other extraneous matter and have written into the Bill a simple proposal that it be incumbent on each board to produce an annual report to the Minister on the workings of the Act. That is a simple and short way of addressing this issue.

There should be a positive duty in this important and sensitive legislation, which has been welcomed by all concerned, on health boards to report to the Minister and for the Minister, in turn, to impart that information to the House. I accept the view of the Minister of State that there may be a lot of red tape wrapped up in the amendment but I suggest to him that, rather than getting bogged down in argument, he should consider a simple proposal along the lines I have suggested. If he did there would be a positive obligation on health boards to produce an annual report which can be passed on to each House of the Oireachtas.

Mr. J. Bruton

I do not accept what Deputy McCartan has said. There is nothing cumbersome about the amendment. A single column of figures would contain all the information requested. It is information that the Minister for Health must have for the purpose of making budgetary decisions in this area. It is information that is, therefore, available and it is simply a question of putting it in a form that can be read by the public. I do not see what is cumbersome about that. I do not agree with the idea of letting the Government, whoever they are, off the hook by inviting them to present an annual report on the implementation of the Act. That could amount to a one-line statement to the effect that the Government believe that the Act is working satisfactorily. The Oireachtas has a slightly higher level of responsibility than that. Deputy Shatter's amendment, seeking specific information, is a good one. I accept that the amendment is long but when one reads it one will see that the figures required by it could be accommodated on a large postage stamp.

The Minister should not hide behind the epithet, "cumbersome", in order to avoid providing information that he probably has. It is simply a question of putting it in a statutory form for publication.

Mr. Howlin

I am at a loss to understand how any Member could describe the amendment as cumbersome because all it does is list in detail the type of information required. No cumbersome procedure is involved and I should like the Minister of State to explain how he would comply with the request of the mover of the amendment. In other words, is there any information that he is reluctant to impart or make available? Deputy Shatter is seeking information which should be available to Members of the House and the general public. The amendment requires that health boards make that information available. The Minister has indicated that he has no objection to that. What mechanism does he suggest would be less cumbersome because in my view what is requested is a straightforward system of reporting.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister of State said that the information requested in the amendment would prove cumbersome to obtain and involve a lot of red tape. However, he went on to say that the information required would be made available to anybody who requested it. If the information is available, why is it that the Minister will not agree to make it available in the form requested in the amendment? It appears that the gathering of the information is not the difficulty because from what the Minister has said the information required will be readily available. Deputy Shatter wants the information made available in an orderly and regular fashion.

Mr. Leyden

The future of health boards would come into play in relation to the information sought by Deputies.

Mr. Howlin

Is the Minister making a statement?

Mr. Leyden

I cannot see enthusiasm for the continuation of the health boards.

Mr. J. Bruton

If the Minister substitutes Board Sláinte he will not have any problem.

Mr. Leyden

The House should be made aware of what Deputy Shatter proposes in his long red tape proposal. His amendment states:

(1) Each health board shall after the expiration of each year publish a report giving the following information in relation to that year——

(a) the number of requests made to the health board to apply to the Court for an order pursuant to section 3 of this Act and the decisions of the Board thereon,

Mr. Molloy

That amendment has already been read into the record.

Mr. Leyden

The amendment continues:

(b) the number of applications made by the health board to the Court pursuant to section 3 of this Act and the decisions of the High Court and, if any, of the Supreme Court on appeal thereon,

Mr. McCartan

A single figure.

Mr. Molloy

This is repetition.

Mr. Leyden

The amendment continues:

(c) the number of requests made to the health board in respect of which the board declined to apply to the Court pursuant to section 3 of this Act and the reason in each such case for the health board's decision,

(d) the number of requests made to the health board in respect of which the health board—

(i) declined to apply to the High Court, or

(ii) did not decline to apply to the High Court within three months of the making of such request but in respect of which the Board made no application to the High Court.

Mr. J. Bruton

The Minister of State can read.

Mr. Shatter

The Minister can read but he lacks understanding. I should like to congratulate him on his literacy genius.

Mr. Leyden

I want to ensure that the House understands what is contained in the amendment.

Mr. J. Bruton

This is a biological breakthrough.

Mr. Howlin

On a point of order, I should like to ask the Chair if it is in order for the Minister of State to read the amendment into the record for the second time.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is hardly a point of order.

Mr. Shatter

The Minister of State might understand the amendment if he read it slowly.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputies should leave this matter to the Chair.

Mr. Leyden

Deputy Shatter would understand his amendment more if he read it slowly. The amendment goes on:

and where a person or persons in whose favour the Adoption Board made a declaration under section 2 (1) made application to the High Court pursuant in section 3 (1) (b) of this Act and the decision of the High Court and, if any, of the Supreme Court on appeal thereon in respect of the application to authorise the Adoption Board to make an adoption order in respect of the payment of costs,

Seeking such detailed information would tie up health board officials. They would have to pursue this on a regular basis in order to comply with the legislation. It is not necessary to include such provision in the Bill. The information will be available to the House, to members of health boards and on request but not necessarily in the statutory form proposed by Deputy Shatter.

We intend to closely monitor the performance of health boards under the provisions of the Bill. If it were to become apparent that any board was failing in their duty under the Bill we will take immediate steps to have the matter investigated and any problems ironed out. If a need for change is identified, appropriate amending legislation will be brought before the House. We do not consider that the amendment is necessary. It is a cumbersome, red tape bureaucratic type of proposal which is of no use. It would hold back people from their duties under this Bill. We can say quite clearly that we will monitor the performance of the health boards in relation to this Bill. We do not see the need for this type of amendment which is proposed by Deputy Shatter. It is a most detailed, bureaucratic red-taped amendment which is totally unnecessary. We will monitor the operations of the Act. It is of great importance and we are anxious to get it through the Houses of the Oireachtas as quickly as possible because of its significance.

In relation to this amendment, detailed information will be available on request in this House or by health board members. This legislative requirement, that every year this information will have to be available in a certain form and will have to be presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas, is bureaucratic, unnecessary red tape. Every effort will be made by the Department, together with each health board to monitor the workings of this Act on a detailed basis. The elected Members of this House will always have the opportunity of placing questions before the House on any item but not in the detailed form which Deputy Shatter suggests. If at some stage in the future Deputy Shatter is still on that side of the House, and I presume he will be, and he wants to put down a detailed question on the matter, the Minister or a civil servant will obtain the information for him, but it will be obtained only on request at that time.

Mr. Shatter

I have to congratulate the Minister on, to use parliamentary language, the greatest load of rubbish. If the Department are going to monitor the workings of the Bill and get all this information, all these questions would have to be asked. Either the Department are monitoring it or they are not. Whether they monitor it on an annual basis or every two years, they would still have to get the information. If they monitor it in a very inefficient way we may only get a bit of the information. Any health board who function properly under this Act will for their own purposes, to ensure that they know how the Act is working, have to know what decisions are made in each of the court cases brought not only by themselves but by other health boards. By requiring an annual report to be published by each health board, all health boards would be facilitated in properly fulfilling their functions under the Act. Otherwise they would not have general access to court decisions delivered on applications made. Most of the court decisions delivered in the family law area and the adoption area never appear in the newspapers, and rightly so, because they are held in private. They never even appear in the official law reports. The monitoring process will facilitate the efficient workings of the Act for the health boards.

I suppose I have been in this House long enough not to expect an intelligible or sensible response to any amendments to a Bill tabled by an Opposition party. I find it verging on the hilarious for the Minister to tell me on the one hand that this amendment is very complicated and bureaucratic and that he cannot include it in the Bill and on the other hand that his Department are going to do what it proposes anyway. If that is the right way to deal with the matter it should be set out in the provisions of the Act.

I will make a prediction that if this provision is not included in the Act and if any Deputy in the House tables a question in two years time, based on each matter referred to here, looking for information with regard to the way each of the health boards are operating the Act, the Minister of the day and his Department will not have most of the information available to them. They will probably tell Deputies, as I have been told on occasion in reply to Dáil questions, that this information is not available in the Department of Health but that if the Deputy writes to each individual health board he will get it. It is very sad that the Minister, having assured the House that the Bill will work well, is not apparently prepared to put his assurances at risk by allowing, through a statutory format, a proper monitoring of the working of the Bill.

Mr. Molloy

In this case it is very easy for the Minister to give in advance a fairly accurate estimate of the number of cases likely to come before the courts, the Adoption Board and the health boards under this Bill. We know that the number would be very small on an annual basis. In view of what the Minister has said, I wish to ask him which of the six paragraphs in the amendment he thinks would cause a problem in providing information or that might prove cumbersome, unnecessary or bureaucratic. Which of these matters is the Minister claiming will cause enormous problems when compiling a short annual report?

Mr. McCartan

I would like to put matters right from the point of view of my earlier contribution to this section. I had understood the Minister of State to indicate that he felt that the wording of the section was cumbersome and over-lengthy for what it was seeking to achieve. I had inferred — it was a misunderstanding on my part — that the Minister of State had agreed in principle to the information being collected and collated by his Department being available. I thought we were all agreed on that. The Minister of State felt that it was a rather cumbersome proposal as drafted. From his reply to Deputy Bruton, it appears that the Minister of State feels that to put information into a report and to present it to the House would add to the workload of the boards and his Department and for that reason he rejected the proposition. What he is telling us is that if we want the information we should go to them and they will give it to us.

We have to be clear about the facts. The boards will be monitored and the information will be available in the Department. There is no difficulty about that. We are at variance in that the onus should be on individual Deputies and members of the public to canvass for that information before the Department will release it. There is a fundamental variance of principle there. In a healthy parliamentary democracy information should always be made available on a regular basis when it is to hand, particularly where it impinges upon the operations of a particular statute of the House and even more so where it relates to particularly sensitive legislation, as this legislation undoubtedly is, and where it relates to court actions which, by their definition and nature, will be heard behind closed doors, in camera and, for all the right reasons, in the most secretive and confidential surroundings. In other words, the workings of this Bill will not be apparent to a member of the public or a Member of this Parliament at first regard. For that reason it is doubly important that the Minister ensures that there is a report mechanism. If the difficulty arises in having such a lengthy amendment, the Minister should accept the compromise suggestion I put to him.

Information on each one of these paragraphs amounts to no more than a figure which should be available at the fingertips of a computer controller in any board or in the Department. I presume that the health boards have all the information on computer, that that information is automatically relayed back and that the computer does all the work for the Minister. I remember earlier this year asking the various Departments the number of VDU units that exist therein. The Department of Health certainly are not without computer components and there should not be the slightest difficulty in getting information from them. Each one of these headings can be translated into a computer and at the press of a button the figure could be delivered immediately. That information could be compiled in a report and circulated to the 166 Members of this House and about 60 Members of the Seanad. The Minister's duties would then be discharged under this section. I misunderstood his earlier views. I thought he said our amendment was too wordy and that he wanted a simple amendment to the principle we are all agreed on.

The Ministers should reflect a little on what they are telling the House. They are not doing themselves the slightest service in advancing the arguments that this amounts to cumbersome red tape and imposing an unbelievable burden on the Minister, his staff or the staff of the board, considering the nature of the proceedings and how they will, of necessity, be conducted. We are entitled to know this, and I am sure the Minister appreciates that point.

Mr. Leyden

Deputy Shatter was concerned that if he made a good case we would be prepared to accept it, but no good case has been made for the legislative form being proposed by him to include this section in the Bill. The format, this detailed list of requirements, would take a considerable effort on the part of the board to provide this information but there is other information which is not mentioned here which may be required. I could spend hours debating the kind of information that would, could or may be required in relation to an annual report to be prepared by the eight health boards individually each year under this Bill.

Our concern is to get this Bill into operation, to help people and to ensure that officials at health board level are available to take cases and so on, not to tie them up gathering detailed information every year for the report they must present without fail. This would involve a number of people collecting data at a time when there is a shortage of funds. We want the money spent——

Mr. Molloy

The Minister is not serious.

Mr. Leyden

With the Minister, I went through this Bill in detail in the Upper House. This matter did not arise there——

Mr. McCartan

The Minister is insulting the intelligence of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Let us hear the Minister without interruption.

Mr. J. Bruton

This is a slur——

Mr. Leyden

We do not intend throwing that type of accusation across the floor of the House.

I have made very clear the position we are adopting in this area. No good case has been made by Deputy Shatter, Deputy McCartan, Deputy Molloy or any other Deputy in relation to this section. It is very cumbersome. Deputies may seek information by way of parliamentary question on any area, which is the kernel of democracy——

Mr. Howlin

What is cumbersome?

Mr. Leyden

I will not go through each line of this amendment or go through each section. Other information may be required which is not mentioned in this amendment but which will be available to Deputies or to health board members, if the health boards are still there. We are being reasonable about this amendment. We feel it a cumbersome, red tape bureaucratic provision being put into this Bill, and we would be better off discussing other sections before 11 p.m. when we will get this Bill through.

Mr. Molloy

The Minister is a panic.

Mr. Leyden

I am not panicking.

Mr. Howlin

After that peculiar performance, what in the amendment is cumbersome? What piece of information in the amendment does the Minister not expect to have in the Department of Health?

Mr. McCartan

Would the Minister presume we have read the section?

Mr. Leyden

I will not go into each point in detail. The section being put forward by the Deputy is very cumbersome. I could spend the evening debating this, but time is short and I think we should get on with the Bill.

Mr. J. Bruton

In making his case that an amendment of this kind would impose burdens on health board officials, the Minister is implicitly suggesting that health board officials keep no records, have no idea of the number of cases in particular categories they deal with in a week that they cannot count or, if they do, that they have to spend so long at it that they are engaged in the process of so doing to the exclusion of other work. While there have been many criticisms made of health boards and their officials, few would contend that they do not have reasonable facility in numeracy. Yet, that seems to be the case being made by the Minister of State, Deputy Leyden, a case which does him little credit.

The Minister of State could do a little better justifying his case than he has done on this occasion. This was one of the worst cases I have had the misfortune to have to listen to in defence of the unwillingness of the officials of the Department and the Minister for Health to accept an Opposition amendment in my considerable number of years in this House. We seem to be getting back to the worst kind of attitude I thought we had lost in this Dáil where Ministers take the view that once a proposal comes from this side of the House, once the Minister has not thought of it, it should be rejected for that reason alone. As I said, the Minister has made about the weakest case I have heard in this Dáil against an Opposition amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 8 not moved.

Section 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Shatter

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 7, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

"9.—Paragraph 13 of the First Schedule to the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion after subparagraph (d) of the following:

`(e) the number of applications for an order pursuant to section 2 of the Act of 1987 and the decisions of the Board thereon.'.".

In the Principal Act, the 1952 Adoption Act, there are provisions which set out the nature of the information the Adoption Board must publish when they produce their report each year. In the context of that provision, in paragraph 13 of the First Schedule to the 1952 Adoption Act, there is a provision which says that the Adoption Board shall, after the expiration of each year, publish a report giving the following information in relation to that year. The Adoption Board in giving the following information do not get unnecessarily tied up in bureaucratic red tape. The information the board are required to give at present is the number of applications for adoption and the decisions of the board thereon, the names of the registered societies concerned in the applications, the number of applications for registration of societies and the decisions of the board thereon, and the names and address of each society registered.

In the context of adoption, the number of applications for adoption and the decision of the board thereon is a particularly important statistic because it indicates the number of applicants who apply to the Adoption Board, the number who succeed in having adoption orders made in their favour, and the number of adoption applications that are refused.

My amendment seems to add an extra provision to the Schedule which would add to the information the Adoption Board must furnish, requiring a board to supply "the number of applications for an order pursuant to section 2 of the Act of 1987 and the decisions of the Board thereon..."

If we regard as desirable that the Adoption Board should state how many applications for adoption they deal with in the determinations, the application under section 2 of this Bill is different to what is referred to in the existing Schedule. The application under section 2 is not asking the Adoption Board to make an adoption order, and the board are not making a decision if they will or will not make an adoption order. They are asking under this Bill that the Adoption Board indicate whether, if the High Court was willing to free a child for adoption, it would or would not make an adoption order. It is necessary to have an indication as to how this Bill is operating. It has been regarded as desirable since 1952 that the Adoption Board should supply all this other information and it would seem correct that a statutory duty should be imposed on the board to indicate how many applications they receive under section 2 of this Bill. That would indicate how many foster parents are applying each year about the possibility of their adopting children. It would also be relevant to discovering what decisions the board are making, whether they are granting most of these applications or refusing to indicate that they would make an adoption order.

This is a simple amendment. It is not too complicated or lengthy. I would regard it as the least important of all the amendments tabled, but in the context of the Minister's rejection of the previous amendment it has assumed a somewhat greater degree of importance than it would otherwise have. It may be the only source of definitive information available annually as to how the Bill is working. I hope the Minister will accept it.

Dr. O'Hanlon

The purpose of the amendment is to require the Adoption Board to furnish certain details in their annual report. Article 13 of the Schedule to the Principal Act sets out four items of information which must be included in the board's annual report. These are as follows: the number of applications for adoption and the decison of the board thereon; the names of the registered adoption societies concerned; the number of applications for registration of societies and the decisions of the board thereon; the name and address of each society registerd or whose registration is cancelled during the year.

This amendment seeks to add a fifth item of information relating to the number of applications for orders under section 2 of this Bill. I accept that it is right and proper that the Adoption Board should include in their annual report in the future details of the number of cases dealt with under this Bill, but I do not believe it is necessary to impose a statutory obligation on the board to do so. The reality is that layout, scope and presentation of the annual report has improved dramatically in recent years and it now contains a wealth of information far beyond the essential details required by Article 13. The report provides an extremely detailed analysis of adoption applications and all aspects of the adoption process. The annual report, the 1987 edition of which was published this week, contains a wealth of information apart from what is required by statute, including the following: the number of orders in respect of boys; the number of orders in respect of girls; the number of orders in respect of orphans; the number of orders made in favour of widows and widowers; the number of orders made in favour of divorcees; the number of orders made pursuant to section 3 of the Adoption Act of 1974; a statistical breakdown between family adoption and non-relative adoption; the age of the children involved; the socio-economic grouping of the adopters; and the age of the natural mother.

I have made the point that the annual report is better and more comprehensive than ever before. I have every confidence in the staff of the Adoption Board and I have no doubt that their annual reports in future will reflect the changes in adoption legislation which we are discussing. I see no need to have this amendment written into the Bill and I do not propose to accept it.

Question: "That the new section be there inserted" put and declared lost.

Section 7 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 12 from Deputy Shatter would require the insertion of a new section.

Mr. Shatter

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 7, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

"8.—No court fees shall be charged in respect of any application to the Court, or an appeal to the Supreme Court under this Act or under the Adoption Acts, 1952 to 1976.".

This amendment is designed to ensure that adopters and natural parents who become embroiled in court proceedings do not find themselves faced with having to pay court stamp duties, which can be extremely expensive in the context of the swearing of affidavits and other court documents. In the context of the worries I have expressed about the financial impact on prospective adopters of bringing court proceedings, this measure if accepted would afford very modest assistance, but at least it would mean that the State would not seek to profit out of the misfortune or difficulties of prospective adopters in having to go through this labyrinthine process to effect an adoption. I hope the Minister will agree that prospective adopters should not be penalised by the State requiring them to pay court stamp duties simply for processing these applications. Prospective adopters who will have to foot the Bill for legal proceedings would be saved a figure of less than £100 by the acceptance of this amendment.

If the State is anxious to protect the welfare of children it is highly unreasonable to impose a charge of this nature on prospective adopters or foster parents simply for filing court papers in the High Court so that the court can make a determination under this Bill. I am not optimistic that the Minister will accept the amendment. If not, perhaps he would indicate in what way he thinks it is in the interests of the welfare of children, foster parents, prospective adopters, natural parents or the health boards that such charges be imposed as a new charge by the State on those who seek to process these applications.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I cannot accept this amendment. The Deputy will be aware that court fees are charged in respect of all kinds of proceedings before the courts, including proceedings relating to various aspects of family law. It is proposed here that adoption proceedings should be given preferential treatment over and above all other proceedings, including proceedings in other areas of child care and family law. I am not prepared to accept this as it would result in a loss of revenue to the Exchequer. In any event, court fees account for only a very small part of the overall cost of court proceedings. The bulk of the cost is in respect of solicitors' and barristers' expenses.

I have no function whatsoever in relation to the scale of court fees. That is entirely a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Justice. I understand that the idea behind court fees is that litigants should make some contribution towards the hugh cost of maintaining the court system. This is quite reasonable, particularly when it is borne in mind that persons who are granted legal aid do not themselves have to pay court costs. I would also make the point that the court costs account for only a very small part of the overall cost of taking court action. For example, I gather that the fee for initiating a section 3 case under the 1974 Adoption Act is of the order of £60. Presumably the fee for initiating proceedings under this Bill will be of roughly the same order. I suggest that this is not an unreasonable contribution to seek from litigants nor would it be a significant element in the overall cost of bringing the proceedings in the context of solicitors' and barristers' expenses, sometimes running to four or even five figures.

An Ceann Comhairle

As it is now 11 o'clock I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the sections undisposed of are hereby agreed to and that the title is hereby agreed to, that the Bill is hereby agreed to in committee and is reported to the House without amendment and the Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".

Question put and declared carried.

An Ceann Comhairle

A message will be sent to the Seanad acquainting it that the Dáil has passed this Bill without amendment.