I am sorry the Minister of State, Deputy Currie, is not present for my reply. We are dealing with item 22 on the Order Paper which is the Bill. There seems to have been some consternation about this matter and a misunderstanding on the part of the Minister of State which I find hard to understand. Most Members understand how the business of the House is conducted.
I stand condemned for efficiency and courtesy to the Minister of State in trying to be helpful in explaining our Bill and the amendments we would make to it. Anyone who knows how I behaved as Minister for Social Welfare will know that I provided the maximum possible information. I transformed the Department in that regard. Perhaps it is time to transform some of the procedures in the House. We should be a little less shirty about the provision of information and courtesy.
I mentioned my proposals for amendments on Second Stage. That is a normal procedure. There seems to be some confusion as to how I came to make these proposals. I put forward this Bill initially in response to the Chinese babies. Representations were made to me and others about babies adopted from Paraguay and other countries to see if those categories could be included in the Bill. We all agree the voluntary register is needed urgently and that the Legislature should tackle it.
I participated on Committee Stage of the Powers of Attorney Bill, 1995. I put forward 27 amendments which I had signalled on Second Stage. The Minister also put forward 27 amendments. He accepted some of my amendments, we agreed on others and left others to be argued on Report Stage. The Bill is better for that process. That Bill is to help people suffering from Alzheimer's disease, for example.
There was nothing extraordinary about the procedure on this Private Members' Bill. The matter is only a red herring. It is a pity the Minister of State did not listen to our proposed amendments before making inaccurate observations on the Bill.
The Minister of State referred to the Hague Convention. I am pleased the Government is to sign the convention. However, as the Minister of State clearly indicated it will be some considerable time before the convention becomes part of our law and before our adoption law is amended to accommodate it. As the Bill is not inconsistent with the convention there is no good reason for not enacting it. It is likely that even with the convention, legislation such as we propose will be necessary to deal with the problem of recognising adoptions effected in countries whose adoption law differs from ours.
It is not good enough to put off enacting this Bill, which deals with an immediate and compelling need, on the lame excuse that the adoption code will have to be amended in any event to accommodate the convention. To do this is to ignore the urgent plight of those Chinese orphans who could be given good homes by Irish couples and the other babies and children who are seeking recognition here. Surely the Minister cannot impose this kind of hardship for such an unworthy reason.
The Minister refers to the question of a bilateral agreement on adoption with China. While such an agreement would be a good thing, it is not necessary for Irish couples to effect adoptions in China. Once a couple complies with the requirements of Chinese law in regard to adoption, and assuming they have been declared eligible and suitable under the 1991 Act, they can effect an adoption in China and, under our proposed Bill, have it recognised and registered here. This is a matter of international law and does not require a bilateral agreement between the Governments of Ireland and China. Deputy O'Dea was right to refer to these as red herrings.
If the Minister is contemplating a bilateral agreement with China, he must have legislation of the kind proposed in our Bill which seeks to do precisely what the Chinese authorities require, namely to provide for the recognition in our law of adoptions effected in China. For this reason alone, the Minister should welcome and support this Bill.
The Minister refers to the fact that the 1991 Act was introduced by Deputy Shatter as a Private Members' Bill and he properly acknowledges the work of the special committee which developed Deputy Shatter's original proposals into that Act. Is it not a pity that the Minister is unable to take the same enlightened approach adopted by the Government of that time in supporting Deputy Shatter's Bill in principle and taking advantage of the goodwill towards it which existed on all sides of the House, with the consequent result that a very fine piece of humanitarian legislation was produced? If the Minister induces his colleagues to vote against this Bill, a valuable opportunity to legislate on this important matter on an all-party basis will have been lost.
It is a pity that the Minister and his officials have not paid attention to the amendments to the Bill proposed by us. The amendment to section 2 (1) of the Bill which states: "any such country or countries that the Minister may, by regulations designate," will clearly and unambiguously enable the Minister to extend the Bill to such other countries as he may see fit. Extending the scope of the Bill in this way would mean that further legilsation would not be required while at the same time the Minister would be able to satisfy himself that any such extension is justified and does not compromise the integrity and quality of our adoption system. Now that the Minister has belatedly considered this amendment, which solved his difficulty with the Bill, I assume he will change his attitude and support the Bill.
The difficulty the Minister has with regard to the absence of a provision to cater for adoptions which are terminated under the law of the country where the adoption was effected is misplaced. The Minister should know that, when a foreign adoption is recognised and registered under the Act of 1991, the adoption is recognised in our law and has the same status and effect in our law as an adoption made under our own adoption code. The fact that the adoption might be terminated under the law of the country where it was originally effected, after it was recognised and registered here, would not effect any change in the legal status of the adoption here.
Whether one should make provision for revoking recognition and registration in these circumstances is debatable. Many would feel that, for good reasons, this should not be done. I appreciate that others, for equally valid reasons, might disagree. This should be teased out on Committee Stage. We on this side of the House would carefully consider any amendment the Minister proposes to deal with his concern on this issue.
The Minister is critical because the scope of the Bill is restricted to adoptions effected by Irish residents. As a central provision of the Bill dilutes or relaxes our law to a certain extent with regard to recognition of foreign adoptions. It is important, in the interests of maintaining the very high quality of our adoption system, to limit the extent of this relaxation to the minimum degree necessary to solve the problem which our Bill seeks to address.
The purpose of our Bill is to respond to the urgent need to enable Irish couples who have been declared suitable and eligible under the Act of 1991 to have adoptions effected in China, and such other countries as the Minister may designate, recognised and registered here. In order to achieve this most desirable objective, the scope of the change in our adoption law proposed in our Bill has rightly been confined to a specific class of persons, namely Irish couples who have been declared eligible and suitable, and necessarily are residents of Ireland.
I am surprised the Minister has overlooked the fact that the process of declaring persons to be suitable and eligible by the Adoption Board is confined to the residents of this State. In view of the fact that the Minister welcomes the retention of this process in our Bill, his criticism of the Bill because it is not extended to apply to adopters living abroad, who would not be subject to the assessments that result in a declaration of eligibility and suitability, is as surprising as it is inconsistent.
Our Bill is crafted carefully to meet a specific and urgent need. If the Minister wishes to extend it further to provide for adoptions by people living abroad, we will listen respectfully to his proposals. If they have merit we will support them on Committee Stage. The modification of condition (c) of section 1 of the 1991 Act, made in view of the fact that potential adopters must, before anything else, obtain a declaration of eligibility and suitability, is justified. The fact that many of those orphans most acutely in need of adoption end up in orphanages in circumstances in which the kind of inquiry envisaged by condition (c) would not be entirely practicable accentuates the need for this change.
The change the Minister suggests with regard to condition (d) of section 1 of the 1991 Act does not appear, on the advice available to us from those familiar with this aspect of adoption, to be necessary. However, if the Minister can make a convincing case for this change on Committee Stage we will support it. His difficulty concerning lack of clarity about the date of recognition is the result of the omission of the word "and", which should have been included between the words "order" and "upon" in the fourth last line of section 2 of the Bill. This should read: "...to have been effected by a valid adoption order and upon an application on that behalf having been made to the board". One of our amendments to the Bill is the inclusion of the word "and" as above discussed. We have often included such words for Ministers in the form of routine technical amendments. I am sure that when the Minister considers this amendment he will be satisfied that there is no lack of clarity on this matter and no departure from the scheme of 1991 in this regard.
I reject the patronising assertion by the Minister that the proposed Bill is defective. If he had attended to his duty by carefully considering the Bill and the amendments to it, which were circulated to him, he could not have made this ridiculous observation. There are matters which, as with all Bills, require further teasing out on Committee Stage. We look forward to taking advantage of the good will evident on all sides of the House with regard to this matter to produce, on Committee Stage and in co-operation with the Minister, excellent legislation. The main objective is to address the urgent need to provide recognition in our law for the adoption of orphans from China and other countries, such as Paraguay. We cannot fail to respond in a generous way to those Irish couples who seek our assistance.
The Minister and the Tánaiste wish to associate this Bill with the Keegan case. It has been almost two years since the decision in the Keegan case. The Government has promised that its proposals will soon be ready. However, it has nothing to do with this matter. There is no policy reason for associating these two issues. It is purely a delaying tactic to avoid proceeding with our Bill. The Government is more concerned with taking the credit for being seen to act than for taking practical steps to solve an immediate and urgent need. This Bill is ready to go to a select committee now. It has taken us two months to get this far. Even if the Government keeps its new promise, at least two more months will be involved. Four months is a long time for a baby to wait in the dying rooms. The Government says it is concerned for the family, it is politically fashionable to be concerned for the family now. I call on the Government to show concern for families who want to adopt and for the children they want to adopt. Do not engage in this political charade. Do not oppose this Bill on Second Stage. Members on the Government side have suggested that this Bill be used as a vehicle. If the committee system is used this new law can be in place by Easter. Nothing could be more suited for all party agreement.
Let Members be quite clear that if they vote against this Bill on Second Stage they will be voting against its principle. Forget the confusion created by the Minister of State. The issue is the principle of the Bill and there is no basis for voting against it. I do not believe Members can do this and I suggest that they let it go to Committee Stage to be considered on an all party basis. Let us put the children first, for a change.