Gay Mitchell
Question:21 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Health and Children if he will liberalise the procedures for the adoption of foreign children. [6058/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions (Resumed). - Foreign Adoptions.
Given the recent media reports highlighting the potential for abuse in intercountry adoption and the difficulty of regulation in this area, I am sure the Deputy does not mean to suggest that the procedures in this country need to be relaxed. The detailed assessment of prospective adopters prior to their making arrangements to adopt abroad is recognised internationally as best practice and is one of the minimum standards set down in the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in relation to intercountry adoption.
While I am, as I have stated in the past, more than willing to assist prospective adopters in their wish to adopt abroad, the paramount interests of children must be the guiding principle in this area and our laws and guidelines need to be tight to protect them. The Deputy should also be aware that a comprehensive review of assessment procedures for intercountry adoption was undertaken in 1998 and the bulk of its recommendations have been implemented by the health boards. These included the provision of a new guide for practitioners on the assessment process prepared by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering – BAAF – which are the international leaders in the field.
Following a variety of initiatives and despite continuing increases in demand, waiting times and the duration of assessment have reduced in almost all health board areas. As a support to prospective adoptive parents, a number of information booklets have been introduced, covering aspects of the application and assessment process as well as information on a number of specific countries. It is planned to keep these up to date and to add to them. These booklets have been widely welcomed by parents.
Regarding difficulties being experienced by prospective adopters in processing adoptions abroad, my office and the Adoption Board are more than willing to assist in putting forward the case of Irish adopters to foreign authorities where appropriate and have done so on a number of occasions. At a recent special commission on the operation of the Hague Convention, my officials took the opportunity to speak to the delegates of a number of sending countries to assure them of the rigour of our assessment procedure and of our bona fides in respect of the rights of children who may be available for adoption abroad. This is an extremely complex issue. The approach being taken, however, in the current procedures is appropriate in ensuring prospective Irish adopters are considered well prepared and suitable for the task of parenting a child from abroad.
The release of children from their countries of origin will always be the prerogative of sending countries, rightly so.
Additional InformationOur priority is to bring forward the legislation to ratify the Hague Convention as soon as possible to strengthen existing provisions in law and to ensure sending countries, which have ratified the convention, are prepared to consider Irish prospective adopters in seeking families for children outside their state. I am pleased to state that I will be bringing the heads of Bill on this important issue to Government shortly.
With due respect to the Minister of State, the whole reply could have been given. Is she aware that when Ministers are appointed, they are supposed to decide on policy, not simply to come to the House and read out Civil Service replies?
A question please, Deputy.
I asked if the Minister of State was aware of that point. In the first quarter of last year, over 100 people joined the list for the adoption of foreign children. Tens of thousands of foreign children are awaiting adoption. There are hundreds of good, eligible parents in Ireland, some of whom have adopted foreign children already, but they must undergo the whole process again for their second adoption. They are being put through an unnecessary bureaucratic process and unnecessary delay in relation to the adoption. Given the need to ensure the people concerned are good adoptive parents and that children find good homes, will the Minister of State ensure this matter is dealt with more compassionately, less bureaucratically and with more humanity? It is fine for those of us who have children. We should think of those who do not have children. They should not be put through unnecessary bureaucratic delays.
I am astounded at the attitude of Deputy Mitchell, in saying that it is all about bureaucracy. It is about ensuring that parents who wish to adopt children from abroad are suitable to do so. It is not solely about the parents but it must be in the best interests of the child. We must be in a position to assure any sending country that our procedures are rigorous, that we can stand over them and that these parents have an order of suitability to adopt.
That said, great improvements have been made in the system. The investment over the three years has totalled £1.5 million, half of which has gone to the eastern area. I recognise that there is a huge increase in the number of people who wish to adopt from abroad.
Deputy Mitchell's figures are quite wrong. Last year there were, in fact, 788 extra couples who applied to join, 370 of whom were in the east. Naturally it is my intention and my policy—
My figures are not wrong.
—to assure all of those people, of our assistance in their work by investment, by giving extra staff for the social workers who carry out those assessments. In 1998, in the east alone there were only 5.5 social workers doing this work but there are now 14 doing it. There is funding for 20, but it is difficult to get full-time, part-time or even sessional social workers to do the work.
That is the problem.
We have gone as far as South Africa and Australia to recruit. We also have set in place new procedures, which means that the procedure is now standardised throughout the country, which can ensure that the system is more streamlined and that each social worker is able to take more cases. What we simply must do in all cases is to assure the sending country that the parents, whom we ratify as having an order of suitability to adopt, are suitable and that it would be in the best interests of the child that he or she would be placed in this home.
The Minister says my figures are wrong. I said that in one health board area alone 100 parents applied in the first quarter last year. My figures are quite correct. I received my figures from people who are involved in this.
The Minister says we must be careful about how we go about this. I agree with all of that, but the problem is we do not have enough social workers. That is because the Minister of State is failing in her job. It is all right for those of us in this House who have children of our own, but to come in here and read out Civil Service bureaucratic replies of that kind affects the right of children to be adopted and the right of parents to adopt those children.
The time limit has expired.
It is an outrage.
We must proceed to Question No. 22.
The fact that there is a shortage of social workers is the Minister of State's problem. She should solve that problem.
We must proceed to the next Question.
The improvement, from 5.5 to 14 social workers, should be noted.
The Chair has called Question No. 22.