I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
This Bill was given its First Reading and ordered to be printed on 22nd July, 1971 and since then, its proposers, Senator John Horgan, Senator Owens and myself have been urging that time be given for a Second Reading. We believe there is a great need for a full scale parliamentary debate on adoption in this country. We are heartened and encouraged by the widespread feeling among those involved in adoption from all angles, members and ex-members of the Adoption Board, members of the Adoption Society, social workers, adoptive parents and unmarried mothers that there is an urgent need for reform in the law.
We should like to thank the House for giving time to debate this important issue and we hope this Second Reading will establish the principle of the necessity for reform. If this principle is accepted, the Second Stage may be passed and the specific amendments and the text of the Bill may be worked out on the Committee Stage as would be appropriate. For that reason, before discussing the actual substance of the Bill, I would like to spend some time discussing the purpose of a Private Members' Bill in this context. In doing so, I am aware that there is a precedent for activity by a private member in relation to adoption in that the original impetus for the introduction of legal adoption in this country was by way of a Private Member's Bill, which had been sponsored and advocated by the Adoption Society (Ireland) at that time, in an endeavour to introduce legal adoption in Ireland. This Private Bill was tabled in the Dáil on 8th November, 1951.
The second point to be noted about the impetus coming from a Private Bill is that the sponsors of this former Private Bill were Mr. "Pa" McGrath of Fianna Fáil and Mr. Percy Dockrell of Fine Gael. It was not regarded as a party issue. I hope that this House, in looking at the question of adoption and in examining firstly the principle of whether there is a necessity for reform in adoption and then the specific suggestions made, would approach it, not on a party basis, but on the basis of a piece of social legislation which ought to be discussed seriously in a debate on the record. It is not a matter on which there ought to be party stands just for the sake of having them.
There is then a good precedent for the role of a Private Member's Bill and for the argument that adoption is a social and not a party issue. It is up to the personal judgment of Members of the House. In 1951, the Government at the time had encouraged the introduction of the Private Bill because it was unclear at that time what the attitude of the Catholic Hierarchy was in relation to the whole concept of adoption and whether it would accept the idea of legal adoption in Ireland. When this became clear, the Government decided to introduce legislation and the Minister for Justice at that time—Mr. G. Boland—informed the Adoption Society of his intention to do so in January, 1952. The resulting legislation was the Adoption Act, 1952, which is the parent act with which we are concerned.
This Adoption Act, apart from some small changes in the Adoption Act, 1964, which was a minor amending Act, is the basis of adoption in this country. As a country, we were late in accepting the legal concept of adoption. It was introduced in Northern Ireland in 1929 and much earlier in Britain. This parent or enabling Act setting up the whole system of legal adoption is now 20 years old. It was brought in at a time when there was a good deal of controversy. There is a strong argument for the need for review, the need for assessment of how it has been working and the need for change.
It is our contention that, if the general principle of the need for change and reform in the law which is now 20 years old is accepted, then the Second Stage ought to be passed by this House and the Bill should go on to its Committee Stage to iron out any parts of it which are unacceptable in their present form. The proposers of the Bill are aware that it is not as complete as it might be in the reforms it recommends. It could be expanded to include some matters which are not in the Bill at present.
The Second Reading Stage deals with the question of the principle of a need for reform and is not an argument as to the acceptability of the details. The present text of the Adoption Bill which is before the House is the work of private members. We did not have the resources and the ability of a department of the Civil Service nor the expertise of parliamentary draftsmen. As a result, we are modest in our claim. This Bill was put forward in the certainty of the need for reform, not with the idea that it is a blueprint which must be acceptable in every dot and comma to every Member of the House. We would be surprised if it represented to perfection the views of the House on the actual content of the reform of adoption. If the principle of the need for reform is accepted, then the Second Stage ought to be passed and the House ought to address themselves at the Committee Stage to see how this Bill may be improved.
Although the impetus came from a Private Member's Bill, it was a Government measure which introduced the legal process of adoption into our law. This was appropriate in the initial stage since it brought a new concept into our legal system. It is quite proper that an amending Bill introduced as a Private Member's Bill could go through the Houses of the Oireachtas. It would require the support of a majority of Members of both Houses, but if the principles were adopted, what would be gained —this is the vital point in making this argument—is time. This Bill has now reached its Second Stage. It could go on to Committee Stage and pass relatively quickly through the Seanad and go on to the Dáil.
If the Minister for Justice were to accept the principle of the need for reform but come back with the formula "the Department have the matter under consideration and they will be introducing legislation in due course" the result would necessarily be a loss of time. The question would have to take its order of priority in the Department of Justice and in that Department, which is producing a good deal of legislation at the moment, it could not be very high in the order of priorities. Time would pass before a draft Bill was introduced in whatever House it was to be introduced and the whole process would have to start again. This would be a great pity. I am concerned to stress the urgent need for reform in certain aspects of adoption, the consensus about some of these areas and the fact that if there are other areas on which there is disagreement this could be worked out at a Committee Stage.
The Bill, as entitled, is wide enough for any amendments. The Bill is an "Act to amend and extend the Adoption Acts, 1952 and 1964." Any matter relating to the parent Act of 1952 or the amending Act of 1964 is relevant. Any matter could be introduced at the Committee Stage. Any of the sections of this particular draft of the Bill could be modified or changed if that is the desire of the majority of the House. The Second Reading Stage is a stage on the principle of the need for adoption which I shall try to illustrate.
The first point to note is the fact that the Ard Fhéis of the Government party this year passed a motion in favour of changing the adoption law so it would appear that the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party is aware of the principle of the need for change. I can use this as an illustration of a very widely held view around the country of the fact that our adoption law needs to be updated. It was a very important and significant piece of legislation 20 years ago. It suffered from some difficulties in its introduction. It does show these defects more markedly as the years go by.
Our motivation in introducing this Bill was, first of all, a personal conviction of the need for reform in certain aspects of the adoption law, secondly, because of the widespread and informed public debate which has taken place over the last two years. The agitation for legal reform has been reflected in a large number of public meetings, in some of which I have been involved and some of which I have read about in the papers. There have been newspaper reports and articles on adoption, letters to newspapers, radio discussions and numerous questions in the Dáil relating to adoption as well as serious articles in magazines in this country and elsewhere.
Another reason for introducing the Bill was because the people we approached who had expertise in adoption because of their involvement in the process were unanimous in the hard core of need for reform which I shall deal with later. As soon as the Bill was printed we were approached by a large number of people, again involved in different ways, all urging the crucial need for reform and the urgency of this need. The extent of these deliberations and the consultation procedure persuaded us that two things were necessary. First of all a full-scale parliamentary debate on adoption and how it was working after 20 years. Secondly, specific reforms in the adoption law to remove the particular defects in so far as this could be done by legislation. These two objectives, it is to be hoped, can be attained by this process.
There is a further objective which cannot be legislated about and this is the necessity for an examination of the adoption procedure over this period of 20 years. For that we would require, firstly, a special commission set up by the Government to survey the whole field in detail. I will refer later to what has taken place in other jurisdictions in Britain and in Northern Ireland in this context as an example of what we might do. Secondly, the question of whether adoption would be better, as the Devlin Report recommended, transferred from the Department of Justice to the Department of Health and if there could be a rationalisation in that area.
Looking at the background to the adoption position the whole process was introduced very late in this country, not until 1952 as compared with 1926 in Northern Ireland. The background, as the House will be aware, was a difficult one, and, rather than go into it in detail, I would refer briefly to the account given in Church and State in Modern Ireland by Dr. J.H. Whyte when he traced the work of the Adoption Society of Ireland in promoting the concept of legal adoption and the reluctance of both the Coalition Government and the Fianna Fáil Government, which followed it, to introduce adoption law until it was clear what the position of the Catholic Hierarchy was in this respect. I quote briefly from page 276 of this book when he states:
The last remaining difficulty was cleared away by this statement, and Mr. Boland now decided to introduce legislation himself. During the drafting his Department kept in close touch with the authorities of all denominations, and in particular, with those of the Catholic Church. The Archbishop of Dublin and his delegate, Father (now Monsignor) Cecil Barrett, went over every clause, and the text of the Bill bore out the closeness of the consultation, for regard was had to all the limits and safeguards for which the committee of the hierarchy had asked. Adoption was restricted to illegitimate and orphan children between the ages of six months and seven years. The adopting parents were to be "of the same religion as the child and his parents or, if the child is illegitimate, his mother". The administering authority was, before authorising an adoption, to satisfy itself that "the applicant is of good moral character, had sufficient means to support the child and is a suitable person to have parental rights and duties in respect of the child". Provision was made for the registration and supervision of adoption societies. Perhaps the provision that adopting parents were to be of the same religion as the natural parents was the most important because, in one stroke, it removed the bogey of proselytism. There could be no question of Protestant parents adopting Catholic children (or vice versa) and, since legal adoption has been established, proselytism has practically ceased to be an issue in Ireland.
He continues to give an impartial and very fair comment on the background in 1952. He states:
Opinions can differ about the significance of this episode in Irish Church-State relations. On the one hand it could be argued that it showed how an energetic pressure group could stimulate bishops as well as Ministers into re-examining questions which they had hitherto been reluctant to handle. But on the other hand there was no question of the hierarchy being obliged to accept a measure which it did not want. It was not opposed to legislation in principle but was anxious only that certain safeguards be included. The Minister for his part did not even take the decision to legislate until the committee of the hierarchy had spoken and closely consulted the Archbishop of Dublin during the drafting. The episode seems better evidence of the strength than of the limits of episcopal authority in Ireland.
In filling in the background I should like to quote a brief comment from Fr. James Good in an article on legal adoption in Ireland which was printed in the magazine Child Adoption, No. 3 of 1971. He states:
Ireland's first Adoption Act was passed in December, 1952, and became law on the 1st January, 1953. In addition we have the Adoption Act, 1964. In practice, however, we can talk about the Adoption Act in the singular because the 1964 Act was merely a matter of plugging a few small gaps in the 1952 Act, including a few gaps discovered by amateur lawyers like myself when it suited our purpose.
It is accepted that social legislation dates very quickly. My suggestion is that our Adoption Act, like a car 20 years old, needs not merely a new engine, but a trip to the scrap heap. In addition, as is pointed out clearly before, the Act was conceived and born in a time of sectarian mistrust and even bigotry. This is reflected in its provision, many of which are now totally out of date. That view is widely shared by those involved in implementing the Adoption Act.
My next point is the necessity for a survey of how this adoption procedure has operated over the last 20 years. At the time it was a matter of controversy. It was a very important extension of our social legislation, a new social code looking after the problems of children in the State. I find it extraordinary that—given the background and given a period of 20 years —there has never been a Government survey. There has never been a committee of a Department sitting on adoption and reporting how it has worked—a comprehensive Government survey. Neither has there been a full scale private survey on how it has worked. Therefore, anybody who is interested in adoption, looking at this country can well ask, "How is adoption working in this country?" Who can actually say with any authority how the process is working, what the problems are, how the placement of children in adoption works, how many children remain with their adopted parents, how many unmarried mothers recall their children and so on. There are minimal statistics available on this and no real attempt is made to examine the position.
It is appropriate on the Second Reading of a Bill to stress this point. It is not a matter of legislation, but it is a matter of urging the Government to set up either a departmental committee or an independent committee to look into the whole field of adoption. In this context, it is appropriate to look briefly at the position, both in Northern Ireland and in Britain in relation to adoption, and in relation to the many Acts of legislation, regulations and Government surveys which have been introduced in these two jurisdictions.
Take for example, the case in Northern Ireland. The first adoption legislation in Northern Ireland was the Adoption of Children Act (Northern Ireland), 1929, which followed three years after the English Act in 1926. This original Act was incorporated later in the Northern Ireland Adoption Act of 1950. This again was very similar to the English Adoption Act of 1950. The 1950 Act was in turn incorporated in the latest piece of legislation in Northern Ireland—the Adoption Act of 1967.
As well as the actual legislation, there are rules and regulations and I quote briefly from the most recent regulations under the 1967 Act. There were also regulations under the 1950 Act. The Adoption Societies Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1969, County Court Rules of 1969, No. 279, and Supreme Court Rules of 1969, No. 268 all relate to adoption.
The Adoption Societies Regulations (Northern Ireland), 1969, are statutory instruments which cover the procedure of adoption societies in placing children for adoption. The Irish Adoption Board, as I will be referring to later, has no statutory authority to issue regulations in the form of statutory instruments and there is no mandatory control through regulations over adoption societies in this country.
However, aware of the need for a similar process and similar regulatory procedure, in September 1969 an Bord Uchtála, the Irish Adoption Board, submitted to the Minister for Justice at that time a memorandum of suggested amendments to the Adoption Acts which included this recommendation that the essential procedure to be followed by all agencies placing children for adoption be clearly set out and be made mandatory in order that there would be control and uniformity in the practice of adoption societies. The Minister rejected this memorandum of the Adoption Board and the suggested amendments in it and shortly afterwards, certain members of the Adoption Board resigned. Their proposals for amendment were not considered to be acceptable or even important.
Looking very briefly at the position in England, the first Adoption legislation there was in 1926 and was followed by an Adoption Act in 1929. In 1933, the Secretary of State in England appointed a departmental committee on the adoption of children and as a result of this report a major change was made in adoption in the 1958 Act. Since that there has been a Government survey for the Home Office and various other surveys such as a Guide to Adoption Practice, published by the Advisory Council on childcare in 1970; Adoption of Children, which is a working paper containing the proposal of the departmental committee on the adoption of children appointed by the Secretary of State which was published in 1970; and again Adoption Policy and Practice, by Iris Goodacre, a paper of research on adoption orders made from 1955-1958 and taken by the author on behalf of the National Institute for Social Work; a survey of Adult Adoptees by Dr. A. McWhinney; Adoption by Margaret Kernitzer, and so on. I am referring to these to show the completely different attitude, the immense amount of both governmental and private survey of the adoption procedure, the importance of up-dating the legislation. When there have been reports of committees, these have been followed very shortly afterwards by changes in legislation. I would submit that a similar process is necessary here.
I will just refer very briefly to some of the more important of these reports. The first on the Adoption of Children is a guide to adoption practice issued in 1970 by the departmental committee on the adoption of children, known as the Houghton Report. This committee was set up in July, 1969, and it was to advise on the whole practice of adoption and make recommendations for reform. The report is a very extensive one and contains many recommendations and also a consolidated list of propositions for consideration. It has had a significant impact on adoption as a report which was a survey of the whole field of practice in adoption and also of difficulties arising from the Adoption Act, 1958. Ten years after the Act, in April, 1968, there was an assessment of the defects which had arisen in this Act.
The immense amount of study of the problem shows an awareness that adoption is something which cannot be left to lie, but which must be constantly surveyed and assessed. Another report is the Report to the Home Office on Difficulties Arising from the Adoption Act, 1958.
Finally, I want to refer to Adoption of Children, a report by the Northern Ireland Child Welfare Council in 1963 set up by the Ministry of Home Affairs to examine the position of adoption there and assess both the actual position in Northern Ireland and on a comparative basis with the position in England. The adoption legislation in Northern Ireland differs substantially from that in England.
The point can very well be made that we have failed as a country to appreciate the importance of adoption as part of our social legislation; that there is an absence of information on how the legal apparatus of adoption is working; that there is a failure, both to examine legislation as such, to see whether it has endured the 20 years —whether it has survived in proper form or whether it is defective and not working very well—and to examine the much broader aspects—the part which local authorities play in adoption and that which private placement agencies play; the situation with regard to the question of unmarried mothers, whether they have a real choice as to whether they want to have their children adopted or not—are they given this real choice in an economic as well as in a social sense?—whether our society is prepared to treat them in this way; also the need for the modern ideas which have been adopted in other countries in relation to the subject should be introduced here. Therefore it is quite extraordinary that, although the Adoption Act itself is 20 years old —with only very minor and technical amendments in the 1964 Act—there has not been this sort of survey and assessment of the field.