Yes; we have already agreed that this sample is a private survey and that it is limited. In the absence of what we ought to have—a comprehensive Government survey— we must go by the limited evidence that we have. I cannot accept that the Minister can state blandly on the record of the House that we have a uniformly high standard if even a small sample can show that over 50 per cent were not receiving proper guidance in this matter. This is the theme throughout this report. On page 24, in relation to selection procedures, the procedure about office interviews differs very much in the adoption societies and— most serious of all—varies dramatically in various parts of the country. We do not have a uniform standard either in relation to pre-placement and post-placement supervision as such or in relation to rural areas. In some parts of the country I believe the adoption procedure is substantially inferior to other parts. On page 26 of the report, under the heading "Pre-placement. Visits to Homes" it states:
It was disturbing to note that 21.7% of my samples alleged that there had been no home visit prior to placement, the percentage varying from 11.8% in Dublin to 28% in Cork. This is hard to understand in the light of the claim made by all adoption societies that at least one and possibly two home visits are made in each case.
There, I accept what the Minister contends, that you cannot enforce standards by regulation but I believe that you can create them by giving the statutory power to make regulations and if the board have that statutory function it makes it more likely that standards once set out in statutory regulations will be enforced because there is always the possibility of making the type of complaint which can lead ultimately to having the registered adoption society de-registered or struck off the list. I maintain that almost every aspect of adoption procedure, as illustrated by this report, shows the need for the creation of better standards.
On page 34 of the report it states:
There is a wide divergence in the waiting time (i.e. that between the first application and placement) cited by various couples. Some in my sample (46.9%) were offered a baby within 3 months of application and placement was for some of these was in fact made in less than a week.
I am not suggesting there should be uniform time but that adoption as a legal extension of our social service, of our family law, does not operate equally around the country. A married couple in the west who want to adopt are at a serious disadvantage compared with the couple living in either Dublin or Cork. There ought to be more of an attempt to have a balance in the way adoption societies work.
With regard to placement and notice that a baby is available, arrangements for receiving the baby et cetera, the adoption societies practice varies very much. Over half the adoptive parents got between two and seven days notice that a baby was available; 15.4 per cent received under 24 hours notice; 7.7 per cent between 24 and 48 hours. There has been no real attempt at uniform standards setting out the proper period of notice in order that the adoptive parents may make the appropriate arrangements to receive the baby, presumably on probation to see whether they are suitable parents for the child.
I come now to the conclusions. On page 48 of the report it states:
Although this study has been on a limited scale I feel there are enough indications to suggest that the standard of adoption practice in some agencies leaves much to be desired in certain respects, viz.
(1) Counselling services for applicant adopters seems to be rather limited at all stages of the process before the decision is taken, in preparation for adoptive parenthood and in post-placement supervision.
(2) The assessment procedure leading to selection in too many instances does not appear to be more than superficial.
(3) In some cases there is little to suggest that much thought has been given to the actual placement and indeed it sometimes appears as if there is a most casual approach to the arrangement for handing over of the baby to his parents.
(4) The best possible use is not being made of the present six month probationary and supervisory period. It seems as if supervision is often regarded merely as an opportunity for checking nothing is amiss and social workers do not see it as their role to use this period in the more positive way of helping the adopters to integrate the baby into their family.
Miss Darling makes a number of suggestions which "might contribute to improving the rather poor quality adoption practice I have observed." She goes on:
(1) There is a shortage of adequately trained staff...
(2) In many cases adoption work is only a secondary function of some other organisation, e.g. local authority adoption societies...
(3) There is a lack of appreciation by adoption workers of the need for improved adoption practice and an apparent disregard in many cases for modern theories in adoption work...
(4) An Bord Uchtala seems to adopt negative attitude to any suggestions for improvement in the standard of practice. The Board contents itself with the actual making of adoption orders...
Then she goes on to quote from the previous debate in this House. Her final conclusion is one which we have heard on Second Reading and one which I supported before now. She says:
I would recommend in conclusion that a full scale government enquiry into the adoption of children such as those carried out by the Hurst and Houghton Committees in Britain in 1954 and 1972 respectively, should be undertaken in this country before we congratulate ourselves any further on our supposedly satisfactory adoption system.
I have quoted at some length from this report because it is the only scientific survey that we have. It admits its own limitations, but it supplies evidence to support this amendment because it shows that adoption is not carried out in a uniformly satisfactory manner. I am not convinced that "uniformly high standards" operate in relation to all the existing registered adoption societies. I am sure that the board could, by drawing up statutory regulations, imposing these standards improve substantially the pre-placement and post-placement supervision of adoption societies. Furthermore, I find it difficult to understand why the board apparently do not wish to have this power partirularly as in 1970 the recommendations of the Adoption Board then were strongly in favour of the board having this statutory power. It was because the Department at that time were not willing to accept the recommendations of the Adoption Board that certain members of the Adoption Board resigned. This seems to show that there has not always been unanimity throughout among the members of the board as to whether it would be desirable or not to have the statutory power to make regulations.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to have an open mind on this question and to reflect on what has been said, on the evidence that is there: both the case histories and the recommendations of this private report—to see whether the case has been made for giving the board full statutory power to make regulations governing adoption societies. It seems extraordinary that there could be any possible doubt about the pre-placement and post-placement supervision in relation to any of the adoption societies. It seems incredible that we do not take this basic measure to ensure the creation and maintenance of standards in adoption.