I call on Senator McGennis, who has 12 minutes.
Information on Adopted Persons: Motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I move:
That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Health to
—establish by regulation a contact register to facilitate adopted persons and
their birth parents in re-establishing contact with each other;
—provide adopted persons with the basic right of access to their birth certificates;
—provide sufficient resources to bring about an early collation and reconciliation of National Archive material with information from birth records and adoption societies with a view to establishing a comprehensive database of all relevant material; and
—establish an independent appeals mechanism to end as a matter of urgency the situation where voluntary agencies have total control over information on adopted persons and to ensure that adoption agencies are made accountable by obliging them to co-operate with statutory bodies.
This is not the first time I have raised this issue the House. On each occasion the Minister of State has closed his ears, his mind and, more regrettably, his heart to the practical proposals which I have tried to encourage him to put in place. I have only heard him react when the issue of adoption has been raised by the media and when there is the opportunity for publicity. On such occasions he has made a series of promises. He has committed himself to helping those is these difficult circumstances and has appeared compassionate and committed. However, unfortunately, he has done nothing.
The first part of the motion calls for the establishment of a contact register. This is a prime example of the track record of the Minister of State on this issue — all promises and no delivery. On at least two occasions I have heard him promise publicly to establish such a register, yet in the more than two and a half years since I first raised the issue in this House we have seen no action.
If the Minister of State had identified legal constraints to the establishment of a contact register he should have made them clear long ago and taken action to deal with them. It is unacceptable to hide behind these excuses while thousands of people suffer the frustration of being denied basic information on their origins.
Contact is simply and solely about facilitating parties on both sides of an adoption to make contact. At present the obstacles in the way of such contact are almost insurmountable. We must break this cycle of obstruction and secrecy and set in place an open and accessible system. The key elements of such a register are that it must be active and widely promoted in Ireland and abroad in such a way as to encourage all parties to register. It must also be backed up by proper resources to ensure its success.
The adoption agencies are not the appropriate bodies to administer this register. Regrettably, they have consistently failed to appreciate the importance of the rights of the adopted persons and their families in this regard. I ask the Minister of State to establish this contact register immediately. In tandem with the establishment of a contact register he must also put in place adequate counselling for those who seek to make birth contact, either the birth mother or adoptee.
The second part of the motion calls on the Minister for Health to provide adopted persons with the basic right of access to their birth records. The refusal to supply adoptees with their birth certificates is a breach of their fundamental human rights. I do not accept there are legal constraints in this regard. Most other countries issue original birth certificates to adoptees. Will the Minister explain why Ireland is different from countries which have established contact registers and which issue original birth certificates to adoptees? Are there specific conditions in Ireland which do not exist in other countries?
The placing of a child for adoption is usually the result of a crisis pregnancy. In my experience actions surrounding adoption have been as a result of crises. It was suggested that the recent find by the National Archives of a significant number of files was a huge resource which would be made available to those who may not otherwise have access to that type of information. These files could be referred to in the same manner as the popular television series, "The X Files —‘the truth is out there"'.
Public announcements by the Tánaiste, the Minister of State, Deputy Currie, and the Minister for Education, who stated she would make available files discovered in her Department, only serve to further confuse people who assumed that anybody who sought information could get it freely. This is not the case and I told people who telephoned me after the Ministers' announcements that the files made no difference to their positions. Adoptees or birth mothers are not entitled to the information on the files and there is no way contact can be made voluntarily. I reiterate that I am discussing voluntary contact; I do not seek to breach the right to confidentiality of either party.
However, it is time there was honesty on all sides, particularly in relation to various Ministers who made announcements in the past. It is dishonest and misleading to suggest there has been a fundamental change or that the discovery of files would make a difference to those who were adopted or to birth mothers seeking to make contact with the children they gave up some 20, 30 or 40 years ago. There has been no change. Thousands of files exist in adoption agencies throughout the country and many others were destroyed by agencies which went out of business.
The third part of my motion calls on the Minister to provide sufficient resources to bring about an early collation and reconciliation of National Archives material. The existence of files, whether in the National Archives, Department of Education or elsewhere, makes no difference. The archivist requested that sufficient resources be made available because the National Archives could not cope with an additional burden of work. She said it needed the services of two archivists up to three days a week to compile and format the information scattered around the country. I ask the Minister to immediately provide resources for such a data base.
The fourth part of the motion is probably the most contentious. It calls for the establishment of an independent appeals mechanism to end as a matter of urgency the situation where voluntary agencies have total control over information on adopted persons. Given my position, I receive many telephone calls and letters from individuals and groups, such as Barnardo's, the Adoptive Parents' Association and adult adoptees. The bulk of complaints I receive relate to the way in which adult adoptees and birth mothers are treated by adoption agencies. This is a common thread in all the contact I receive. I do not suggest all adoption agencies treat birth mothers or adoptees callously, but the majority appear to be unhelpful and obstructive to children and mothers.
The Minister will agree it is unacceptable that voluntary agencies have such arbitrary powers. The heads of agencies, which in the main are nuns from religious orders, behave in a totalitarian manner. In my case I was told it was probably unwise to seek this type of information and asked did I not have a life of my own. There appears to be no understanding of the needs of birth mothers or adult adoptees at that point. Far from being helpful, the agencies tend to be obstructive.
After two and a half years of constant telephone calls to the head of the institution, I received no news. Yet, when a lay social worker took over, she was in a position to tell me within six weeks that she had traced my natural mother and was about to try to make contact. I accept, as was the position in my case, that the line should be drawn when the natural mother does not wish to make contact.
However, it is unacceptable to birth mothers and adoptees that somebody unconnected with their lives — except in some cases where they are the same person who handed over the baby to the adopting couple — can decide arbitrarily there is no way of tracing the mother or child. This aspect should be addressed. An ombudsman deals with queries as a final arbitrator in relation to social welfare, health and telecommunications matters and such a person is urgently required to arbitrate in adoption related matters. It is unacceptable that adults are treated in the manner to which they are subjected.
I wish to repeat a number of points I raised when the House discussed this issue in 1993. Adoptive parents give enormous love to their children. Adoption situations do not always involve somebody searching for a love they did not receive in their adoptive families. In my case I could not have been placed with better parents. However, this does not invalidate the points I mentioned earlier.
I wish to make a number of remarks on behalf of adoptive parents, including the issue of reclaim cases which received coverage in the media recently. I made the same case to the previous Minister for Health in relation to the recoupment of costs. I am not sure if the Minister is aware — the public is probably not aware — that under the 1988 (No. 2) Act, a health board will meet the cost of a legal challenge to reclaim a child if the child was born in wedlock. However, I understand that if the adoption case refers to an illegitimate child, the adoptive parents must pay the costs of the High Court challenge brought by the third party, the natural mother. This is unbelievable and it only came to my attention recently. Couples who want to give their love to a child are penalised probably for the rest of their lives because the cost of High Court actions is phenomenal. The old Attorney General's scheme used to give approximately a third of the cost back, but that scheme has gone by the board.
Adoptive parents also asked me to mention the delay in consent. I do not suggest a return to the days when a baby was taken from a mother's arms while she signed papers and was still psychologically distressed. However, I am aware of a case where consent was withdrawn ten years after a child had been placed with adoptive parents. In 1994 a committee recommended to the then Minister that there should be a defined period of consent. However, nothing has happened.
There is another case of the right of inheritance of adopted children and that is where Mr. Justice Lardner in 1992, in the Stamp versus Stamp, Stamp and Redmond case, ruled that adoptive children were not issue and therefore did not have the same inheritance rights as natural children. The whole area of adoption and children born outside wedlock has not changed. They are still stigmatised.
I will finish by quoting the final sentence in a piece by Nuala O'Faolain where she states, "Could not the Government match this natural energy,"— she is talking about spring —"with some energy of its own? Could it not move to honour, for the first time, the deep bonds of physical relationship — bonds which our country treated with such cruel contempt in the past?" The Minister had an opportunity to do a lot of the things which I have raised in this motion in the Adoption Bill which he published last week or the week before. He did not include any of the points which I have raised. If he is replying tonight and there is no amendment, I want him to state when he is going to do the things I have asked. The people who are affected and who asked me to raise this issue do not want another statement saying it is going to be done. They want a defined period in which it will be done and done in the way they have asked.
Cuireann sé áthas an domhain orm gcuidiú leis an rún seo. I am delighted to second this motion. It is a breath of fresh air to hear Senator McGennis speak and it is seldom we have somebody in the House speak who has personal experience and who knows exactly what they are talking about. I appeal to the Minister to think and ponder on every word she said because she is speaking from the heart.
Voluntary organisations did a good job in the past. I will say this much in their favour: all adopted children were put into good homes. I did not hear of any child in an adopted home who was not well-cared for and educated. Maybe there were some who were fostered who were treated differently, but adopted people did very well.
As is the case now, the Governments of the day took absolutely no interest. So long as voluntary organisations and nuns did the job, they did not care what happened. A Government should always care and see that any agents they appoint are doing their job. That is where our Governments fell down in the past and are doing so now. Unfortunately, there are not as many children being adopted today, but we have a worse situation. I referred to it before and I will refer to it again: our Government is doing nothing to stop the abortion trail to England. It is terrible and should be stopped and our Government should be involved.
It is heartbreaking for some adopted person tracing their roots, wanting to know who their parents, or at least their mothers, were, that they do not get the co-operation or help they should. It is terrible that voluntary organisations are still adopting an authoritarian, dog in the manger attitude — we have it, it is no good to us, but you will not get it. That is wrong and the Minister must move to ensure that all files are taken out and put somewhere. As Senator McGennis said, there should be an ombudsman, or it should be part of the ombudsman's brief to get the necessary information. We have seen a lot of cases on television and heard them on radio where people spent years searching and at the end of the day the information could have been given straight away in the first instance. No voluntary organisation should have the right to deny someone the facts that tell them who their mother is, where they were born and what the circumstances were. That is what this motion is about: to ensure that adopted children, if they want to trace either of their parents, but particularly their mothers, should have access to files, if files are available. Why should we be held up by some voluntary organisation? Why should files be kept in archives? All are entitled to full information. Just because one is adopted does not make one less of a person. We must get that information and the only one with the power to do so is the present Minister.
I appeal to him to listen, think and ponder on every word said and even ask for further advice from Senator McGennis, because she is one of the few people in this House speaking from the heart and from experience and who knows exactly what she is talking about. People and adoptees confide in her because they know she has the information. She knows how to go about it. They know she can help them in this very important aspect of their lives.
I again appeal to the Minister to act now. He should not tell us he is looking into it. He should not tell us what he intends. He should tell us that he will do it within the next three months and put a time frame on it, to use modern terminology. In doing that, he will go down in history as the Minister who acted positively on a problem that has been with the people of Ireland for many years and about which nobody did anything. Let the Minister he the man to break the vicious circle and he should do it now.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete the words "by regulation" in line 1.
The motion before the House is acceptable with one simple amendment, that in the first line, "by regulation" be deleted.
If the wording poses a difficulty I am agreeable to the two words being deleted.
I thank Senator McGennis and her colleague for tabling this motion, which I know is of personal interest to her and to a number of people. The first line of the motion reads, "establish by regulation a contact register to facilitate adopted persons and their birth parents in re-establishing contact with each other,'. It is my understanding that there are times when natural parents are guaranteed anonymity and one would have to establish whether they wanted to make contact with their natural child at a later date. The State would have to provide a mediator between the two parties to clear that hurdle before the adopted children and their natural parents could meet. That is one problem I would like everyone to accept.
We talk of providing adopted persons with the basic right of access to their birth certificates. I have some experience in this issue because I worked for some time in related adoption work. The society we live in today is quite different to that of the 1950s and 1960s because there was a stigma attached to children born outside wedlock and to their mothers. We had the term "illegitimate" which we removed from our Statute Book at a later date in my time in the other House, and rightly so. There was always that problem. Girls who became pregnant were anxious to go to a voluntary organisation, whether it be religious or non-religious, have their baby and walk away. That was their attitude and was respected.
Up to 1952 the extraordinary thing was that if a child was adopted, there was no mechanism for amending or making an alteration to the natural birth certificate. The 1952 Act provided for that, whereby An Bord Úchtála, the Adoption Board, could make an order or, for that matter, some court outside the jurisdiction could make an order for a legal adoption. When the order was granted the certificate or record, whether it be of Church or State, was amended to provide for the adoptive parents' names. However, the natural parent's name was never removed, so it remained on record.
A certain amount of information in these records is not accurate because a young mother who wanted that kind of anonymity might not have been prepared to give her full name and address. That was a problem and, consequently, there is some doubt wherther certificates dating back to the 1950s and 1960s are totally accurate or not.
I have no difficulty with the third proposition. As regards the fourth item mentioned in the motion, I pay tribute to the voluntary organisations who played an important role in society in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, even though we may now see them in a different light. At that time many young girls were anxious to be free of their babies after giving birth and a number of organisations facilitated them by providing the best homes that could be found for the children in question. Of all the voluntary organisations I was in contact with I have no doubt that their one priority was the interest of the child. That was to the credit of such organisations and we should remember them for their good work. Many children were adopted into happy homes and lived full and productive lives.
I agree with Senator McGennis that both Church and State have come around to accepting that adopted children have a right to know. Whatever information is there should be made available to them and it is only reasonable for that to happen. If some regulation has been made to provide for that, so be it.
Society has come a long way in caring for adopted children. In fact, the word "adoption" has gone out of fashion in our society which has changed its attitude to the unmarried mother, who can now keep her child. The State now provides an allowance which it did not do in the 1950s and 1960s and that made it difficult for single mothers who could not afford to keep their children. All that has changed, however, and we live in a different society with different attitudes to unmarried mothers, which is a good thing.
Earlier today we discussed the change in regard to the Adelaide Hospital's ethos being transferred to the Tallaght Hospital. However, the ethos of the unmarried mother in society has also changed. With the single amendment I have moved, I welcome the motion before the House.
With the permission of the House, I wish to share my time with Senator Lee.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The excellent and passionate speech of Senator McGennis had an added piquancy, given her personal experience which she recounted to the House. I feel a bit abashed about entering this area because my motivation is considerably less strong. I pay tribute to Senator McGennis and wish to say, if it is not patronising, that she is a great credit to her adoptive parents who can feel extremely proud that somebody so emotionally mature and well balanced has emerged from this system and is able to put such a coherent argument for the establishment of this kind of register.
The Senator is making me blush.
Apart from a natural human sympathy with people who find themselves in this situation, my only reason for contributing to the debate is because last year I stayed in a small hotel in southern Ireland. After dinner the proprietress of the hotel explained to me that she had been adopted and that this was a matter of some difficulty for her in various ways. In particular, she was finding it almost impossible to trace her natural mother. This was a continuing, niggling difficulty at the back of her mind, even though she had established a successful business and had a happy family life with three or four delightful healthy children. There was still this uncertainty and a natural human desire to find her biological parents, in particular her mother. She believed it was possible to find them, but a number of things prevented her from doing so. One was the absence of a national register. She asked me to speak out at every opportunity I got in support of such a national information register to facilitate contact.
The second thing was that, from the experience of this woman, it seemed there was an extraordinary presumption and arrogance on the part of some agencies, at least, who took it upon themselves to decide in what circumstances and to whom they would dispense information concerning private and intimate areas of a life. If anyone has the right to know it is the person directly involved, the natural child. In certain circumstances that has to be hedged around with safeguards and guarantees. One of the problems is that in the past when it was regarded as shameful — not all, but a large number of these children emerged in situations where the parents were not married — it was something that was concealed. The natural mother subsequently went on to marry in a situation where her husband and second family produced within wedlock were unaware of the situation. It was felt it might cause considerable trauma if an unanticipated natural child suddenly erupted into this tranquil domestic scene. One has to be aware of the natural child's rights as well as those of the natural mother and the family that has grown up since. It is a question of balancing rights.
In the light of the discovery of archival material that illustrates the mass export of adopted children to the United States during the 1940s and 1950s, it is important that financial resources are made available so that the historical records can be collated and reconciled.
An independent appeals mechanism should be established so that it is not left to the whim of particular agencies. It can be argued that some of these agencies, many of them run by religious orders, did a fine job. So they did, but others did not. Where the information is directly personal it is incumbent upon us to ensure that an independent view is taken so that access can be made available.
I am glad that this matter was not turned into a political football, although occasionally there were suggestions of that. I would not like this to happen and it would not be in the interests of this important debate.
The Senator should not start either.
I am currently reading the autobiography of the American swimming champion, Greg Louganis, who won four Olympic gold medals. He was adopted and for a long time he wanted to discover who his natural parents were because, unlike some people who have been able to mature in a family where they were cherished, he felt he had been rejected by both his parents. When he eventually managed to get access to the archival records it turned out that his father was a 15 year old of Samoan origin and his mother was a 15 year old of North European origin, although both were Americans. The father wanted to keep the child and have it reared as one of his brothers, but the mother objected because she knew the family did not have adequate resources. Together they decided in the interests of the child that it should be put up for adoption. Having had access to that information it reconciled the psychological doubt, the wound and the fear of rejection he had. This kind of register would provide precisely that kind of material.
I congratulate Senator McGennis on her admirable motion and on her persistence; I congratulate the Minister on accepting the motion and I congratulate Senator Norris on an exceptionally balanced speech.
This is a good day in terms of the contribution to civilised behaviour in this society and the Minister has been at the centre of it on both occasions. It has been a sad day in terms of the murder of Veronica Guerin, which shows how Irish society has changed for the worst in some ways. However, it is changing for the better in this particular way.
I do not have to urge the adoption of the motion, but I impress on the Minister the importance of the time scale. The motion proposes to facilitate adopted persons and their birth parents in re-establishing contact with each other. This should be done as quickly as possible. Senator McGennis mentioned the importance of adequate counselling. We all know the problems that can arise in this area, even when it is voluntary on both sides. There is now a host of international experience in this area about the disappointments that can emerge from high expectations when things do not work out precisely as the parties involved anticipated. I hope every attempt would be made to provide adequate counselling for the people involved.
In relation to the time factor, the motion proposes providing sufficient resources to bring about an early collation and reconciliation of National Archive material. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some idea of what "early" means, now he has adopted the principle of the motion. The motion also proposes to "establish and independent appeals mechanism to end as a matter of urgency...". "A matter of urgency" can often be a protracted time scale in our political culture. I do not doubt the Minister's goodwill and commitment but I hope he will give some indication of the time scale he has in mind for the implementation of the appeals mechanism. I do not think it would be a good idea to impose this function on the Ombudsman, not because he will not do an excellent job but because this is an area requiring specialised expertise. It requires the building up of case experience and this is better done by a specialised agency which can concentrate entirely on this particular type of issue.
I agree with Senator Doyle that marvellous work was done by voluntary agencies in unfortunate circumstances. The motives involved, in so far as one can speculate on human motives at any time, were of the best in the circumstances of the time. However, those circumstances have changed. There is a different ethos, in many respects a much improved ethos. There may be counselling necessary in the context of putting pressure on whatever agencies may still be resistant but, if counselling does not suffice, then I would have no hesitation in putting on whatever pressure is necessary.
I do not think it is desirable to probe origins. We are in a different situation and we must try to provide justice for those who have suffered injustice. Expectations are being raised now by this announcement and the Minister's adoption of it. This puts an even greater onus on the Minister to ensure the issue is resolved as rapidly as possible.
I welcome the opportunity to speak to Seanad Éireann on the very important and complex area of adoption and access to birth records. It is a deeply sensitive issue with a broad scope in both human and administrative terms.
Our society has changed in recent years. Old truths and values which were once held sacrosanct are now being questioned and re-evaluated in the light of new information and our evolving understanding of the human condition. The question of our society's attitude to children has dominated public debate to an unprecedented degree. The issues raised in that debate go to the core of our values and raise questions about our sense of community. We measure ourselves by the treatment of the most vulnerable among us and we have found that our attitudes fall short of our ideals. However, our attitudes continue to evolve and progress as our understanding grows of the needs and vulnerabilities of the weaker elements of our society.
These changing attitudes have been reflected in the area of adoption. Our treatment in times past of children born outside of conventional relationships is difficult to reconcile with the ideals of a State founded on the principle of cherishing all children equally. It is also hard to reconcile with our image of ourselves as a caring and compassionate society.
As Senators are aware, legal adoption was introduced here by the Adoption Act, 1952. This enlightened social legislation was brought forward by the Minister for Justice who, until 1983, had ministerial responsibility for adoption matters. It is the cornerstone of adoption legislation in this country and provided couples seeking to adopt a child with a legal framework and clarified their rights and responsibilities. Prior to the passing of that Act, children were informally adopted by couples here or went abroad for adoption. It is well known that many children were legally adopted in the United States and other countries. Indeed, this practice provided some of the impetus for the introduction of our own legal adoption system.
Section 40 of the Adoption Act, 1952, imposed, for the first time ever, a statutory restriction on the sending of children abroad. It became an offence for a person to remove outside the State a child born outside marriage under one year of age who is an Irish citizen or to cause or permit such removal, except for the purpose of the child residing with the mother or a relative outside the State. The purpose of this restriction on sending children abroad, as I understand it, was to ensure that children who were available for adoption would be adopted within the State by Irish people.
However, the provisions of section 40 of the 1952 Act that related specifically to children born outside marriage were subsequently declared unconstitutional by the High Court in the late 1970s. The effect of this decision was to permit the sending abroad of young children for adoption with the approval of a parent or guardian.
There are few areas in the field of human relationships that involve the same degree of heart searching, anguish and, ultimately, happiness as the adoption of a child. It affects those who are a party to it in different but deeply felt ways. For some it means parting with a child; for others gaining a child. Difficult and agonising decisions have to be taken since the consequences are lasting and irrevocable. Perceptions of the role of legal adoption have evolved over the years. When adoption legislation was initially framed, an important motivation was the introduction of provisions which would, on the one hand, alleviate the problems of the unmarried mother and, on the other hand, enable the childless couple to acquire a child that they could call their own.
Therefore the actions taken by those working in adoption in the 1950s, 1960s and even the 1970s must be looked at in the context of the social values prevailing at the time and what were then considered to be the best interests of all parties. The underlying belief in relation to adoption was that birth ties could be severed, that the child's true origins could be erased as if they never were, and that everyone affected by this process — the adopted child, the birth parents and the adoptive parents — benefited from this step.
However, we are all now aware of stories of babies who were removed from their young and frightened mothers at the most vulnerable time in the life of the mothers. Many such young mothers were traumatised by the secrecy and shame surrounding their pregnancy and again in having to cope with the anguish of having to give up their child. We have no way of knowing the emotional and psychological distress mothers must have suffered. We had hoped at least that the children involved went on to happy and fulfilled lives. However, we now know that this was not always the case and that many adopted children have spent years trying to find out why they were abandoned, as they saw it.
Irish society today has a less censorial and more sympathetic attitude towards unmarried mothers. This less hostile environment has encouraged many mothers to rear their children. At the same time, there has been a growing public concern for disadvantaged children, who may require the care and protection of society. We have a greater understanding of the anguish felt by birth parents years after they had relinquished their child for adoption and the severe emotional trauma they have suffered. In addition, adopted children have a strong and natural desire to know their true identity, family lineage and health history. However, we must also recognise that many birth mothers in the 1950s and 1960s in Ireland gave their children up for adoption in the climate of secrecy and stigma attaching to unmarried mothers at that time. They may have created new lives for themselves and raised new families, without informing anyone about having given a child up for adoption. I have received letters from birth mothers indicating their deep anxiety and, in some cases, threatening suicide, if their identity is revealed to the child they gave up for adoption. It is an extremely difficult balance to strike between the genuine and heartfelt desires of an adopted child to know his or her true identity and the desire of a birth mother to remain anonymous.
In recent weeks I consulted widely with statutory and voluntary adoption agencies and adoption support groups such as Treoir, the Council of Irish Adoption Agencies, Barnardo's and the Adoptive Parents Association. I will shortly be meeting the Irish Birth Mothers Association. I have sought views in relation to the issue of access to birth records and how best to strike a balance between the needs of an adopted child to know his or her natural parents and the right to privacy of the birth mother, who was given strict undertakings on the confidentiality of adoption when giving her child up for adoption. There is a general consensus, among those organisations whom I met to date, towards the view that the right of the child to know is more important that the promise of confidentiality given to a birth mother many years previously. I also sought legal advice on the question of access to birth records to which I will refer later.
My Department has also looked closely at the establishment of a national contact register which would facilitate contact, where such contact is desired by both parties, between the adopted child and the birth parent. In addition, I asked my officials to look at the situation in other jurisdictions where the question of access to birth records and a contact register have arisen. In the United Kingdom any adopted person over the age of 18 years has access to his or her birth records, accompanied by counselling. In Northern Ireland such counselling is mandatory for adoptees who were adopted before 1987 and is optional for those adopted thereafter. A contact register has been operating in England and Wales since May 1991. I understand that, as of May this year, 6,820 adoptees had registered, as had 3,892 birth relatives. To date, 112 matches have been made. In New Zealand the approach has been that if a birth parent or adopted child place a veto, their confidentiality is respected and identifying information is not released. However, the New Zealand experience seems to suggest that a birth mother placing a veto may be putting herself in greater danger of being traced. It may act as an encouragement for an adopted child to search more intensively using alternative information sources.
Concern was also expressed that some adopted people who receive a veto take this as an indicator that it is the birth mother who does not want contact. Therefore, when they embark on a search and trace her whereabouts, rather than making contact with the birth mother, they make contact with other members of the family. This is likely to be much more of an upheaval to the birth mother than if she had met the adopted child herself. As Senators are aware, this is a complex and sensitive area of human relationships where the emotional needs of the adopted child and the right to confidentiality of the birth parent are difficult to reconcile to the satisfaction of both parties.
Senators McGennis and Norris referred to archive material. Extensive work was undertaken in my Department in relation to children sent outside the State for adoption. My Department has been trying to ascertain the extent of the practice and the status of the records held by adoption agencies. The preliminary indications are that approximately 1,800 children were sent abroad for adoption between 1941 and 1968, when the practice effectively ceased. These children were sent primarily to the United States. Although the information is as yet incomplete, a number of features have become apparent. These are as follows: the cases in the records of the Department of Foreign Affairs appear to be largely duplicated by those held by the adoption agencies; the vast majority of children sent abroad for adoption went to the United States; and those who underwent the visa/naturalisation process there would have full access to the related documents under the United States Federal Freedom of Information legislation.
The work in this area is continuing and if further resources are required I will ensure that they are made available. My Department is also liaising with the Department of Education in relation to its records in respect of children placed in industrial schools in the past. I sought legal advice on a number of issues in relation to the adoption records held by adoption societies regarding the adoption of Irish children abroad. Questions on which I sought advice on included: "What is the respective standing of natural mothers and their children, who were adopted outside the State, as regards access to, or privacy of, information of the kind involved?", and "Is there any legal impediment to the various bodies concerned sharing or pooling their information in the event of it being decided to create a central reference point to which individuals could address inquiries and be referred to the relevant body?".
I have been advised that the question of access to birth records gives rise to many complex constitutional and legal issues in relation to the disclosure of information on one hand, and the confidentiality of the information on the other. The Circuit Court recently stated a consultative case to the Supreme Court dealing with the right of children who were informally adopted in this country, prior to the enactment of adoption legislation, to know the identity of their natural parents. The judge in the case referred a number of questions to the Supreme Court for decision, such as whether the natural child has a constitutional right to know the identity of his or her natural parents and, if there is a constitutional or legal right to the information sought on the part of the child on one hand, and a constitutional or legal right to non-disclosure on the part of the birth mother on the other, which right prevails?
It would be prudent to await clarification of the constitutional and other legal issues surrounding the question of access to birth records before proceeding with any initiatives in this area. Such considerations also apply to the establishment of a comprehensive database of relevant material from the National Archives, birth records and adoption societies. Issues which must be considered in relation to such a database include, for example, the application of the provisions of the Data Protection Act, 1988, which sets out stringent restrictions on the disclosure of personal information held on computers. I have been advised that until the legal issues have been clarified by the Supreme Court, it would not be prudent for the various bodies concerned to share or pool their information.
Senators will appreciate the complex legal and emotional issues which arise in relation to access to birth records. Ill considered actions which may later prove to be constitutionally or legally untenable would only exacerbate the pain and trauma which may have been suffered by birth parents and adopted children. Clarification of the legal and constitutional position is, of course, essential. I have no option but to wait until that clarification is available to me. However, I am determined to proceed as quickly as possible in the circumstances to facilitate contact between adopted children and birth parents, where it is desired by both parties. I have, therefore, decided to establish a contact register which will allow for the registration of birth parents and adopted children who wish to contact each other.
I hope this will meet the needs of adopted children who wish to know of their identity, while also respecting the privacy of birth parents. The register will provide a safe and confidential way for birth parents to assure an adopted child that contact would be welcome. Such a contact register will be established on an administrative basis pending clarification by the Supreme Court of the legal issues relating to access to birth records. Senator Lee asked for a time scale — I intend to establish a contact register as quickly as it can be done and will bring a set of proposals about the continued development of child care services in the near future. This package will include proposals about the operation of a contact register.
Senators have referred to voluntary agencies' control over information on adopted persons. The position concerning the ownership of adoption information is unclear at present. The absence of a legal framework has given rise to differing practices among adoption agencies. I assure the House that in preparing proposals, once the legal position has been clarified, we will ensure that a uniform approach concerning access to adoption information is provided for.
I take this opportunity to assure the House that the Government is committed to a programme of legislative reform to reflect the changing nature of adoption and to take account of developments at the international level. My immediate priority in this programme of reform has, of necessity, been the preparation of amending adoption legislation to address the issues raised in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Keegan v. Ireland, which held that Irish adoption law discriminates against the fathers of children born outside of marriage, in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government's legislative response to the judgment is contained in the Adoption (No. 2) Bill, 1996, which I presented to Dáil Éireann on the 13 June. The Bill gives statutory recognition to the position of the father of a non-marital child in the adoption process. It provides for the introduction of a new statutory procedure for consulting the father before the child is placed for adoption. A father who objects to a proposed placement will be given an opportunity to exercise his right to make an application to court for guardianship and/or custody of the child, if he so wishes. Provision is made for exemptions from the requirement to consult the father in certain circumstances — for example, in the case of rape or where his identity cannot be ascertained.
The Bill also provides for certain amendments of the current law on the recognition of foreign adoptions. The main purpose of these is to facilitate the recognition here of adoptions effected in countries, such as the People's Republic of China, whose adoption laws permit the termination of adoptions in particular circumstances. The measures in the Bill relating to foreign adoptions are designed to introduce greater flexibility into our statutory recognition system. The Bill represents a major development in our adoption legislation. Second Stage will be taken in the Dáil next week and I look forward to bringing it before the Seanad in the near future.
The Government is also committed to ratifying the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Inter-country Adoption. This convention was prepared under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, of which Ireland is a member state. The primary objectives of the convention are to provide safeguards to prevent the abduction or sale of, or trafficking in, children and to establish a system of co-operation among countries in order to ensure that inter-country adoptions take place in the best interests of the children concerned. It takes full account of the principles set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Ireland has ratified.
The Government is fully supportive of the Hague Convention and its objectives. It has authorised the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to arrange for the signing of the instrument in order to signal our intention, both domestically and internationally, eventually to ratify it. I understand we signed the convention on 19 June. Ratification of the convention involves making certain changes to our domestic adoption laws in order to bring them into line with the provisions of the instrument. This will be done in due course as part of the Government's programme of legislative reform in the adoption area.
Senator McGennis raised the legal costs of High Court actions where a child is being reclaimed by a natural mother. I discussed this matter as recently as yesterday with the Adoptive Parents' Association. I listened with great interest to what was said and have sympathy with the position stated. My Department has written to the Department of Equality and Law Reform, which has responsibility in this matter and for the Attorney General's scheme to which the Senator referred.
I welcome the amended motion before the Seanad and the concern and sympathy which it shows for adopted children and their birth parents. However, until the many complex constitutional and legal issues relating to birth records and confidential adoption information have been clarified by the Supreme Court, it would not be prudent to proceed with any legislation. I am aware of the anxiety of adopted children and birth parents who wish to contact each other that a mechanism be put in place to facilitate such contact. It is for this reason that I intend to proceed with the establishment of a contact register which will allow those who wish to make contact to do so. I hope the operation of such a register will also further develop our understanding of the emotional needs and support which may be required by both birth parents and adopted children and allow us to respond in a caring, sensitive and sympathetic manner to those needs. As I stated earlier, the true values of a society may be measured in its response to its most vulnerable and needy members. I hope that when future generations come to pass judgment, the response we have shown in recent years, and continue to show, to the needs of children will reflect well on the values of our society and our sense of community.
I support the motion of my colleague, Senator McGennis, which is especially apposite and we should congratulate the Minister for giving his blessing to it. As another speaker said, it is civilised that we all speak the same language. When one sees a motion like this one wonders why it was not done before, but it requires someone like Senator McGennis to bring it forward, as she has personal experience and spoke with passion, commitment and sincerity. We will name her "L'Appassionata” from now on.
I thought I was called that already.
The Minister's reply was measured. As he said, the old truths and values we once held sacrosanct are now being questioned and re-evaluated in the light of new information and our evolving understanding of the human condition. I hope that continues. It was said earlier that today was a bad day, which it is, but it is good that this has come forward.
The Minister has shown a good deal of understanding in his pronouncements. He mentioned the Supreme Court decisions and balancing the rights of the mother versus those of the child in relation to information. I have dealt with many people whose children were adopted and people who were adopted and put their own children up for adoption. I know the importance they attach to being able to contact their real mother, no matter who she is, and even to meet her only once. It closes the Gestalt, provides finality and allows a person to get on with the rest of his or her life.
Having given the child's viewpoint, we must remember that many mothers do not want to be contacted. That is not the thrust of the motion, as Senator McGennis would agree. Many women who became pregnant and had a child do not really want to be reminded of it and that right must also be respected. This is a minefield through which we have to tread carefully and, consequently, the Supreme Court decision to which the Minister referred will be important.
Many issues could be agreed readily — for example, the establishment of a contact register, an issue on which the Minister of State has looked favourably. Senator McGennis has told me this is one of the few countries which does not accord the right of access to birth certificates. If one has a right to one's birth certificate one then has a right to one's mother's name. The birth certificate may also give information about the mother which may make a trace easier. I have met people who wanted to be traced and people who did not want to be traced.
In general, the motion is to be welcomed. I congratulate Senator McGennis on having brought it forward. I am surprised such a motion has not been put forward before and perhaps it is her personal experience which dictates that it should happen at this time. The Minister of State is to be congratulated for his measured contribution. He has given the ideas of the motion a fair hearing. Senator McGennis may be pleased that she has received so much support for the motion.
I thank the Fianna Fáil Senators for this motion. The four elements of the motion seem to have one aim, that is, to render more open and transparent the adoption system as it operates and has operated in the State. The Minister of State has addressed the issues. I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs's commitment that files in his Department relating to foreign adoptions will be made publicly available through the National Archives. That is now taking place and I congratulate the Tánaiste on his speedy action in this regard.
I am aware the Minister of State has indicated in the past that his priority is to secure through legislation a recognition by law of the rights of non-marital children. I appreciate his concern in this regard. However, if it is intended to make changes to adoption law we should include all the outstanding issues surrounding adoption.
The Minister of State has indicated that he is prepared to contemplate the changes outlined in the motion. The most significant element of the motion is its call for the establishment of an adoption register. I support such a development. When completed it will resolve the difficulties in relation to the hold of voluntary agencies over all information relating to adoptions referred to in the motion.
We should be wary of the problems relating to adoptions. The public is alarmed about recent revelations and we should be careful about stoking such concerns. The abuses which have come to light recently took place decades ago and do not mean that similar problems exist today. The adoption process is regulated by the Adoption Board and its responsibility include regulating the actions of the adoption societies. The Adoption Board makes an annual report which is presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas for scrutiny.
Difficulties in relation to confidentiality may arise with regard to the fourth element of the motion. Some people who give up children for adoption may not wish to be contacted by their child at a later date. The right to confidentiality has to be counterbalanced by the right of a child to know the identity of his or her original parents. The right to see one's own birth certificate is an absolute right and outweighs all other rights in this area. The law should be changed to recognise this point. While I recognise the right to consult the adopted children's register under section 22 of the Adoption Act, 1952, exists, in many cases it is not sufficient.
I thank the Fianna Fáil Senators for raising this matter. I welcome the Government's commitment to consider legislation. In a recent statement the Tánaiste acknowledged that the law as currently formulated makes it difficult for the Department of Foreign Affairs to aid fully those seeking information about the recently revealed foreign adoption cases. I ask the Minister of State to take on board the concerns expressed by Senators.
I congratulate Senator McGennis for her tenacity in pursuing this matter because it is of vital interest. There is nothing like having a personal interest in a topic to make others see how important it is. I support the motion. I would like to see the idea of the contact register expanded. It is vital for those adopted that the birth mother and the adoptees can be put on the register voluntarily to facilitate contact. In the light of the Keegan judgment I wonder if the natural father will have rights with regard to the register.
The register needs to be expanded to include people who are not adopted, although that is less common nowadays. We need to include those who were in industrial schools, those who were in long-term fostering and those who were in foreign adoptions. The Bill which will come before us shortly will make provision for adoptions from China and other countries. I would like to see the legislation cover more than is proposed by Senator McGennis, to include not just people who were adopted but all those who lost contact with their natural parents shortly after birth.
The right of access to birth certificates is important from a medical point of view. Many diseases have a genetic foundation and it may be important for those with inherited conditions to find out about their families. The present situation is unsuitable. I am aware of people who have employed private detectives to try to trace their parents and, regrettably, the detectives identified the wrong person as the birth mother. Legislation should be brought in as soon as possible. It is a pity that the Bill which will be introduced shortly will not consolidate the six or so Acts which deal with adoption.
Senator McGennis is right to say that it would not be suitable for the Adoption Board to keep the register. I do not think it would want to keep it. It is regrettable that so many of the voluntary agencies have not been forthcoming in giving information to birth mothers or adoptees. Registers have been set up in many other countries — Britain, Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and Ontario in Canada. We could learn from the experiences in those countries. I know people in their sixties who spent years trying to find out who their mothers were but they were unsuccessful and that has caused them considerable distress. The sooner we establish the register, as suggested by Senator McGennis, the better. However, I would like to see it extended to people other than those who have been fortunate enough to have been involved in happy adoptions.
I support the thrust of Senator McGennis' motion and congratulate her. In the past I have discussed this issue with her in the House when debating Adoption Bills. I have come to know her interest, sensitivity and deep personal commitment to improving the situation for adoptees, adoptive parents and natural parents.
The modern approach is that as much information as can be made available should be freely available and the system for obtaining that information should be transparent. There should not be different approaches by different agencies. The Minister's commitment to setting up the contact register is very welcome as is the thrust of his speech identifying the difficulties and sensitivities surrounding the adopted person particularly and their need to know their natural parents and background.
I fully understand the sensitivities with regard to confidentiality for the natural mother. That is being researched and hopefully a balance can be struck to ensure that the confidentiality of the mother is maintained while also ensuring that as much information as possible can be given to the adoptive parents. I also hope that a system can be devised which will encourage natural parents to see the advantage and contribution they can make to their child's life by allowing and facilitating information and a meeting. The authorities should give proper counselling to both sides and ensure the situation is treated with the sensitivity and confidentiality required while giving as much information as possible.
We must also be sensitive to the position of adoptive parents. I know of a case where an adopted child of 16 was being approached by her natural mother without the consent of the adoptive parents. The adoptive parents believed that the child was not prepared or ready for this and that it would be psychologically damaging, but that it could be facilitated at a later and more mature stage. There are sensitivities involved and it is important that the area of counselling is examined; the Minister of State mentioned proper counselling for all the people involved.
Senator McGennis and others referred to voluntary agencies. There are inconsistencies in the approaches of voluntary agencies. I accept what Senator Doyle and others said about the excellent work done by voluntary agencies at different times. They must be commended for that but I have some difficulties with the secrecy surrounding their work. It may be valuable, but when work is done in secret one has problems with it.
I am concerned about how they place adoptions at the moment. People, including married women, seem to have difficulty obtaining adoptions. We do not know if they have difficulty, but it would appear from the way adoptions are placed that there may be a bias against certain people and certain occupations. I may be wrong about this, but the secrecy surrounding much of what is happening in the voluntary agencies creates this doubt in our minds. We have questioned it in this House on previous occasions. It would help the work of the voluntary agencies if there was more openness, understanding and consistency in the excellent work they do.
Concern was expressed three or four years ago about inheritance. A difficulty arose in Wexford in a case known as the Stamp case. An elderly farmer willed the family farm to his son and, if he did not have an issue, to a grandson of another child. The son married two years after the father's death and after 11 years adopted two children. When the will came to be clarified by the High Court, it decided that the original owner of the farm intended that the land would be transferred to a natural born child of the family and not the adopted child.
A very small number of people in Ireland would be affected by that, but it is an important matter. The word "issue" is always used in wills when somebody wants to pass property beyond the immediate generation. We have asked on a few occasions that a small Bill would be introduced to clarify the meaning of the word "issue" or change the interpretation to include adopted children.
I congratulate Senator McGennis on bringing forward this motion. I fully support the thrust of what the Minister and Senator McGennis are endeavouring to do.
I am pleased that this motion is before us this evening and that the Minister is with us. I also congratulate Senator McGennis. On numerous occasions she has raised this issue in this House and has contributed from her own personal experience in a special way to the debates we have had on adoption. We have all benefited from the experience and knowledge she brings to this area. It is to her credit that she has persisted.
I welcome the fact that a contact register is being established to facilitate adopted persons and their birth parents, but like Senator Henry I would like to see it extended to include children who were fostered and children who were in industrial schools. This was referred to by the Minister this evening.
The second part of the motion asks that adopted persons have the basic right of access to their birth certificates. This issue seems to be agreed by everybody except the Department of Health which disagrees on the basis that there are birth mothers who are concerned about children whom they gave up for adoption a number of years ago gaining access to information they believed would be confidential. I ask the Minister for Health whether there is great evidence of this or is it something that is perceived by the Department of Health to be a problem.
What is most important is the way in which information is given to people. We do not have a policy on this at the moment and as a result people, particularly birth mothers, are concerned about inappropriate approaches from children trying to trace them. By not having a policy and by not doing something about it we are in effect exposing birth mothers to being approached in this way.
It is important that children have the basic right of access to their birth records. That is paramount and it is something to which they should be entitled and which we should provide. The Minister has said he is taking legal advice on that matter and is awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court. Until that has been clarified he believes it is not prudent to proceed with any legislation. However, that is a basic right. Counselling should be available for both parties. This must be done in a proper way and not willy nilly. We cannot expose the adopted person, the birth mother or the adoptive parents to difficulties they would have if this was not regulated.
We must look at our society and our attitudes towards adoption in the past and children born outside of marriage. Thankfully, society has changed its attitudes over the years and the situation is different today. However, since we are so concerned with the rights of children we should examine the situation seriously and not continue to put it on the long finger.
I welcome the fact that the collation of the National Archives material is going ahead and that resources have been allocated for it. Those who have seen it have said there is excellent material available and it gives a lot more information than would normally be expected. I hope that sufficient resources will be made available, as Senator McGennis' motion says, to bring about an early collation of these records with those of the Department of Education. We need a policy on this matter and as long as we continue to have none, we are exposing birth mothers and adopted children to greater and unnecessary concerns.
An independent appeals mechanism should be put in place and a mediation service is also necessary. Many agencies are taking the view that their records belong to them rather than the individual involved. There should be more openness and co-operation. Some of the voluntary agencies are acting like power brokers. They should promote co-operation between themselves and the people with whom they are dealing rather then, as Senator Neville said, shrouding themselves in secrecy and none of us want that. When we establish a contact register and if we provide access to birth certificates to adopted persons, resources should be put in place to support agencies like Barnardo's etc. because they are dealing with the people involved. They cannot do the work expected of them without the necessary resources.
I fully support the sentiments expressed in Senator McGennis' motion and I urge the Minister to continue the work he outlined in his speech. Within the not too distant future, we may see the demands in this motion being implemented and regulations and legislation introduced.
I first want to thank all those Members who supported my motion. I do not wish to appear to be nitpicking but I am not at all convinced that what the Minister said will lead to an immediate establishment of a contact register. I would like to deal with a few of the points the Minister raised in his speech. As we have time, perhaps the Minister could clarify them.
All the items I referred to in my motion, specifically the right to a birth certificate database and the establishment of an independent appeals mechanism, have been put on the long finger by the Minister because of legal constraints. It appears there are no legal impediments in setting up the contact register. However, I still want to refer to the Minister's speech because I do not want to leave this room thinking the Minister is about to set up a contact register when I fear that will not happen.
In his speech the Minister mentioned a Circuit Court case, which has been referred to the Supreme Court, dealing with the right of children who were informally adopted in this country prior to the enactment of adoption legislation to know the identity of their natural parents. The Minister said that
It would be prudent to await clarification of the constitutional and other legal issues surrounding the question of access to birth records before proceeding with any initiatives in this area. Such considerations also apply to the establishment of a comprehensive database of relevant material from the National Archives, birth records and adoption societies. Issues which need to be considered in relation to such a database include, for example, application of the provisions of the Data Protection Act, 1988, which set out stringent restrictions....
That is perfect. If there are stringent restrictions, there is no problem. However, if there are not, the Minister has a problem. Before announcing a contact register, the Minister says that
Clarification of the legal and constitutional position is, of course, essential. I have no option but to wait until that clarification is available to me. However, I am determined to proceed as quickly as is possible in the circumstances to facilitate contact between adopted children and birth parents, where it is desired by both parties.
Is the Minister waiting for that legal clarification before doing that?
That sentence was deliberately put in to make it clear that the constitutional and legal difficulties to which I refer will not prevent me from setting up a voluntary contact register.
Before the Minister gets clarification of the legal and constitutional position?
Yes.
I am pleased to hear that.
When will the register be set up and by whom? The Minister is saying that such a contact register will be established on an administrative basis pending clarification by the Supreme Court of the legal issues relating to access to birth records and that he will bring it before Government. The Minister has already said that he would bring it before Government at least twice in the media but he has not yet done so.
I said that I will be bringing a set of proposals to Government in relation to the continued development of child care services in the very near future. This package will include proposals in relation to the operation of a contact register. I am sure Senator McGennis would agree that there is no point in setting up a contact register unless one has the resources to do so.
Absolutely. The Minister has stated publicly on television — I have seen it at least twice — that he will be establishing a contact register.
I said I was giving consideration to it.
There are people in this House who may be more informed than me on this matter, but my recollection of what the Minister said after various crises arose was that he would be setting up a contact register.
My recollection should be better than any of them.
That is extremely arrogant.
I said these things so I should remember them better than anyone else.
As much of this package has still not been brought before Government, why will it be brought in the context of child care proposals? We are talking about adults, not children. Even the Minister's speech says that people over 18 years of age are allowed access to birth certificates in other countries. I do not see the reason for linking the introduction of a package of proposals on adults to a child care package. The Minister has not done it yet. When the child care proposals are ready, it will then be brought to Government.
There is some sleight of hand here. This contact register is no nearer than it was 20 years ago when some of the groups in this House today began their campaigns. The Minister was able to introduce legislation on the horrific situation with Chinese children. No legislation on this matter has ever been brought into this House. It is always as a result of High Court, Supreme Court and European cases taken by adoptees or natural parents.
Acting Chairman
The Senator has gone over time.
I will finish——
I know, but there are rules in the House and I have to obey them the same as the Senator and everybody else. The Senator's time is up.
I do not have the right of reply
Adoption is linked with love — the love of the parents who adopt the child and the love of the mother who gave up the child. I do not see that being reflected in the Minister of State's commitment. It is not a commitment. It has been a fob-off in order to make sure that this motion does not go to a vote, and I could nearly put money on it that during the life of this Government there will no contact register established.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Acting Chairman
When is it proposed to sit again?
It is proposed to sit at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.