Amendment No. 50 has been already discussed with amendment No. 2. Is the amendment being pressed?
Adoption Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed).
May I speak to the amendment at this point?
Amendment No. 50 not moved.
Section 81 agreed to.
SECTION 82.
Question proposed: "That section 82 stand part of the Bill."
Section 82 states, ". . . not later than 3 months after the date of entry". Is that an international norm? I presume this relates to a child adopted from a country with which we have a bilateral agreement or which is a signatory to the Hague Convention. While 3 months may be a fairly arbitrary period, perhaps the Minister of State will indicate the reason in this regard. In other words, parents are given 12 weeks to notify the State of a child's entry into the country. Am I correct that this will be the first indication the State will have that a child is being adopted from a country with which we have a bilateral agreement or which is signatory to the Hague Convention, which are the only countries from which one can adopt?
It is the outer limit, which is reasonable given the long settling in process in terms of adoption of a child. In my view, it is fair.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 83 to 85, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 86.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 50, subsection (2), line 7, after "Authority" to insert the following:
", which shall give consent to that information being given where the adopted person and the person placing the child for adoption have agreed through a tracing mechanism to be established by the Authority that the information can be given".
This amendment deals with tracing and the need to put in place a formal tracing mechanism. This issue is an integral part of adoption in the sense that a person who in later years wishes to find out who he or she is or to inquire into his or her background and find out from where he or she came has a right and entitlement to do so. It is a right, within the limits and constraints laid down, that should be vindicated. I regret the Bill does not address this issue.
Amendment No. 53 seeks to add to section 96 a paragraph (e) which states: “promoting the development of services to assist persons who were adopted and persons who have placed children for adoption to trace one another”. Amendment No. 51 seeks to amend section 86 and to add to it. We all understand that an tArd-Chláraitheoir will keep an index to make traceable the connection between each entry in the adopted children’s register and the corresponding entry in the Register of Births. Section 86(2) states:
Notwithstanding section 85, the index kept under subsection (1) shall not be open to public inspection [which is fair enough] and no information from that index shall be given to any person except by order of a court or of the Authority.
We want to add to that "which shall give consent to that information being given where the adopted person or the person placing the child for adoption have agreed through a tracing mechanism to be established by the Authority that the information can be given". Amendment No. 53 seeks to include in the activities concerned in section 96 the objective of promoting the development of tracing services. Amendment No. 51 seeks to facilitate this in the context of the register.
There is a danger of this being a missed opportunity for us to view adoption as a life-long status for people. Adoption is not purely mechanical. We are speaking here of complex issues of law. However, adoption is not based on legal instrument; it is a reality for the entirety of a person's life. We should take this opportunity in this good and comprehensive Bill to go further and require the introduction of a form of tracing mechanism that would be supported and managed publicly. I am sure the Minister of State and other Members have had the experience of meeting persons in their constituencies wishing to trace their birth parents. We understand the sensitivities and mutuality involved and the fact that it is not often easily done. Nevertheless, there has been much development in this area in terms of how such matters can be sensitively managed.
Perhaps the Minister of State will seriously consider including these provisions as an objective and in doing so provide access to the register in circumstances where there is reciprocal agreement between the persons involved and in the context of a tracing mechanism which I hope he will consider introducing.
On the face of it, Senator White's argument appears to be quite plausible. I accept the reasons for it. As they get older, many people who were adopted as children want to acquire information about their natural parents. This amendment will not prevent those who wish to retain their confidentiality from doing so. The manner in which it is structured ensures such people will not be affected. If this proposal is accepted, the court will not need to exercise discretion in cases in which the child and one of his or her natural parents — the mother, in most instances — wish to trace each other and make contact. The point being made by Senator White, as I understand it, is that if both parties agree to such a process, the court will automatically consent to it. That would make eminent sense, on the face of it. It is natural for a person to want to get to know his or her natural parents. It happens quite frequently. Perhaps our legislation should be amended so that this is not merely a question of judicial discretion. We should prescribe in legislation the circumstances in which consent is given by the judicial system.
Many adopted people have concerns about not being able to trace their natural parents. It is obvious that one cannot trace one's natural parents if one's natural mother does not want contact to be made. In such circumstances, I do not think adopted people should be unable to get information that could be of importance for them. I refer, for example, to information on genetic matters that could have consequences for their health. While we might not be there yet, it is confidently expected that DNA advances will soon give us a clear picture of the prognosis for our health. If such information can be obtained at the time of the adoption, it would make sense for it to be maintained on the adoption index and made available to the adopted person if he or she requests it at some stage in the future. I appreciate I am going beyond the point made by Senator White. I might be getting into a complex technical area. The entitlements of adopted people should be paramount in all of this. I agree with Senator White that this legislation is comprehensive and, in the main, very good. I ask the Minister of State to examine closely the amendment before the House, which would strengthen this Bill, to see if there is any reason it should not be included.
I thank Senator White for proposing these amendments, which I have considered carefully. The Senator is proposing in amendment No. 51 that in certain circumstances, the authority, having considered the issues involved, should not have the discretion to limit the publication of certain information and restrict access to public inspection of such information. I am not sure what he is getting at. I do not oppose the principle of giving precedence to any agreement reached by the adopted person and the person who placed the child for adoption. However, we need to examine closely the question of how such an agreement can be arrived at. The amendment refers to "a tracing mechanism to be established by the Authority". How do we go into that? If the Senator withdraws this amendment, perhaps we can consider the matter more carefully in advance of Report Stage.
Amendment No. 53 relates to the development of services to help people who have been adopted and people who placed children for adoption to trace one another. I have not changed my view on this matter since the last time we discussed it. The functions of the authority are set out in this Bill. A substantial amount of administrative work has been done to assist tracing. The contact preference register is in place. I have with me a copy of the standardised framework for the provision of a national information and tracing service, which was launched in November 2008. The authority administers the framework, which was drawn up in a manner that is consistent with international best practice in terms of tracing, very well. At this stage, there is no need to put any obligations in that regard on a statutory footing. Our framework is being piloted and scoped out. Stakeholders are being consulted to ensure it is a workable and proper framework. If we subsequently think statutory provision is required, it may be appropriate to do so at some future stage. I ask Senator White to withdraw amendment No. 51 to allow us to consider the possibility of including a provision of that nature on Report Stage. I oppose amendment No. 53.
I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 51 on the basis that the Minister of State is willing to examine the matter in advance of Report Stage. I thank him for indicating his willingness to do so. The Minister of State wondered whether I was intending to stymie or alter the discretion of the authority in some way. I am not hung up on that question. If the Minister of State wants to maintain the authority's over-riding discretion when it comes to whether to give access, I think I can understand where he is coming from. If the particular set of circumstances to which I referred could be comprehended in any provision the Minister of State might consider, that might deal with it. If the Minister of State wants the authority to maintain an over-riding discretion in this matter, I do not have a huge problem with that.
I was a little disappointed with the Minister of State's response to amendment No. 53, which advocates the development of tracing services. The two amendments are being debated together because they are quite closely linked. One amendment supports the other. I am familiar with the mechanism or regime referred to by the Minister of State. I admire and welcome the substantial work that has been done in the tracing area, and the significant developments that have resulted from it. As we introduce comprehensive legislation to deal with this country's entire legal regime, and the supporting regime, in the area of adoption, it seems a pity not to set out a statutory requirement to provide for tracing services. The Minister of State acknowledged that the administration of such services is already a function of the authority, but he added he does not want to include it in the Act, which is a pity. I accept there is often a reluctance to include in statute things that can be left at the administrative level. It seems to me that people across the board — professionals and service users, if I can call them that, such as families and adopted people — will see this important Bill as the bible of our statutory and legal adoption regime.
I think the Minister of State appreciates that adoption does not finish at the moment of adoption. If a person is adopted, that is his or her lifelong status. It is important to record in the legislation the necessity and importance of tracing services. When we looked to see how we would put that into the Bill, we thought the best way of doing so was to include it as a function of the authority because then it has a statutory footing. Otherwise, we would be speaking about introducing separate sections to set out the tracing services and that level of detail would not be appropriate to legislation. However, it is appropriate that it is stated clearly and put into the heart of the legislation that there will be, and ought to be developed and further improved, these tracing mechanisms. I do not quite understand why we cannot have this included as a function, if it is already a function.
I support this amendment. On Second Stage I spoke about the need for the legislation to deal with the principles of tracing and the move towards open adoption, of which tracing is obviously one part.
Over the years there have been inconsistencies in practice between agencies, as the Minister of State will be well aware. I welcome the best practice model and I hope that will be widely implemented because that is what is needed.
I welcome the Minister of State looking at this and seeing if there is some way in which he can build it into statute because that is the right way to go. People have had unnecessary difficulties. On both sides, whether it is the adoptive parent or the person trying to trace his or her family, there have been difficulties. This is a good amendment. I ask the Minister of State to look at both of these amendments.
Senator White makes a persuasive argument. The point I made initially — I cannot really elaborate on it — is that we are in consultation in terms of international adoption and the effect of tracing.
Many of the young people who were adopted from overseas are coming of age. Those adopted from Romania, in that period in the early 1990s, are coming of age and we are beginning to learn a great deal about the significance of tracing. Because the framework is new as well, we are beginning to learn a great deal about it.
The decision was made to exclude the post-adoption functions, whether it be as envisaged by amendment No. 52 on the promotion of post-adoption services, or any of these services from a statutory basis. We have some way to go before we put these functions on a statutory function. It is at a nascent stage. We will be in a better position to decide who the correct authority to do that is or whether it needs to be put on a statutory footing in due course. Maybe we can revisit it on Report Stage but that is my view.
We are developing these services. We are providing for a big incremental improvement to this area and we will know a great deal more in the next few years as these young citizens come of age.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 86 agreed to.
Sections 87 to 95, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 96.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 65, subsection (1), between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"(d) promoting the development of post adoption services;”.
The Minister of State anticipated this amendment in his remarks on the previous one. As I understand the Government's position, it is not necessary or it may be too soon to include in legislation provisions on the development of post-adoption services.
We want this legislation not only to codify the law but, as I stated earlier, to be the "Bible" of or central important document in our adoption law and adoption practice. I am not convinced that from the point of view of legislation we can turn our backs on the importance of post-adoption services. The case for the importance of adoption services has been made repeatedly.
I repeat the point I made on tracing. Whereas I understand the reluctance to set out in any kind of detail in legislation what the correct services and best practices ought to be because that is not a matter for legislation, it seems the necessity of post-adoption services and the role of the authority in promoting the development of post-adoption services is a sufficiently clear and important statement of intent by the Legislature that this is an activity which we wish to see happening, which we will promote and which people can expect will be a core activity of our adoption services.
I am a little disappointed at the attitude, which appears to be that that is for later on. It is not for later on. If it will be important in two or five years' time, it is important now.
Nothing in the amendment that my party proposes ties the hands of the Department or the Minister of State on what precisely those services would entail. I understand that there are developing practices, there are new practices, new ways of approaching this, new studies, new information and new expertise. I understand all of that but that is not to say the Minister of State should feel precluded from including within the functions of the authority a commitment to the development of post-adoption services. As I stated, the legislation is a beacon. It is what tells one what is the law in Ireland on adoption. One will look to this Bill when it is enacted and we should include in this important legislation a reference to post-adoption services as being at the heart of what we propose the regime would entail. In those circumstances I am not convinced it is something that should be put off.
I do not think the Minister of State is saying to the House that these services are not important. I am not interpreting him as saying that. However, I merely want him to go that step further and have it stated in the legislation.
I also support this amendment. People have waited a long time for this legislation. It must be seen to be state-of-the-art legislation, which is what the Minister of State hopes and wants. It seems that post-adoption services are integral to the process. The kind of services suggested in this amendment would be really necessary and integral for persons who are in this position, who have adopted or who have been adopted and who want to trace.
The Minister of State mentioned the kind of emerging information on children who were adopted from Romania. Obviously, with increasing international adoption, the demands on the services will be ever more complex. It is appropriate that the Minister of State would provide in statute that this would be part of the service that the State would want to be seen to give to a high standard. This is the place to do it.
As I mentioned, this is an area we have discussed previously. When a child is adopted he or she accrues all the same rights as an Irish citizen and enjoys the benefits of the Child Care Act.
What is anticipated by the amendment is post-adoption services to do with psychological supports that would be individual to somebody who has been adopted. Such supports are available in the normal way through the HSE. As Senator Fitzgerald pointed out, where a child is adopted into this country, he or she must be notified to the HSE within three months of his or her arrival and, therefore, he or she is entitled to the same health surveillance as a child born in the State. The adoption authority has a specific role in adoption. It is the central authority under the convention and post-adoption services should be provided by the HSE, as is the case under the Child Care Act 1991. All children should be dealt with in the same way. We are determined that unaccompanied children seeking asylum will be treated in the same way as all other citizens. We do not want a twin-track approach and, while I appreciate the Senator does not propose that, it should not be a central role of the authority. We did not set out to do that. Post-adoption services are provided through the HSE under the Child Care Act 1991.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.