I welcome the Minister.
Adjournment Matters
Inter-Country Adoptions
This is my first time to welcome the Minister to the House in his new capacity. We both know that elements of this Adjournment motion were discussed at a committee meeting last week, but that is purely coincidental. I was not even aware of the committee's wide-ranging discussion until I read about it the following day. I was prompted to table this motion by one or two instances of parents attempting to adopt children but being caught in the limbo that has seemingly existed since the ratification of the Hague convention. It has been suggested that the convention, which was supposed to clear the way for adoptions, is actually a major obstacle.
National newspapers have published articles on this issue in recent months, one of which I will quote from in a moment to support the case calling for statements or observations from the Department concerning all that has been happening - or, more accurately, not been happening - since the convention's ratification in 2010. The heading of an article in The Irish Times reads: "Changes to adoption law have shattered my hopes of becoming a parent." The lady in question referred to the life-changing days in her life, for example, 1 November 2010, when "the Republic finally enacted the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption". She stated: "There is very little domestic adoption here now." She continued:
Before November 2010, government agreements meant the principal countries from which Irish people could adopt children were Russia, Ethiopia and Vietnam - known, in bureaucratic jargon, as the Republic's "sending countries". Russia and Ethiopia do not comply with the convention, so they are no longer options for anyone with a declaration issued after November 2010, a "post-Hague declaration". Those countries are also now closed to people who adopted from them with pre-Hague declarations and had hoped to return to adopt another child. Lobby groups have been established for both Russia and Ethiopia, seeking bilateral agreements with the Republic, but so far they have had no success.
Bulgaria complies with the convention, and a number of Irish people have sent their applications there, but since 2010 just one Bulgarian child has been adopted from Ireland by parents with a post-Hague declaration. Nobody could call that an encouraging statistic....
There have been other intercountry adoptions here since the enactment of the Hague convention. They continued until last year for people whose declarations were issued before November 2010, as the declarations were valid for three years. There were 446 such adoptions between 2011 and 2013.
But there has been a stark change since the convention was ratified. Only 11 children have been adopted by people with post-Hague declarations: two in 2011, six in 2012, three in 2013. There have been no post-Hague adoptions so far this year. It is hard not to conclude that intercountry adoption has all but stopped here.
This issue is at the core of my question. What has happened? There seems to be a great deal of below-the-radar criticism of the Adoption Authority of Ireland and its practices, for example, referring people to a third party agency called Arc Adoption that costs prospective adopters between €15,000 and €20,000 even though many cannot afford anything of that nature. I have read that going to Bulgaria personally to pursue an adoption costs €5,000. The authority's chairman has endorsed Arc Adoption, but questions have been raised by sources close to the authority about its credibility in this matter.
Serious questions must be addressed. At the committee meeting, the various agencies associated with adoptions raised similar issues with the changes to the legislation. I am sure that, by this stage, the Minister has been well briefed on the issues and I would be grateful for his response.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the Seanad on this issue and I thank Senator Mooney for raising it. In the course of the few moments available to me, I will inform the Seanad of how the landscape has changed in respect of inter-country adoptions and provide a better picture of what inter-country adoption might look like in the future.
The decrease in the number of inter-country adoptions worldwide in the past decade has been substantial. The total number of children adopted into the top 12 receiving states in 2004 was greater than 43,000. By 2011, however, this number had decreased by almost 50%. One of the major catalysts for the changed landscape of inter-country adoption has been the worldwide implementation and adherence to the principles of the Hague convention on adoption, which has been central to the development of inter-country adoption worldwide and to ensuring that the core values of inter-country adoption are those that protect children. When we recall some of the practices of the past in our own country, for example, informal adoptions, we can appreciate the need for strong legislation and an international child-centred approach to adoption. It allows for a transparency in the inter-country adoption process that, in the long run, protects all involved, most especially the child.
Economic and social change in those countries that have traditionally been sending countries for inter-country adoption has also had an impact. Children are being adopted domestically, not only because the convention's principles demand it, but because the economic circumstances of developing Third World economies enable domestic adoptions. This has led to a change in the age and needs of children in need of adoption. If the core Hague principles, such as informed and considered parental consent and subsidiarity in the adoption processes, are adhered to, the age and needs profile of children who become available for adoption will continue to change.
The issue of the adoption of children with additional needs, medical or age-related, or with needs related to the transition from long-term foster care is being given consideration in Ireland.
The assessment of the needs of these children must be comprehensive and transparent if their needs are to be served effectively by the inter-country adoption process and met by the receiving country. The needs of the older child may also present challenges. To address such challenges, prospective adopters need guidance, advice and assistance before, during and after the adoption. However, there is still a continued need for inter-country adoption. While the principle of subsidiarity is vital, there are children throughout the world who would benefit from inter-country adoption. The benefits are not just for the child and family concerned but also for the fabric of Irish society. These children have a valuable contribution to make and it is imperative that the Hague Convention, in its operation, works to assist them in that process as much as it works to protect them.
My predecessor asked Dr. Shannon, in his capacity as chairman of the Adoption Authority of Ireland, to review the implementation and operation of the Adoption Act 2010, which allows for implementation of the Hague Convention in Ireland. I hope this review and my own consideration of the Act will allow us to address ways in which Irish legislation can fully adhere to the convention and the ways in which the Act can facilitate Hague Convention adoptions, while at the same time ensuring children in need of adoption can be placed in Ireland.
As I said, the total number of adoptions into the top 12 receiving states fell by almost 50 % between 2004 and 2011. The passing of the Adoption Act 2010 and Ireland's ratification of the Hague Convention have had similar implications for the number of inter-country adoptions in Ireland. While we are part of a worldwide trend, we need to keep our procedures and process constantly under review in order to ensure we achieve the best outcomes possible for the children concerned. I listened to what the Senator had to say and note, in particular, his remarks about countries such as Russia, Ethiopia, Vietnam and Bulgaria. I have already met some of the groups involved and will remain in close contact with them. I am sure the Senator will agree that adherence to best legal principles internationally and nationally is paramount in this regard. I have taken on board his comments on the Adoption Authority of Ireland and will communicate with him at an early date about my intentions in that regard.
I emphasise that I am not suggesting what the Adoption Authority of Ireland is doing is in any way incorrect, rather I am saying there appears to be a perception, including in the media, that parents are afraid to raise concerns about their relationship with the authority and their referral by it to third parties, which process is costing them a great deal of money. They are afraid that if they raise concerns, this will somehow inhibit their possible chances of adopting a child. That is the reason I raise the issue. There must be some questions raised about why it should cost so much money. My understanding is the money must be paid up-front. It seems that this is a financial burden too far.
I am pleased that the Minister has made reference to the countries I mentioned because they are the ones in which Irish parents were previously successful in adopting pre the Hague Convention 2010. Does he have a timeline for completion of the review and his consideration of its findings and the Act? Obviously, time is ticking for the parents who have been in the system for so many years.
I accept that the Senator in his capacity as a public representative and a Member of this House for many years is entitled to ask questions and that I have a duty to provide answers. It is my intention to meet the Adoption Authority of Ireland during the next few weeks. I will specifically address with it the issue of a timeframe for completion of the review.
On the accredited agencies which the Senator has described as third parties, under international obligations, we must establish such agencies to assist in and facilitate the process. The Senator's remarks on costs relate to one of these agencies. There are costs involved and I accept the Senator's remarks on the scheduling of fees. In the circumstances it is important that costs be kept to a minimum and that there be full transparency in the process. I am sure the Senator will accept that there are costs involved.
I will arrange an early meeting with the Adoption Authority of Ireland. I am conscious of the remarks made by the Senator which I will bring to the attention of the chairman of the authority. I hope to have an opportunity to report back to the House on the issues raised by the Senator in the not too distant future.
Abortion Legislation
I welcome the Minister, Deputy James Reilly. This matter arises from written question No. 655 submitted on 31 January 2014 to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe by Mr. Ángel Pintado, a Spanish MP, concerning late term abortions and the rights of newborns who survive late term abortions. As stated by him, in a number of European countries which allow late term abortions it happens that foetuses often survive. The Minister will recall that this issue was discussed in this Chamber last year.
News programmes and articles featuring interviews with health care workers reveal that it is not uncommon to find an aborted foetus with a beating heart and struggling to breathe. For example, it was reported that in the United Kingdom that 66 babies aborted in a particular year had been left to die after the abortions had gone wrong. In Sweden one such child lived autonomously for 90 minutes after the abortion and received no care before he died. In Norway there is evidence to show that some of these newborns could have been viable if they had received the appropriate medical care.
The question put to the Committee of Ministers by Mr. Pintado was what specific steps it would take to guarantee that foetuses that survived abortions were not deprived the medical treatment to which they were entitled as human persons born alive according to the European Convention on Human Rights. As a member state of the Council of Europe, Ireland must take a position on this question. I respectfully ask the Minister what position the Government has taken or will take on this matter when it comes before the Council of Europe. Having regard to the constitutional position in Ireland, in particular, I would have thought it behoved the Government to honour the spirit of the Constitution and defend the right to life of the unborn, particularly in such cruel circumstances, and add its voice in defence of the right of the child to live. Also, who, on behalf of the Government, will contribute to the elaboration of the reply of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe?
To provide clarity for Senators on what is being discussed, the following question was submitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe: "What specific steps will the Committee of Ministers take in order to guarantee that foetuses who survive abortions are not deprived of the medical treatment that they are entitled to - as human persons born alive - according to the European Convention on Human Rights?"
The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 requires that the treating doctor must always consider the possibility of preserving the life of the unborn. Therefore the legislation clearly requires that unborn human life must be saved, where this is possible, without compromising the right to life of the woman. In cases of early induction, the neonate must receive the necessary care in accordance with clinical guidelines and best practice. Our response will reflect this extremely clear position.
An initial reply was circulated in May and it was in line with Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. A new draft reply, reflecting the views received by some delegations, was circulated by the secretariat for comments. My officials have considered the revised draft and have submitted views on it to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. If there are no further amendments, the draft reply will be formally put to the Committee of Ministers for agreement on 9 July. If consensus is not reached, consideration will likely be deferred until a later date.
As the House is aware, the Government's position on this matter is extremely clear. Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution states: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its law to respect and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." The written question was submitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe by a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. As such, it is for the Committee of Ministers' deputies, which comprises the permanent representatives of all Council of Europe member states, to agree a reply. We will be advising our permanent representation in Strasbourg of our response through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and it will report back to the Committee of Ministers.
I thank the Minister for his response. I understand from it that the thrust of the Irish Government's position will be in favour of protecting children in that situation and preserving their lives. Will it be possible for us to access the brief from the Irish Government, both at the initial stage and also as the attempt to reach consensus is made? Is it possible for the Minister to furnish us with the brief that will be given to our representative at the Council of Europe?
To confirm the Senator's interpretation, it is absolutely the case that the Government will make it very clear that our position is to protect the right to life of the newborn. With regard to the Senator's question, I would have to consult the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade before I would be in a position to revert to him.
Road Projects
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Perry. The A5 and the Narrow Water Bridge projects are significant cross-Border infrastructural projects and are worthy of support on a number of fronts.
Last week, at the meeting of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement representatives from both sides of the Border in the north west, comprising the A5 working group, appeared before the committee and called for a further push to deliver the A5 upgrade. The project includes 86 km of dual carriageway from Aughnacloy in County Tyrone to Newbuildings outside Derry city. As the committee chairman, Deputy Joe McHugh, stated, there is no doubt that the long-standing dearth of modern transport infrastructure in the north west is seriously hindering development and the relatively high unemployment and poverty rates can be directly attributable to this lack of connectivity. Tight timelines are required to avoid any further slippages on the delivery of this critical piece of infrastructure.
With regard to the Narrow Water Bridge, unfortunately we ran out of time on the last occasion despite the great efforts of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar. We must renew our efforts to provide this unique piece of infrastructure, which will do so much for tourism in the south Down and north Louth area, including in villages and towns such as Carlingford and Omeath, Warrenpoint, Kilkeel and Newcastle. It has the support of people of all political opinions on both sides of the Border. The last meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council stated that the council supports the concept of the Narrow Water Bridge. I request that this be changed to "is committed to the Narrow Water Bridge" and that the council will agree to support a new funding application under INTERREG V. Furthermore, the criteria for applications for INTERREG V funding will be drawn up between September and December. Ireland, Scotland and the Northern Executive must ensure that the criteria are fit for the Narrow Water Bridge.
I am replying on behalf of my colleague, Deputy Varadkar, Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, and I thank Senator D'Arcy raising this important issue.
As the Senator is aware, Narrow Water Bridge is expected to be discussed at the plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council on Friday, 4 July, in Dublin Castle. The improvement and maintenance of regional and local roads is the statutory responsibility of each local authority, in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Roads Act 1993. Works on those roads are funded from local authorities' own resources, supplemented by State road grants paid by the Minister's Department. The initial selection and prioritisation of works to be funded is also a matter for the local authority.
The Minister has confirmed many times, through parliamentary questions and in other fora, the Government's disappointment that the Narrow Water Bridge tender process resulted in a doubling of the initial costs budgeted for by the project partners for the construction of the bridge. Given the budgetary constraints that his Department is operating under, it could not take on full responsibility for the increased project cost and the significant risks involved in the project. While the Minister was willing to consider assisting with the shortfall, this was explicitly contingent on significant contributions from other parties, including the Northern Ireland Executive. These commitments were not forthcoming within the timescale required for the INTERREG IV A programme.
The Special EU Programmes Body, SEUPB, then decided to withdraw its funding for the project and to reallocate the funding to other eligible projects in the transport sector to ensure that the EU funds were not lost, which was the intelligent thing to do. The Minister looks forward to an announcement in conjunction with the SEUPB regarding the re-allocation of that EU funding to other transport projects on Friday morning. As to the possibility of the Narrow Water bridge qualifying for funding under the next INTERREG V, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is the lead Department liaising with the SEUPB regarding the INTERREG V funding process. The Minister understands that the SEUPB has now published a draft operational programme for public comment with a set of funding priorities.
As regards the possibility of grant funding from the Department for the project, the Minister has confirmed that his Department is not in a position to grant aid the project as he does not have the scale of resources required when the priority must be road maintenance and restoration as against new projects. No similar new road or bridge projects are going to construction anywhere in the State at present and some that are at a much more advanced stage than the Narrow Water Bridge have been stalled due to lack of finance. However, the situation might change should there be a substantial increase in the Department's capital budget in the future. The Minister's Department must work within the very constrained budget available to it.
As the Senator will be aware, the Northern Ireland High Court decided in March 2013 that an appropriate assessment of the impact of the A5 scheme on the River Foyle and the River Finn, which are special areas of conservation under the habitats directive, was needed and consequently quashed the Minister for Regional Development's approval for construction of two road sections of the route. Since that decision, the Northern Ireland authorities have been working on the preparation of the necessary environmental assessments and revised statutory orders and considerable progress has been made in getting the assessments and orders prepared and out for public consultation. The outcome of the public consultation process will have to be considered and factored into the decision on the need for a new public inquiry next year. The Government's comprehensive review of expenditure for the period 2015 to 2017 and the capital review for the period 2015 to 2019 have commenced. Those involved in these reviews will consider new ways of achieving Government objectives in the current tight fiscal climate, including the extent to which funding will be available for the maintenance and development of the road network. The Minister cannot say at this point what will be the outcome of process relating to the comprehensive and capital reviews. He has, however, drawn the attention of the Minister for Public Expenditure to the need to consider the position in respect of the A5.
I thank the Minister of State for his very comprehensive reply. I am pleased that it has been confirmed that the matter is expected to be discussed at the plenary meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council on Friday, 4 July in Dublin Castle. I expect that the support expressed at the previous meeting will be upgraded to a commitment. I am pleased the Narrow Water bridge project remains in the mix for funding under INTERREG V. As stated earlier, we must ensure that the bridge project can meet the criteria laid down. People are aware of the Taoiseach's support for the project but very few are aware of the amount of support the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, has given to it. I am sure the Minister and his Department will continue to support it.
The project relating to the A5 is extremely important. I note with interest that the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport has again drawn the attention of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to the need, in budgetary terms, to consider the position in respect of this project. I hope that no new public inquiry will be needed next year. We thought that such an inquiry might have been necessary in respect of the Narrow Water bridge project but that did not prove to be the case. I hope that the position in respect of the A5 will be similar and that all of the relevant questions will be answered in a satisfactory fashion in order that the project might proceed on time. I thank the Minister of State for coming before the House.
I thank Senator Jim D'Arcy for raising this very important issue. I will convey his very kind comments to the Minister, Deputy Varadkar. I have no doubt that the Taoiseach will be delighted by people's determination to see this project progressed. There is no harm in repeating that in the context of the possibility of the Narrow Water bridge project qualifying for funding under the next INTERREG V, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is the lead Department liaising with the SEUPB regarding the INTERREG V funding process. The Minister understands that the SEUPB has now published a draft operational programme for public comment with a set of funding priorities. I have no doubt the project will be discussed in the context of that process. It was, as already stated, contemplated under INTERREG IV and there is no doubt that it could be possible for it to be considered under INTERREG V.
The Northern Ireland Office is working to deal with the environmental concerns relating to the A5 project. The Senator and Deputy McHugh in the Lower House have consistently advocated this project. I have no doubt that the issue of INTERREG V funding will be discussed at the meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council in Dublin Castle. The Government secured a considerable amount of funding under the programme for the period 2014 to 2020. I have no doubt that the project in question will be considered in the context of the draft operational programme published by the SEUPB.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.35 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 3 July 2014.