Special Committee Recognition of Foreign Adoptions Bill, 1990 debate -
Wednesday, 17 Apr 1991

SECTION 1.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 2, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following definitions:

"‘adoption order' means an order under section 9 of the Principal Act;

‘the Board' means An Bord Uchtála;".

The insertion of these definitions is necessary to facilitate later amendments of mine which refer to adoption orders and to the board. I might mention for the sake of clarity that adoptions effected in the State are referred to in my amendments as having been made under an adoption order whereas those made outside the State are referred to as foreign adoptions.

Mr. Shatter

I think it is important to say that I agree to those amendments and to put on record that as we travel through this and other amendments — because in effect the Committee will be referring to orders as being adoption orders later on in the context of recognised orders — it will mean that when a foreign adoption takes place it is accepted as an adoption order, that we recognise that the children adopted outside the State will be placed in the same legal position in this country as children who are adopted within the State, who will be treated as the children of the adoptive parents. The interaction of the amendments together with the further provisions in the Bill will bring about that effect.

It achieves exactly the same result as we set out to achieve with the Bill as originally drafted. It is just that we are using a somewhat different format to achieve that result. I am happy with these amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 2, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following definition:

"‘foreign adoption' means an adoption of a child who at the date on which the adoption was effected was under the age of 21 years or, if the adoption was effected after the commencement of this Act, 18 years, which was effected outside the State by a person or persons under and in accordance with the law of the place where it was effected and in relation to which the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) the consent to the adoption of every person whose consent to the adoption was, under the law of the place where the adoption was effected, required to be obtained or dispensed with was obtained or dispensed with under that law,

(b) the adoption has essentially the same legal effect as respects the termination and creation of parental rights and duties with respect to the child in the place where it was effected as an adoption effected by an adoption order,

(c) the law of the place where the adoption was effected required an enquiry to be carried out, as far as was practicable, into the adopters, the child and the parents or guardian,

(d) the law of the place where the adoption was effected required the court or other authority or person by whom the adoption was effected, before doing so, to give due consideration to the interests and welfare of the child,

(e) the adopters have not received, made or given or caused to be made or given any payment or other reward (other than any payment reasonably and properly made in connection with the making of the arrangements for the adoption) in consideration of the adoption or agreed to do so,

and ‘adopter' and ‘adopted child' shall be construed accordingly;".

Members will remember that at the last meeting there was much discussion about this section which contains the definition of a foreign adoption. This substitute amendment provides for a revised definition of a foreign adoption for the purpose of this Bill.

I consider that it is fundamental to include such a definition in the Bill so as to ensure that recognition will be confined to adoptions made in countries which operate a system of legal adoption which is broadly akin to our own and which provides proper safeguards for all the parties to the adoption.

The first point to be noted in relation to the definition is the age of the adopted person at the date of the adoption. Where an adoption takes places abroad, after the commencement of the legislation, the adopted person must be under the age of 18 years at the date of the adoption. This age corresponds to our own age of majority and to the age at which a child ceases to be eligible for adoption under Irish law. The Law Reform Commission also recommended that recognition should be limited to foreign adoptions made in respect of persons who are below the age of 18 at the time of the adoption. However, the definition contains a special transitional provision to allow for the recognition of adoptions of a person up to the age of 21 years where the adoption was effected before the commencement of the legislation. This is to take account of the fact that the maximum age for adoption here was 21 years until the Adoption Act, 1988 reduced it to 18 years.

The definition also requires the foreign adoption to have been effected under and in accordance with the law of the foreign country concerned. This is also in accordance with a recommendation made by the Law Reform Commission that recognition should be confined to adoptions effected under legislative provisions only. The definition also sets out certain criteria which must be met in each case in order for the foreign adoption to be entitled to recognition in the State. The first condition which must be satisfied is that all necessary consents to the adoption were obtained or dispensed with under the law of the foreign country where the adoption took place. Since parental consent is a fundamental feature of any civilised system of legal adoption, it is essential that it forms part of any criteria for the recognition of foreign adoptions.

The second condition relates to the nature and effect of a foreign adoption. In order to qualify for recognition, it is proposed that the foreign adoption must have essentially the same legal effect as an Irish adoption order, in relation to terminating the legal rights and duties of the natural parents and creating a permanent legal relationship between the adopters and the child. This is necessary because some countries have a process known as simple adoption, which amounts to no more than a form of long term foster care in which the child retains its original name and its succession rights to its natural family.

If the Bill were to provide for recognition of such arrangements it would have the effect of according them a status in this State beyond that which they enjoy in the countries where they were made. This would clearly be undesirable and the amendment ensures that this will not happen.

The third condition which must be satisfied is that the law of the foreign country required an inquiry to be carried out as far as was practicable in relation to the three principal parties to the adoption, the child, the natural parents and the adopters. The purpose of this condition is to ensure, as far as possible, that proper inquiries were made into the circumstances of the three parties concerned during the course of the adoption process.

The fourth condition relates to the interests and welfare of the adopted child. Adoption is fundamentally for the benefit of children who, for whatever reason, cannot grow up in their own natural family. It is essential, therefore, that any court or other authority having the power to make an order for the adoption of a child should be required by the internal law of that country to give due consideration to the welfare of the child before it makes the adoption order. A requirement in relation to the interests and welfare of the child is already a central feature of our own adoption laws. For example, the Adoption Board and the courts, when dealing with any matter relating to the adoption of a child, are required to regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration.

The fifth and final condition laid down in the definition relates to improper payments. This condition is essential to ensure that recognition under the Bill will not extend to so-called adoptions arranged for financial gain. Trafficking in children is repugnant to any civilised norm and we must ensure that our legislation does nothing to encourage or to facilitate this sordid practice.

Mr. Shatter

The Committee will recall we had somewhat lengthy and, I think, at times somewhat heated debate at the last session dealing with what was then amendment No. 2 submitted by the Minister, when I outlined a number of problems that could arise. The new provisions contained in this amendment will provide a proper definition of foreign adoption. What we are, in effect, doing is bringing into the definition section under the concept of foreign adoption many of the criteria that were laid down in section 6, as originally published. It laid down certain criteria that should be applied in determining whether we designate a particular country's adoptions as adoptions that are recognisable within this jurisdiction.

The provisions of this amendment are important and, indeed, they reflect the original thinking behind the Fine Gael Bill. Indeed, in the context of ensuring that the adoptions were made according to the law of the foreign country, we used originally the phase, "the lawfully designed authority" rather than "the foreign country" in relation to foreign adoptions. I am quite happy that the provisions contained in this section will now have the same effect as the Bill originally drafted and that the problems that arose on the Minister's earlier amendment have been resolved in a way which will ensure that the Bill is workable, and workable in particular by the Adoption Board, who are going to be asked to make declarations of recognition of foreign adoptions.

It is important to draw to the Committee's attention the fact that the workability of this section operates not just as a result of the specific changes now made to the Minister's amendments but, also as a result, there will be an interaction between this and a new section, which is referred to as amendment to amendment No. 10. That amendment proposes that a new subsection (4) — it is in the name of the Minister and myself — be inserted in section 14 to ensure that difficulties do not arise for either the Irish courts or the Adoption Board with regard to determining whether proper consent had been given or other foreign law provisions had been complied with in the context of a foreign adoption. I recommend this provision and I am happy to say that the Minister and I were able to agree on what was probably the most complicated aspect of the Bill.

Mr. McCartan

This probably is the first, if not the best, illustration of the good work that has been done. It is an excellent formula and one that clearly, looking at what was there in the original Bill and what the Minister was suggesting, is a compromise and a good workable one at that. I will be supporting it, as I said before, and I will not be repeating myself. I wish to put a couple of brief questions to the Minister. I am not absolutely certain on the principles as to why we have a limit on the age and why, for example, parents should not be allowed to adopt persons over the age of 18 or, indeed, 21? I am prompted to ask that because I am sure other Deputies got correspondence from a citizen, living now in Canada, raising this very point. I am not at all satisfied that his only solution is to look to the provisions of this Bill. There are other solutions but, nonetheless, the correspondence prompts the question. I wonder why we are fixing a limit and what is the social need for that?

May I ask in the workings of this Bill about the requirement that we seek, that the country in which the adoption takes place must carry out in inquiry into other people? Will the report that the adopters will in time be required to carry from Ireland with them be sufficient, or be considered or negotiated to be sufficient, for the purposes of the foreign country? I have received an indication that that is so. I welcome that because that shows our authorities will be actively involved in negotiations and discussions with foreign countries with regard to a common standard. This, I believe, will lead to an equalisation of standards, in so far as they will be carrying a report from the authorities here to the foreign country which, in time, we would expect to be acceptable there. That clarifies the matter from my point of view.

The final point I wish to make is that I am very happy about subsection (e), which deals very straight with what might have been a thorny issue, the question of payments. We clearly do not want to be seen in any way to be promoting the notion of trafficking or improper payments, as the Minister describes them. But that is not to gainsay the fact that many people travelling abroad will, of necessity, involve themselves in expense. There are interpreters, experts, medical personnel and others who will be, of necessity, employed and will have to be employed. There is nothing wrong whatever in people having to go through those types of expertise and services. It is important that we identify and clarify between what are clearly improper and, on the other hand, what will be inevitably necessarily incurred expenses. This is a good amendment and I commend the two sides for having worked out a very workable and useful provision.

Mr. Jacob

First, may I say that I am very pleased with the rapport that has been established between the Minister and Deputy Shatter. It is a healthy development, much better than what took place on the Special Committee that I sat on dealing with the Child Care Bill. This rapport will make for, perhaps, an efficient and expeditious dealing with our business so that this much-needed legislation can be put on the Statute Book efficiently, effectively and speedily.

This amendment is a good one. I am pleased to see subsection (e) stitched into it. I raised at our last meeting the business of baby trading, as I called it at the time, and expressed my great fears that this practice may creep in. I expressed the wish that we would do something during our work on this Committee to ensure that such activity is excluded by our legislation. Some people were rather horrified at the very suggestion that this was happening or, perhaps, misinterpreted what I was saying but the fact of the matter is that it does obtain around the world unfortunately.

I should like to quote from the issue of The Irish Times of 15 April 1991 in which Professor Irene Hillery of University College Dublin said that some couples were paying £3,000 to £4,000 for a baby and even £10,000 for a very good one. That to me is horrific. It is precisely what I was talking about at our last meeting. I want to compliment the Minister and Deputy Shatter for their joint approach to eliminate such a horrific practice.

I will finish with a question. On whom will the onus of proof rest? Will it be assumed that no such payments were made? Will the bona fides of all the parties have to be made explicit? I suggest that the Minister answer that later when he is summing up.

Mr. R. Bruton

In the original Bill the intention was that there would be a recognition of the country. What we now have is that a test case will be done in respect of a country and that will more or less establish a procedure. From then on adoptions in that foreigh country would become relatively easy, conditioned as they are by the amendment to which Deputy Shatter referred. Will the Minister confirm that this procedure in practice will not be excessively burdensome on people, that after one or two cases have gone through in respect of, say, Romania, the country most people are concerned with, it will then be relatively free and easy for the Adoption Board to certify that this definition applies in those countries and there will be no further problems?

Mr. D. Ahern

I would also like to welcome the rapport between the two sides on this. I would like to raise a question in relation to subsection (d) of the amendment which refers to giving due consideration to the interests and welfare of the child. I have looked at the amendments which were tabled for our last meeting and there appears to be a dilution of the interests of the child. The previous amendments stated that the court or other authority should give due consideration to the best interests — I stress the best interests — of the child. I may be accused of engaging in semantics but I always understood that in our legislation we should be taking the interests of the child as paramount and that the child should be the first and most important person to be taken into account. I would be worried that subsection (d) would in some way dilute that paramount consideration. Will the Minister, when replying, deal with this? There seems to be a slight change of emphasis in the second set of amendments. Indeed, the first did not refer to the paramountcy of the interests of the child. That point should be made.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I welcome the amendments and I am pleased that things are working out satisfactorily. I have one question on a practical level. Whilst we are told what a foreign adoption is, and the indications are that it would be from certain countries, we are not told what countries and we are not told what countries will be excluded. Is it intended, in accordance with the guidelines set out, to let the general public know precisely what countries are not included and what countries are? Otherwise, there will be a considerable amount of confusion in the public mind as to whether an adoption from a given country will be recognised.

Chairman

Does the Deputy also want to know the reasons why a country would be excluded?

Mr. O'Donoghue

Those reasons have been set out.

Dr. O'Hanlon

Deputy McCartan asked why we should confine adoptions to children under 18 years of age. The principal reason, of course, is that adoption is about placing children in a home. Formerly children could be adopted up to the age of 21 years here and that was reduced to 18 years in the 1988 legislation. The purpose of adoption is for children to have a home until 18 years of age. Also it would give rise to all kinds of difficult problems, particularly in relation to inheritance, if we were to have adoption available to adults of any age. That is something that would have to be taken into account. Deputy McCartan also raised the question of the reports. The necessary reports will be available to the adopting parents to ensure that they satisfy the country where the child is resident and where the adoption will take place.

Deputy Jacob's point was about payments. It is our intention that persons who have adopted abroad would be obliged to provide a statutory declaration to the Adoption Board when they apply to have the adoption recognised. They will have to confirm that they had not given or caused to be given any improper payments in that statutory declaration.

On the question raised by Deputy O'Donoghue about no country being excluded, the legislation before us is based on the individual adoption rather than on the country. I have no doubt that as we develop a relationship with countries — certainly if there are a number of adoptions from a particular country and we are satisfied with the laws in that country — our laws will facilitate people going abroad from this country and bringing children back for adoption.

Deputy Ahern asked about due consideration being given to the best interests of the child. Under our legislation the best interest of the child is, of course, paramount. That is not universal; it is not the same in other countries and the recognition system has to reflect this. It would create enormous difficulties if we were to insert "in the best interests of the child" when, in many countries, the system is based simply on the interests of the child. It is for that reason the subsection is worded in the way it is.

Mr. Shatter

Just to add to what the Minister said, in a number of countries in relation to adoption they would require the relevant authority, be it a court or an administrative authority, to have regard to the welfare of a child when making an adoption order. They do not all use the phrase, "best interests". We could create a problem where their legal system is more or less the same, where the concerns about the children are the same, but their statutes use a different semantical phraseology to approach the same situation. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that under our Adoption Acts the Adoption Board are required to regard the welfare of the child as the most important consideration when dealing with matters. The Adoption Board are not required to have regard to the phrase, "the best interests of the child". It is only when disputes arise under section 3 of the Adoption Act, 1974, that the courts have to have regard to the best interests of the child.

These phrases have become interchangeable and the phrase now used would have a global application. Whether foreign legislation talked about welfare, interests or best interests it would ensure that recognition would be extended. What is made clear is that before they recognise an adoption order the legislation in the foreign country must have regard to the welfare of the child. It cannot simply be a question of making an adoption order because an adult wants an adoption order to be made. In practical terms legislation in most countries in the world provides for that nowadays. That was not always the case in the past. Indeed, our own Adoption Acts did not import the welfare principle until 1974.

Mr. Ferris

The Minister referred to the question of age in response to what Deputy McCartan said about an Irishman living in Canada. He is particularly worried about what will happen if the definition in section 7 remains. Is it not true that even here a young person over the age of 18 is still considered, for instance, under the social welfare code, as being a dependant provided he is still in full time education? The young man concerned is still a full-time student although he is now 23 years of age. He was 23 years when Canada recognised his adoption. As a matter of clarification is there some other avenue open to this Irishman to be properly adopted under this legislation?

Dr. O'Hanlon

No, it would not be possible because he is over 21. If he was under 21, even though we changed the law in 1988, it is one we could look at in the context of this Bill. Once he is over 21 it would not be possible to introduce legislation that would allow for his adoption.

Mr. Ferris

Our jurisdiction would not recognise the Canadian jurisdiction which has already granted the adoption?

Dr. O'Hanlon

No, because, as I said, the two ages are 21 years up to 1988 and it is 18 years since 1988.

Mr. O'Donoghue

Is it the intention, in the context of the Bill, to eliminate the question of designation of countries? Will the Minister not agree that if this occurs there is a danger that people could adopt a child in a foreign country where one or more of the criteria set out in amendment No. 2 would not be complied with and that the adoption would not be recognised? Would he not agree that it would be better, in the interests of certainty, to designate in accordance with the criteria set out in amendment No. 2, keep a register in that regard and extend or modify it as required? Otherwise I foresee a great deal of uncertainty with prospective adoptive parents and a great deal of confusion.

Mr. D. Ahern

In relation to the point I made earlier, I think it should not go out from the meeting that there is, in effect, a diminution of the emphasis on the interests of the child and I can understand why that is so. It may very well be that in legislation in the foreign country it may not be as sacrosanct that the best interests of the child be taken into account. When we are framing legislation we should bear in mind our ideology in relation to protecting the interests of the child. Under the amendment before us there is a dilution of the interests of the child, or the status of the interests of the child. We have the interests of the adopting parents, the interests of the natural parents and the interests of the child in this whole equation. This amendment, as worded, may be to cater for countries who do not have the emphasis we have in our legislation but it should be made clear that this legislation is not putting the interests of the child on the same level as previous legislation. It is possible that the interests of the child would not be paramount and would be relegated to, say, the second or, indeed, the third.

Miss Coughlan

I hope I can explain my predicament. In the case of two Irish people who, perhaps, emigrated and adopted a child in a foreign country, what would happen if those people came back to this country? Would the adopted child find itself in a predicament whereby the adoption would not be recognised and the child would have no right to a passport and so on? Will the Minister clarify the position on that?

Mr. Shatter

If I could respond to that it would help Deputy Coughlan. Much of what we have been talking about so far is based on the assumption that the people who are going to adopt are resident in this country and they go abroad. That is where the difficulties have been in trying to tease out the best way of dealing with that. Sections 2 and 3 provide for the recognition of adoptions, first where a couple are domiciled abroad and adopt abroad and, secondly where they are habitually resident abroad and adopt abroad. If an Irish couple who for seven or eight years lived abroad and adopted abroad properly according to that country's laws, the adoption would be recognised here. The rules that apply to people living in Ireland do not apply in that case, because they are operating under a different legal system.

May I also respond to Deputy Ahern by saying that there is no intention to water down the concern about the welfare of the child. The section makes it quite clear that the law of the place where the adoption was effected requires that, before the adoption is being effected, due consideration is given to the interests and the welfare of the child. In the context of a recognition of foreign adoptions Bill, I do not think there is any other way of addressing that issue. However, it makes it very clear that the welfare of the child is a very important consideration and must be part and parcel of that foreign country's legislation. I understand the concern expressed by the Deputy, but the phraseology of the Bill is to deal with the reality of the position and to ensure that adoptions, such as the ones we are concerned about in Romania, will have recognition extended to them. The worst of all worlds would be if, due to some semantical attachment, we use a particular form of semantics in the Bill which might, at a later stage, be interpreted by the courts or the Adoption Board as excluding recognition from a series of adoptions, that we believe should be recognised. That was part of the concern here.

Dr. O'Hanlon

Deputy O'Donoghue raised the point about designating foreign countries. The whole basis of our approach is that each foreign adoption must be examined on its merits and to determine whether it is entitled to recognition in the State. I consider that a provision for automatically recognising all adoptions effected in certain countries would cut across this approach. For example, while it might seem reasonable to designate Britain as a country whose adoptions would be automatically recognised here, there may be individual British adoptions which could not be recognised here on the grounds of public policy — for instance, an adoption granted to a couple whose marriage is not recognised in Irish law.

In any event, the Adoption Board when considering an application to have a foreign adoption entered in the register of foreign adoptions, will have to examine the law of the country in question to establish whether the adoption comes within the terms of the definition of a foreign adoption now provided for in the Bill. Where the board satisfy themselves that the law of the country in question satisfies the conditions set out in the definition, this will certainly facilitate the processing of further applications in relation to adoptions granted in that country. Thus the board will effectively be discharging a function similar to the one envisaged for the Minister for Health in the original Bill.

Deputy Shatter responded to Deputy Ahern and the problem there is that we want to ensure we do not put something into our legislation that would prohibit an adoption that we might otherwise accept. As far as we are concerned, there is no question of us giving less attention or prominence to the interests of the child. The change in the wording in subparagraph (d) is not intended in any way to undermine or reduce the position of the child. The change in the wording is to replace a very specific form of words with a more general one to take account of the fact that different countries employ different wordings in their own adoption legislation. I would like to assure the committee that the interests and welfare of children will remain one of the corner stones of our system of recognition.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I appreciate the Minister's point of view and I can understand it very well, but may I express a personal reservation? I do see the danger of setting precedents in relation to foreign adoptions in an ex post facto manner; I would not be sure in relation to the certainty of that. The Law Reform Commission recommended that legislation be enacted giving the Minister for Health power to designate countries or jurisdictions whose adoption orders would be recognised in Ireland. I give this as personal point of view: I believe it would be better in the interests of certainty if countries were designated in accordance with the criteria set out in amendment No. 2, while I recognise the Minister’s point in the matter.

Mr. Cotter

In relation to what Deputy O'Donoghue has been talking about, I have been trying to tease out the issue of couples adopting in different countries at different times; there is always a first couple for a particular country. Is there any mechanism whereby, if a couple intend to visit a country to adopt for whatever reason, they could satisfy themselves beforehand that the law there was suitable to the kind of legislation we have? Will there be a mechanism here whereby they can do research or have a research carried out for them or will the Adoption Board carry that out on request? It would be unsatisfactory if a couple were to go to Brazil or somewhere, adopt and come back to find that our legislation and the legislation under which they adopted abroad were incompatible. They should be able to verify that beforehand. Many of them being lay people could not judge for themselves.

Mr. R. Bruton

I wanted to raise substantially the same point, whether that sort of certification could be done in advance. Similarily with Deputy Coughlan's point. Where the people are living in the other country at the time they made the adoption, am I to understand that their adoption must also be vetted in respect of all these conditions before it will be recognised in Irish law? The same definitional phrase "a foreign adoption" seems to be used there. Could that result in people who entered adoptions in good faith in other countries suddenly, when they returned to Ireland, finding themselves not with a recognised adoption?

Mr. McDaid

I would also like to be associated with the initial comments of this Committee but as we tease out these points, I can see they are not as clear cut as they originally set out to be. I can see the points Deputy O'Donoghue, Deputy Coughlan and Deputy Cotter made, but I am inclined to be confused as well. I do not think we have to go to Brazil; even in England there are problems because of annulment, divorce and so on. Are these adoptions not to be recognised here? I am getting more confused, I can see that this is going to be a legal mine-field and most of it will be teased out perhaps by the legal people here but at least they are beginning to bring up points I do not understand.

Mr. Shatter

I am restraining my amusement, with all due respects, to some of the comments made. I appreciate they are very seriously intended. I would invite, in particular, the Fianna Fáil Members of the Committee to look at section 6 of the Bill as originally drafted which provided for designation procedure. This is what they seem to be looking for now.

At the last meeting I set out in some detail the problems with the Minister's amendments and expressed the view I felt there was a valid case not only to have general recognition rules but to have a designation procedure. With all due respects and I do not want to introduce unnecessary acrimony into this, but Members on the Government side gave absolutely no support at that time. The Minister raised the point with me, and there is a valid problem here, in the context of the eligibility of people to adopt because of the interaction not just between our adoption laws and other laws but because of the peculiarity of our marriage laws — which is a topic Deputy O'Donoghue and myself have locked horns on many occasions — but because of the peculiarity of our marriage laws, that if you had a designation procedure you might have difficulty in saying that all adoptions effected in a particular country would be recognised in circumstances where they might have been effected by a couple whom the rest of the civilised world would regard as married but who, under our bizarre legislation, would not be regarded as married. In fact, because of some of the oddities of Irish constitutional law and how they interact with the realities of marital breakdown, it is a valid point.

Taking the Romanian position, the Adoption Board will have application made to them to recognise a Romanian adoption. Initially, they will have to look at the specific legislation from Romania, which is available — I have English translations of it. They will be able to check against it whether it satisfies the criteria in ATE which largely reflect the criteria in section 6 (a) to (c), the designation section. Once the board say on the first occasion they deal with a Romanian adoption that that legislation satisfies those criteria, then the only other matter at issue for all future Romanian adoptions is the date the adoption was effected and the eligibility of the couple to adopt. Eventually you would have a developed sense of which country's adoptions are recognised. You will still have individual countries where a couple might uniquely adopt in a country the Adoption Board have not dealt with previously and then they will have to look specifically at that legislation. If we are concerend about the welfare of children, it is important that that legislation is checked to make sure that the welfare of children is protected in it. What is happening in reality is that under the designation system it would have been the Minister for Health and his Department who would have examined the legislation while under the new system that is being agreed, it would be the Adoption Board who would examine the legislation and make the decision. So you are going to have, in fact, a developing designation system in any case. One assumes that the Adoption Board in their annual reports as they do in all their other information they give each year, will report how many foreign adoptions have been granted recognition and the countries to which recognition has been given. The idea contained originally in the Bill was that the Minister would designate particular countries. This in effect is going to develop into the Adoption Board designating particular countries. I would think there is an argument to be made that the Adoption Board might look at particular countries in advance of the designation purposes without having to wait for individual applications but I see that as inviting the Adoption Board to examine the laws of every country in circumstances where threequarters of those countries may never feature in any decision they have to make so there might be an impracticality in that approach.

In Britain, of course, they operate a designation system and, as I understand it, it works but they do not have to work within the labyrinthine bizarre provisions of Irish family law which regards people as married, who are no longer married to each other, and might, in reality, be living with third parties. I do not want to invite Deputy O'Donoghue to regurgitate the debates we had on the Judicial Separation Bill, but the reason it is being done this way is because of the pecularities we have to confront in these areas.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I was late for the last meeting through no fault of my own and therefore, I was unable to comment on the question of designation. I have, I hope, adequately done so now.

Chairman

I think the question of designation has been very well illuminated.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I take the point Deputy Cotter raised about the difficulty for people going abroad and not having the expertise, perhaps, to know exactly where they stand in regard to adoption. The advice I would give them first is to check with the Adoption Board because, as has already been said, the Adoption Board will have recognised a number of adoptions from certain countries. This will give prospective adopters an indication of the Adoption Board's requirements and, indeed, the Adoption Board will be glad to give them information on those requirements. Also, I believe it would be important for such people to have legal advice before they go, on the basis of the legislation that we are putting through Committee Stage. If somebody is going abroad to adopt, it is important that they would be well versed or at least have expert advice on Irish law as it stands. The question of recognition is a problem for a number of countries and at The Hague Conference at present a number of countries have come together and are looking at the international law on adoption. I believe when they complete their deliberations they will also clarify the position in relation to what is required.

I have already made the point about the reasons we are in favour of looking at each case individually rather than designating countries. The point has been made that Britain designates certain countries and the point has often been made before that Britain does not have a written constitution, which probably facilitates and makes this easier for them.

While I would sympathise with the points that have been made, I believe the way we are proceeding is the best way until such time as there is more international agreement on the particular adoption laws and how closely they are co-ordinated between the various countries.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 2, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following definitions:

"‘place' means a country or any of the following jurisdictions, that is to say, England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands or, in relation to a country that has in matters of adoption two or more systems of law applying in different territorial units, any of the territorial units;

‘the Principal Act' means the Adoption Act, 1952;

‘the Register' means the Register of Foreign Adoptions established under section 5 of this Act.".

This amendment merely defines a "place", "the Principal Act" and "the Register" referred to in the Bill. The definition of "place" takes account of the fact that an adoption can be effected in a foreign country, a foreign jurisdiction or in a particular territorial unit of a foreign country. The term "the Principal Act" is referred to in a number of my amendments: this is, of course, the Adoption Act of 1952. "The Register" refers to the register of foreign adoptions, the establishment of which is provided for in amendment No. 7.

Mr. Shatter

These are technical amendments that relate to later provisions in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Chairman

Amendment No. 4 and amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 4 are related and can be taken together by agreement. Agreed.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 2, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

"2.—(1) A foreign adoption (whether effected before or after the commencement of this Act) effected in, or recognised under the law of, a place in which either or both of the adopters were domiciled on the date on which the adoption was effected shall be deemed to have been effected by a valid adoption order made on that date.

(2) This section and sections 3 and 4 of this Act are in substitution for any rule of law providing for the recognition of adoptions effected outside the State.".

Mr. Shatter

What we are doing is replacing the existing section 2 with another section 2 that has exactly the same effect; it is phrased slightly differently. It provides for the recognition of a foreign adoption effected in a country in which the adopters are domiciled, which was the intent of the original section; it is just knitting it into the new structure we are going to have as we develop the Bill.

Dr. O'Hanlon

The effect of the recognition will be to deem the foreign adoption to have been effected by a valid Irish adoption order. It is desirable to set down the basis for recognition and the effect of recognition in the same section, and I believe that subsection (1) achieves this objective. The purpose of subsection (2) is to substitute the three grounds for recognition provided in the Bill, namely, domicile, habitual residence and ordinary residence for any common law rule that exists. A provision of this nature is normal in legislation introducing new rules of law for the recognition of foreign decrees.

Chairman

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 4 is in the names of the Minister for Health and Deputy Shatter.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 4:

In the eighth line of subsection (1), after "deemed", to insert ", unless such deeming would be contrary to public policy,".

Amendment to amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 4, as amended, agreed to.

Section 2 deleted.

NEW SECTION

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 2, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—A foreign adoption (whether effected before or after the commencement of this Act) effected in, or recognised under the law of, a place in which either or both of the adopters were habitually resident on the date on which the adoption was effected shall be deemed to have been effected by a valid adoption order made—

(a) on that date, or

(b) on such commencement,

whichever is the later.".

Under this section a foreign adoption effected in or recognised under the law of a place where either or both of the adopters were habitually resident at the time of the adoption will be entitled to recognition in the State subject again to the recognition of the adoption not being contrary to public policy. The date of recognition will depend upon when the adoption was granted. If the adoption was granted before the commencement of the legislation, it will be recognised as and from the date of such commencement. A foreign adoption effected after the commencement of the legislation will be recognised from the date of adoption. This was recommended by the Law Reform Commission.

Mr. Shatter

This amendment is, in effect, taking the original section 3 of the Bill with what was the original section 8 of the Bill and marrying them together into one section. It achieves exactly the same effect. I am quite happy with that. Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 5 is tabled in the Minister's name jointly with mine, and I am quite happy to tackle that issue.

Deputy R. Bruton

A point of clarification. When the Minister says recognition of the adoption is subject to not being contrary to public policy, does that it mean in respect of the country and the way they carry out their business, or does it mean in respect of the individual application, as in the case the Minister cited, where we do not recognise the marriage of a couple who adopted while habitually resident somewhere else? Is the public policy issue referring to the country or to the individual?

Dr. O'Hanlon

It could be either or both. The Law Reform Commission had something to say on this — that the court should have discretion in particular cases to refuse recognition of a foreign adoption on the grounds of public policy. In the context of adoption, the court might exercise this right in relation to an adoption effected under the law of a foreign country where the law contained supervision which the court would regard as constitutionally unacceptable and repugnant to any civilised norm.

An example of such a case would be where the law of the foreign country permitted the arbitrary removal of children from their parents and adoption by foreigners. A further example would be where the law of the country permitted the buying and selling of children. Obviously these are extreme examples. At the same time, however, it is important to bear in mind that the provisions in this legislation will apply to adoptions in countries throughout the world, some of which have very reputable systems of adoption, whereas in other countries, unfortunately, trafficking in children is not unknown. Having said that, I would envisage the public policy provision being resorted to very infrequently.

Mr. Shatter

As a matter of practical law in the area of recognition of foreign adoptions. Where there is legislation, in most countries there is a public policy saver to the extent that there is a discretion to withhold recognition where an adoption takes place that is contrary to public policy. At the last meeting when Deputy Jacobs and I had a bit of a disagreement I was pointing out that that public policy provision would have ensured that you could withhold recognition where children were purchased. As I said, we originally had a public policy provision in the Bill as published in section 8, and it is now incorporated individually into each of the sections rather than just having a general application, but it will have exactly the same effect. I think it is important that that provision is in the Bill.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 5:

In the eighth line, after "deemed", to insert ", unless such deeming would be contrary to public policy,".

Amendment to amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 5, as amended, agreed to.

Section 3 deleted.

NEW SECTION

Chairman

Amendment No. 6 and amendments Nos. 1, 1a, 1b and 2 to amendment No. 6 are related.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 3, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.—(1) A foreign adoption (whether effected before or after the commencement of this Act) shall be deemed to have been effected by a valid adoption order made—

(a) on the date on which the adoption was effected, or

(b) on such commencement,

whichever is the later, if, but only if—

(i) the adopters are persons coming within the classes of persons in whose favour an adoption order may, by virtue of section 15 of this Act, be made,

(ii) the adopters were ordinarily resident in the State on the date on which the adoption was effected, and

(iii) (I) in case the adoption was effected before the 1st day of April, 1991, the Board declares in writing that it is satisfied that the adopters are persons in whose favour an adoption order may, by virtue of section 15 of this Act, be made, or

(II) in case the adoption was effected on or after the 1st day of April, 1991, the Board declares in writing before the date on which the adoption was effected—

(A) that it is satisfied that the adopters are persons coming within the classes of persons in whose favour an adoption order may, by virtue of section 15 of this Act, be made, and

(B) that (having had regard to a report by the health board in whose functional area the adopters were ordinarily resident at the time of the assessment, or by a registered adoption society, of an assessment as respects the matters referred to in section 13 of the Principal Act in relation to the adopters carried out by the board or the society, as the case may be,) it is satisfied in relation to the adopters as respects the matters referred to in the said section 13.

(2) (a) The adopters or the adopted child in relation to a foreign adoption or any other person having an interest in the matter may apply to the Board for the making of a declaration under paragraph (iii) (I) of subsection (1) of this section in relation to the adopters, and the Board shall, if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so having regard to the provisions of that subsection, make the declaration.

(b) A person or persons to whom the said subsection (1) applies and who has or have applied, or proposes or propose to apply, for the effecting in his or their favour of a foreign adoption may, before the adoption is effected, apply to the Board for the making of a declaration under paragraph (iii) (II) of the said subsection (1) in relation to the person or persons, and the Board shall, if it is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so having regard to the provisions of that subsection, make the declaration.

(c) A person making an application to the Board under this subsection shall furnish the Board with such information as it may reasonably require and the information shall be in such form (if any) as may be specified.

(d) A document purporting to be a copy, and to be certified by an officer of the Board to be a true copy, of such a declaration as aforesaid shall—

(i) be evidence of the facts stated therein, and

(ii) be issued by the Board to any person on application by him to the Board in that behalf.".

This amendment has been framed primarily with Romanian adoptions in mind. However, it will apply to an adoption granted in any foreign country to persons who are ordinarily resident here at the time of the adoption. Since the adopters in these cases are living in this country and only travel abroad for the sole purpose of adoption, it is considered that their entitlement to recognition should be determined by reference to whether they are eligible and suitable to adopt a child under Irish law.

The Government considers that a special procedure should apply to people who had adopted children abroad before 1 April 1991. Accordingly the amendment provides a special procedure for people who have been granted a foreign adoption before that date. They will be entitled to have their adoptions recognised if they come within the classes of persons eligible to be granted an Irish adoption order and if their adoption complies with the terms of the definition of a foreign adoption as set out in substitute amendment No. 2.

It will be open to people who have adopted abroad before 1 April to apply to the Adoption Board for a declaration that they come within the classes of persons eligible to be granted an Irish adoption order. The adopted person and any other person having an interest in the matter will also be entitled to apply to the board for such a declaration. People who propose to adopt abroad after 1 April 1991 will be required to have both their eligibility and suitability to adopt a child under Irish law established before they travel abroad if they wish to have their foreign adoption recognised under this section on their return. The health boards will carry out the assessments of the suitability of prospective adopters living within their functional areas and these assessment reports will be transmitted to the Adoption Board for approval.

Amendment No. 9 will impose a statutory duty on the health boards to undertake suitability assessments for the purpose of this section. The health boards have already been requested to carry out these assessments in anticipation of the early enactment of this legislation. It will continue to be open to the registered adoption societies to undertake these assessments if they so wish. If the Adoption Board are satisfied that the prospective adopters are both suitable and eligible to adopt a child under Irish law, they will make a declaration to that effect in favour of the couple and will issue them with a copy of the declaration, which they can produce to the foreign adoption authorities. Such a declaration will be valid for a period of 12 months but the Adoption Board will have the discretion to extend this period in appropriate cases. The purpose of subsection (3) is to confirm that single people who adopt children abroad before the commencement of the legislation will be entitled to have their adoptions recognised.

Chairman

Could we agree to also take amendments Nos. 1, 1a, 1b, and 2 to amendment No. 6? These are related. Is it agreed to take amendment No. 6 and amendments Nos. 1, 1a, 1b and 2 to amendment No. 6? Agreed.

Mr. Shatter

In the context of section 4 last day we raised very specific problems we saw with the workings of this section. As a result there are, as Members of the Committee will see, amendments tabled in the joint names of myself and the Minister to the original amendments that fall under the heading of section 4. Indeed, I think there are some later amendments that are relevant to it. In a nutshell what this section will now do is provide for recognition.

If we take, in simple terms, again the Romanian situation, it will provide for the recognition of Romanian adoptions effected by people who are eligible to adopt. That will include both married and single people in circumstances where they will basically submit the Romanian adoption certificate to the Adoption Board on the basis that Romanian law complies with the criteria that we referred to within the definition of foreign adoptions in section 1. The Adoption Board then will be able to make an order that the adoption is recognised, or that it is an adoption order in Irish terms and that will place the child adopted in Romania in exactly the same legal position as a child adopted within Ireland. So if a couple adopted a Romanian child last December or November and following the enactment of this Bill, they submit their adoption certificate to the Irish Adoption Board, they will be able to enter the adoption on a register of adopted people that the board will keep in the context of recognised adoptions and they will, as you will see from a later amendment, get a certificate issued which shows that they adopted the particular child and the date of the birth of the child.

That certificate will be used in exactly the same way you would currently use a birth certificate of a child born to you or an adoption certificate issued by the Adoption Board in respect of an Irish adoption. That should ensure that practically all the adoptions effected in Romania have recognition extended to them up to 1 April 1991. For future adoptions, the position is that first, you will have to be assessed by your health board or adoption society. The Adoption Board will make a declaration that you are a suitable person to adopt, you are eligible to adopt, and then if you adopt abroad, be it in Romania or anywhere else, provided it is a proper adoption, that will also be recognised.

The Bill provides for one of the things that adoptive parents have been very anxious about, and that is, to have the health boards carry out assessments. There has been a great problem with having home study reports done and assessments prepared. The Bill provides for health boards or adoption societies not only to submit the home study reports to the adoption board for the purpose of their making a declaration of suitability but where such a declaration is made, under an amendment in the joint names of myself and the Minister, the board will make the home study report available both to the couple or the individuals who want to adopt abroad and also to the foreign authority. This was a provision in the Bill as originally drafted in the context of a different section.

The format of this is agreed between myself and the Minister in the context of the joint amendments that, I am satisfied, will resolve many of the difficulties I outlined previously but there is one matter that we have not reached agreement on. That is the subject of the final amendments Nos. 1a and 1b to which the Chairman referred. You will recall from the last day that the cut off date for the new procedure was to be 1 April. It was only on 15 March that the Minister published his amendments. I made the point on the last occasion we met as a Committee — I think it was on 20 March — that on 20 March there would have been people in Romania who had gone through all the assessments, with all documentation and paper work completed, involved in adopting a child, and their adoption may not be completed until some time in April or early May. I made the point that 1 April was not a practical date to provide for the new obligation to have a declaration of suitability from the Adoption Board because it would create a situation where some couples who, in good faith, went abroad to adopt would find themselves completing adoption after 1 April. They would end up in a legal limbo without the adoptions recognised and without a mechanism to have them recognised in the future.

I also made the point that there are in the region of six to eight people per week travelling to Romania. Certainly, all the information I have indicated that over the Easter period a number of people were travelling and, probably, people have been travelling through to this week. My office has received phone calls from five or six couples since the start of this week who say that they have plans to travel to Romania next week and ask what should they do. I am concerned, first, that the people who went to Romania in March to complete adoptions that were not finalised until the month of April, or may not be finalised until early May, are not left in limbo. I am also concerned that the children they adopt are not left in limbo, which is even more important. I am also concerned that couples who went through all the procedures and got a letter of authorisation from the Department of Justice confirming that if they adopt in Romania they can bring their child home to Ireland — there were 480 such letters issued prior to 1 April — do not find themselves in difficulty.

I have tabled an amendment to the effect that the 1 April date should be moved forward to 1 July. That is based on the hope that we might rapidly complete Committee Stage, take Report Stage within a couple of weeks and have the Bill through the Seanad before the end of May. That will provide a sufficient lead-in time to allow those who have already commenced the adoption process to complete it and have their adoptions recognised. Also it will be signposting to other people who want to adopt abroad that there is now a new procedure coming into operation and that people who are now contemplating perhaps in two, three or four months time going abroad to adopt, should use the existing adoption agencies and the health boards for the purpose of having assessments carried out and to have declarations of suitability.

I would say to members of the Committee that, in the context of the further amendments which we will come to, there is no difference of opinion between myself and the Minister. The only matter that we have not effected agreement on to date is the date for the start of the new procedures. In my view 1 July is a practical date, which would ensure that perhaps 20 or 30 children adopted abroad are not left in a legal limbo and whose position cannot be addressed. This would also ensure that people who are only now contemplating adopting abroad and are only now starting the procedures will start using the new procedures under the Bill and get the assistance from health boards they are entitled to get as a result of the Minister's instruction to health boards to start facilitating assessments as and from 1 April.

Mr. McCartan

The general purport of these amendments I support and accept. I have, nonetheless, a number of queries I would like to put to the Minister and get some clarification. The first is in regard to the procedures that will now apply as and from the cut-off date; I will not fix on a date at the moment and I will just call it the cut-off date. The procedures will involve, first, assessment by the health board or the society. They will then report to the Adoption Board, the Adoption Board will make a decision and, upon that decision, will issue a letter of facility or recommendation that will be brought by the proposed adopters to the foreign country. Has the Minister any indication at this stage, after consultation with his officials, the various societies, health boards or adoption boards, how long it is envisaged, on average, that type of work will take? This is a major cause of concern for prospective adopters because, at the moment, the adoption societies and the board — to put it in a less than complimentary way — tend to string out applications for the simple reason that there are not the children there to meet the demand. As a device to keep everyone happy these procedures take a considerably long period of time.

It is fair to say that, with increased travel and the opening up of the idea and concept of adoptions abroad — I accept that Romania is an exception but nonetheless we have 400, we were told today, children adopted over a short period of time — this is beginning to open up quite a deal. Will the procedures of the board, and whatever procedures will be introduced by the adoption societies and the health boards to meet these requirements, equally open up somewhat? Does the Minister intend to engage in discussions about loosening up, because, certainly, the practice to date of the Adoption Board would tend to be somewhat rigorous and prolonged? I appreciate that that is perhaps a reaction more to the non-availability of children than anything else.

The next question I should like to raise is in regard to the current position, because, for some reason or other that is not entirely clear. The aliens section of the Department of Justice seems to have interloped into all of this. I am getting many calls from people who say they have been on to the aliens section of the Department of Justice, who quote to them, that the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Health are now doing X, Y and Z. This more or less centres around the cut-off date. May I ask the Minister how has the aliens section got in on this Bill? Will the Minister do everything in his power to get them out of the scene as quickly as possible? I do not think they are an appropriate agency to deal with the delicacies and sensitivities of this process.

In particular, the problem pertains prior to the cut-off date procedures and adoptions. It seems there is a problem for parents bringing their adopted children back into the country. They are worried they may be stopped at the airport or point of entry by the aliens section personnel who may ask, upon what pretext or authority do they seek to bring a child into the country. It would seem that the document of authority issued by the foreign country, be it Romania or elsewhere, may not be sufficient. That needs to be addressed very quickly and I ask the Minister to deal with it in consultation with the aliens section.

Clearly, it will take time for the Adoption Board to catch up with the provisions of the pre cut-off date arrangements. It will take time for them to investigate and make their declarations. In the interim for parents who arrive or people who travel out with the intention to come back with a baby, we have to do something to facilitate them about what requirements exist within the aliens section of the Department of Justice. I have said enough on that and I hope the Minister understands the point I am trying to make. That needs to be clarified very quickly.

The next question that has been raised by parents is the requirement under section 4 (2) (c) of the Minister's amendment, where the board requires such information as they may reasonably require of the parents seeking a declaration. The current situation, as I understand it, is that all the documentation that the prospective adopters will have assembled, all the original copies, are lodged with the authorities in the foreign countries. Here, particularly, we are talking about Romania. The parents leave all their original documentation out there. It is a worry which has been raised with me and I would like the Minister to address it. Can the Minister assure us that whatever the board will be requiring from here on in will not require production of original documents already lodged in Romania or elsewhere? I can see a desired practice that, perhaps, the board would like to see sight of original documents. However, where such a request is made and the adoptive parents advise the board, or the Minister, that the originals have been lodged with the authorities elsewhere, will the Minister and the board be satisfied under the regulations, and their operations, to accept the copies?

Will the Miniser advise us as to when the guidelines for the basis upon which the Adoption Board will make their declarations with regard to the pre-cut-off date adoptions will be issued? There is clearly uncertainty amongst parents as to whether or not what they have done and what they now have will be sufficient from the point of of view of the board's need. Clearly, the sooner the board issue their guidelines as to the standards they are talking about the better for everyone. Will the Minister indicate the time scale involved?

The final point I want to make is the issue of the cut-off date. It has generated a considerable amount of confusion and worry. I have no doubt that many members of the Committee have received correspondence about this issue which is of urgent concern. We dealt with it at length the last day and I am not going to go back over it now. Can I simply say that the proposition of Deputy Shatter of 1 July is a reasonable one. It was mentioned on 20 March. Certainly, when we are almost half way through April the suggestion of 1 July is a reasonable one. It will be a good practice on our part to settle today on a date. A clear signal will then go out that there is a date. It will be a signal to which people must address their minds. It will mean that those who have a considerable amount of their preliminary work done — I am talking about, if one can quantify it, up to 90 per cent of their groundwork done — will know that they can comfortably meet the 1 July deadline and will proceed and conclude.

It will be a clear signal to those who are in the early throes of the process to realise that they cannot meet a deadline such as 1 July — there is no prospect that they can — and that they should simply stay their hand and bide their time. The unfortunate situation in Romania will not have resolved itself. The whole process of co-operation and proper processing will be there after 1 July, if that is the date we agree on, and matters can then progress apace in an orderly way. We will be taking this rush or mad frenzy that is illustrated in the correspondence I have received out of the process.

I urge the Minister to be flexible and reasonable on this. He has done a great deal for us on this side of the Committee. As Deputy Shatter has indicated, and I think he is correct, this is the one point on which there does not seem to be an immediate coming together. Hopefully our deliberations today will bring us together on it. I am prepared to listen to the Minister if he suggests a date approaching or between 1 June and 1 July but we should agree a date and then a clear signal can be sent and people will know precisely what we are doing.

Mr. R. Bruton

As regards the threshold date from which the new regulations will come in, the point must be made that no one can now initiate an adoption procedure because they cannot get the consent required from the Department of Justice. The Minister is not in a position to say people can suddenly make a mad scramble to get in before a more generous cut-off date. That issue should not concern him. The choice is, do we allow people a very foreshortened time to permit their case to get through and subject them to all the pressure that that means or do we give them a reasonable time, which is what 1 July would be, to let them go through the procedures in a deliberate way and finish off the business they set out upon in good faith?

We can have absolutely no reason to think that the people who are caught in the pipeline are in some way different or less worthy adoptive parents than those who happen to be lucky enough to be through the pipeline by 1 April. In all those circumstances the Minister should take a sympathetic view of the position of these people who in good faith entered upon this process.

Like Deputy McCartan I would be concerned about the speed with which assessments are carried out. There has to be a balance between thoroughgoing assessments being done and being done at a pace that is reasonable to the needs of parents. Many people see in the Romanian situation in particular an opportunity that may not come their way again. While no one would wish that the health boards or the adoption societies would foreshorten home assessments we would all desire that there would be every possible haste, consistent with doing the work thoroughly, to facilitate those people.

The other point I would like to raise is in regard to the very important subsection (3) under which the Minister recognises all pre-1 April applicants even if they do not meet all the exact requirements of section 15 that will apply in the future. What I want to clarify is — I realise it accepts people who would be single — but does it also accept people who might have adopted when under the age of 21? I do not know whether there are such people but if we are providing a recognition to people and deeming them eligible, even though section 15 might be slightly different, I do not think there is any point in leaving the possibility of one or two anomalous cases that we would have to come back to or leave people in a rather strange situation.

The final query is one of understanding how subsection 2 (b) links in. There seems to be a requirement that the board must give their declaration in writing before an adoption is effected. There is also some optional application for a declaration. I do not understand how those two jell together. Will the Minister clarify what is going on there?

Mr. Cotter

I support the 1 July date that has been mentioned. Anything I would say in support of it would be a repetition of what has been said so I will not give reasons for it. If the Minister does not agree with it I would like to have teased out exactly why he proposes a different date. I would like to examine his reasons in full and see if they do not stand up. I have a feeling that the 1 July date would give people an opportunity. We can deal with that later on.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I will deal with the last point first because it was raised by a number of Deputies, the question of 1 April and extending that date to 1 July. I stated very clearly here that I was sympathetic to the position of people whose application was processed to a large extent before 1 April and who have adopted babies in Romania and have brought them back since. We are certainly anxious to do something for those people but the difficulty about providing a date, and particularly a date that is ten weeks away, is that we would create a rush for people to go out to Romania and adopt children.

The whole reason for ths section is to facilitate people who have adopted children and brought them into this country. The very last thing any of us would want to do would be to encourage even one couple to rush out just to beat a deadline and bring home a child without giving the matter the very serious thought and consideration it needs. Deputy McCartan, when he was talking about another aspect of the Bill, the question of assessment, asked that assessments be expedited. The Adoption Board have their own rules and regulations and are very particular about the assessment and how the assessment is carried out by the adoption societies. Everybody will accept that they have served people well, particularly the children, who are of paramount consideration.

While I would be very sympathetic to what is involved — certainly I am prepared to look at this before Report Stage — I would be very concerned about giving a date that is ten weeks away. There is a danger that a couple, who might have a certificate from the Department of Justice to bring a child into the country, might rush out to bring back a child. As I said on the last occasion, I am sympathetic to the people who had their application processed to a large extent and, indeed, who may have bought children in since 1 April. I will look at the matter between now and Report Stage to how this might be addressed. One way of addressing it is to select a date, to move the date 1 April forward, perhaps. The other way would be to have evidence that their application was processed, to a large extent, before 1 April. I repeat, one way is to extend the date and the other way is to accept evidence that they had their application processed, to a large extent, or to produce evidence that they intended to adopt a child. For example, they could produce airline tickets, if some people had already arranged to go before a court in Romania after 1 April. That is another way it could be done.

At this stage I am sympathetic to doing something for those people who had their application processed to a large extent before we announced the date of 1 April. If the Deputies leave it until Report Stage we will come back with something. I would have fears that if we extend the date to 1 July we might inspire some couples to move precipitately, which might not, in the long term, be in the interests of a child. We are going a long way in introducing this section towards ensuring that people who have already adopted children do not have to go through the rigorous assessment that has always been necessary under the Adoption Board rules, and will continue to be necessary. While I am satisfied that the vast majority of couples who have adopted children would not have any difficulty with the assessment, nevertheless we are waiving the assessment in their cases. I would ask Deputies to leave that with me and we will come back with something positive on it on Report Stage.

Mr. McCartan

That seems reasonable. I am sure other Deputies have had the same experience that there is widespread confusion. Could I directly put the question and, perhaps, take advice from other Members, as to how we deal with inquiries that will inevitably result as a consequence of today? I know that some people are waiting by their phones to ring my office after today's deliberations to see if the matter has been clarified further. Is the position that we should be telling any inquirer now to stay at home because the legislation is at an advanced stage and that there will be a regime of certain requirements that they should wait for? Is that, in short, what we are saying? Is that the clear message that should be coming from this Committee today? I thought we could agree on a date and to be able to say to people today: "Depending on the stage to which you have advanced your preparations, you should finalise them or you should stay at home." One particular person has already missed a flight out and had to cancel, simply to get some clarity of what is going on. One of the problems is that the Department of Justice are also waiting on what we are going to deliberate and discuss today before they will issue these letters of accommodation: in order not to confuse people, it is a letter of accommodation to let them come back with a child, as opposed to anything to do with over there. There is all of this confusion and I hoped we could disperse it. I can understand the cautious approach to the rush aspect, to which the Minister referred, but in the light of what is now in place — in effect, we are talking about Romania in this section — I wonder if it is possible to "rush" a process, and even if ten weeks would accommodate it. Let me quote an extract from a letter I received from parents who succeeded in adopting two children. It reads: "I would also like to say that our children were adopted under laws passed last July by the democratically elected parliament of Romania, elections to which the Irish Government sent observers. The tribunal which sat to consider our applications was comprised of two judges, a prosecutor for the region and a lawyer representing the city authorities. I will not go into detail of our experiences in Romania here as it would fill a book but, believe me, it was the most difficult thing we are ever likely to have to go through."

The impression coming across to me in talking to people and in correspondence is that it is not a process that can be rushed. There are extremely tortuous processes, not only here in assembling all the documentation of means, suitability from independent social workers as it stands at the moment, or independent agencies, from Departments and from the various agencies around. When you get there, the whole process has to be gone into, accommodation has to be found, interpreters have to be found, doctors to be found, tests have to be done, children have to be found etc. We are all well aware of this. This concept that you can grab two tickets and put a few hundred pounds in your pocket and head off before a certain date does not seem real, it does not seem to be something that can be done. Accepting, as I have done at the outset, the fact that the Minister is prepared to look at this matter, I would say that the transition is obviously difficult to deal with. But we do need a cut-off date and I would suggest that the equity and ease of the situation would be better achieved by not sticking to a date that had almost passed when it was first suggested — 1 April. I would be happy with 1 June and 1 July. We might come back to some of the other points I raised on this section.

Mr. D. Ahern

The first point I want to make is in relation to the references made by Deputy McCartan to the speeding up of the assessments. As someone who had gone through this procedure on two occasions recently, while I accept that these assessments can take quite some time, most people would agree and accept that they are necessary. At the end of the day, the rigorous assessment in relation to every prospective adoptive couple has to be done in every case. As regards the deadline, as I understand it the Minister is adopting an attitude — I think it is a reasonable attitude — to try to deal with the situation which existed when this legislation came before us, and that was that a sizeable number of children had already been taken here by whatever procedure.

The Deputy referred to the fact that it does not seem real that people are going to Romania, taking money and documents with them and bringing back babies, but that is the reality. I would like a similar procedure to be adopted to somebody coming to my clinic looking for an American visa and taking letters from the gardai and their employers, to prove they are coming back. At the moment couples are running around trying to get what they perceive to be the correct documents in order before they go out. Then some people go out and find the documents are not correct or have not been notarised properly or whatever.

The Minister said — and I totally accept it — that if the couple or prospective adoptive parents have followed all procedures laid down in the Bill about the assessment and the board's recognition, that is preferable than the situation pertaining now. That is a statutory recognition of their acceptability and will open all sorts of doors in Romania which are not being opened at the moment. It is far preferable that couples, even though they have to go through the assessment, have the relevant documentation from this country prior to going to Romania. That is why I feel the Minister is quite right in keeping to the date of 1 April.

I accept that he is going to have another look at it but I feel that if you broaden it — and from Deputy Shatter's point of view July might be a very short period — there might be justification for extending it to 31 December. There will be people who will not have everything in place and will not have everything organised in Romania prior to 1 July. I believe the Minister is correct. As I said earlier, all the couples who are proposing to adopt — it should go out from this meeting — should not "rush" before 1 April or 1 July or whatever date it is; they should realise that by having the proper procedures as laid down in this legislation they are, in effect, getting statutory recognition from the State rather than the piecemeal and unacceptable way of getting documents together and going to Romania.

I had a couple with me at the weekend who were successful in adopting a child, but they said they never wanted to go through the experience again of having to deal with the situation out there because, to a certain extent, they felt they were on their own. It would be much better to have State recognition through this legislation and I have no doubt it would get recognition in Romania.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

The fundamental reason for including 1 April, I understand and accept, is to prevent people from rushing into something that should be given a lot of serious thought. I accept that, but we have to realise — I agree with Deputy Bruton — that the fact that the Department of Justice are not issuing letters of consent should exclude any rush element. What we must realise is that there are quite a number of couples who have, perhaps, that letter of consent and all their preparations done for three or four months past, but going to Romania costs money, it takes time and they have to be prepared to spend three, four or five weeks in a foreign country to go through the adoption procedure. For reasons of employment or for financial concerns they may have to delay their travelling date, perhaps until the end of April or May, but they are genuine people who have put a lot of serious thought into adopting a baby and could not be accused of rushing into something. I believe that for those genuine people who had all the preparations done but for reasons beyond their own control could not travel, the date should be extended to accommodate them.

Mr. O'Donoghue

I think that what the Minister stated is a reasonable compromise in the circumstances. The real concern here is that people who would attempt to meet, for example, a deadline of 1 July will include two classes: first, couples who will meet the criteria set out in amendment No. 2, and second, people who will not meet the criteria set out in amendment No. 2. If we believe that people who do not meet the criteria should be allowed to adopt between now and 1 July, then quite clearly there was no need for the criteria in the long term in the first instance. I think that people who have made their preparations, people who can produce evidence, should be allowed to proceed under this amendment and others should not. The need to provide the best possible parents in the interests of the children is paramount at all stages. I believe the Minister's compromise seems to be reasonable in that context.

Dr. McDaid

I agree entirely with the Minister's idea of 1 April and I think that his idea that people will tend to rush out is a factor, but he has made it very clear to Deputy Ahern that he is prepared to be flexible in the type of situation she mentioned. I knew two cases where the people involved did not necessarily have everything in order before now, but they had been in the process until now. However, the Minister stated he will be flexible in those situations.

Deputy O'Donoghue said that if you extend the deadline to 1 July you will get unsatisfactory types going out and we will be left with a much more difficult problem than we have at the moment. I would be in agreement from those points of view. People have been talking about how rigorous and necessary the procedures followed by our Adoption Board are, but I am inclined to agree with Deputy McCartan that this procedure is inclined to be an excess, in my opinion. I have seen excellent couples turned down for very trivial reasons and the sooner we get criteria along these lines the better. I think it is a very vital point. They have a very long waiting period and they have to comply with extremely rigorous conditions. While it is necessary to be careful and to look out for the welfare of the child, it is my opinion that the Adoption Board, to date, have been over-rigorous in some cases because I have seen some people who would make excellent parents turned down. I would like to have those two points addressed.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

I think Deputy McDaid misunderstood the point I was making. The cases the Minister proposes to be sympathetic to are, I understand, the people who have travelled to Romania, perhaps at the end of the March, but who will not have all the procedures completed by 1 April. My point was about people who had all the preparations done but who, for financial or other reasons could not travel until April or May. They are the people about whom I am concerned. I believe it is important to point out that those of us who disagree with 1 April are equally concerned that parents should be fit and of the highest calibre to become adoptive parents.

Dr. O'Hanlon

The point raised by Deputy Ahearn is about people who since 1 April, for one reason or another, have not been to Romania and who are anxious to adopt. There is no reason they should not apply to the health boards for assessment. My own view is that the majority of people interested in adopting children in Romania will have nothing to fear from the assessment. As I say, I am sympathetic to the case being made and, of course, we all want to resolve the problem of people who, before 1 April, had their procedures largely completed and who, for one reason and other, did not have the baby brought to Ireland before that date and that is what we want to achieve. There are two ways we can do that. One is to extend the date and the other is to look at a mechanism to see how far they had gone, and how far they had processed their application or their procedures for the adoption of a child. I will be looking at that before Report Stage and we will come back with something on Report Stage.

The case has been made very well by Deputies D. Ahern, O'Donoghue and McDaid and I have no doubt that if we were to announce today that 1 July was to be the date, people would make an effort to beat the deadline. If only one couple were to beat the deadline, and were to make a wrong decision, a very serious decision, for the child and for themselves, I would not like to see that happen. I think we can resolve the situation of people who bona fide had completed a large proportion of the necessary procedures before 1 April, and, as I say, I will bring something forward on Report Stage.

In regard to a couple of other points raised by Deputy McCartan and Deputy McDaid, such as the question of assessment after this Bill is enacted, unfortunately there is no short-cut with the assessment. The assessment is very important. On the last occasion we met Deputy Dermot Ahern made the point that the procedures for assessment should be the same for those who wish to adopt abroad as those who wish to adopt at home and that you could not have two standards, that you could not have a couple who would not be acceptable as adopters in this country and then allow them to adopt abroad. I think that point is very reasonable. The length of time it takes to carry out the assessment is something in the order of three months. I do not know if there is any way that can be expedited because of necessity.

Mr. McCartan

Of itself it would then recommence the process by way of review of reassessment or re-evaluation of what has come from the health board. If you have an assessment that says A and B are satisfactory from our point of view and meet all the requirements and desirabilities, would the Adoption Board accept that and move on to make a declaration without delay?

Dr. O'Hanlon

That would be a matter for the Adoption Board. My own view is that there would not be any reason for delay. The assessment would have been carried out by a reputable State agency, the area health board. I am satisfied that the Adoption Board would check it.

Mr. McCartan

In one of the letters I received — perhaps Deputy Ahern who has had direct experience with this might be in a position to comment — there were often people seeking to adopt who were told they would have to wait up to four years before being entered on the list, and maybe there were good reasons for this. That is the example that was given to me. I have no difficulty with three months, that is very reasonable in terms of carrying out an assessment. However, the idea of waiting long periods for recollection, reflection or whatever, does not appeal to me. The suspicion out there was dictated by the non-availability of children as opposed to anything else.

Mr. D. Ahern

It was dictated purely by the non-availability of children. I have no doubt if there are children available in Romania things will work out. In relation to what the Minister has to say about the point I made last time and which I still make, that there should be the same standard, it should also be recognised that there should be more flexibility in relation to couples going abroad. This is slightly going against what I originally said, but I think it would probably be accepted by the Department of Health officials who are responsible for this. The adoption societies have age limits. Many people going to Romania do not qualify under that stricture in this country. There are a number of other problems that people are coming up with — single people adopting is one of these problems. The same standards in relation to assessments should apply to adoptions here and abroad. We should have the situation where people who, because they are just one year over the age limit, cannot adopt at home but could adopt in foreign countries.

Dr. O'Hanlon

We have already written to the health boards and asked them to be flexible in regard to age when carrying out the assessment.

Mr. Shatter

Just two points: the point Deputy Ahern made and the point the Miniser addressed. This was a problem in the context of the Bill as originally drafted and in this final version. Both health boards and adoption societies are arbitrarily applying age limits that do not exist in our legislation. At one time a married couple, both over the age of 40, could not adopt then it developed that if one party was over the age of 40 they could not adopt, then if one was over the age of 38 they could not adopt and now in some areas if one party is over the age of 35 they cannot adopt. None of this has any statutory basis. It was designed by the adoption societies and the health boards to restrict the applicants on the waiting lists, because of the small number of children available. Where a husband is 38 or 40 years and the wife is 35 or 36 there is no reason they should not be regarded as suitable. It is terribly important that these arbitrary rules applied by health boards and adoption societies, which have absolutely no basis in legislation, do not apply to foreign adoptions. I am glad the Minister is addressing that.

It is very urgent that we get this Bill completed. Without unduly pressing Members of the Committee I do believe it would be desirable, if possible, to complete Committee Stage today. Could I be of help to the Minister in trying to resolve the issue of the date? I would like to put on the record that I do not agree with the Minister's fears. I do not believe there is a practical possibility that people can, in a period of eight to ten weeks, rush out and complete an adoption in Romania or anywhere else who have not already given long and hard thought to what is involved, and who have not already completed much of the background documentation and information that is necessary.

There are two different ways of dealing with the issue. The first is simply to move the date forward. The second, which is something that arose in discussions between myself and the Minister's officials, was a suggestion that we might look at the documentation position, such as if someone adopts in Romania in the months of May, June or July, who has a letter of authorisation issued by the Department of Justice up to 1 April, because they have not been issuing them since, confirming that they can enter the State with the child they adopt. That would indicate that they were people who started the process some considerable time ago because they have such data. It would also mean that there would not be an opportunity for a rush of people, as the Minister fears, who are inappropriate and badly prepared. I do not believe such a rush could arise. I believe there are a number of people who have completed all the documentation, have actually booked their flight to go to Romania next week or the following week, and at this moment do not know what they should do or how they should deal with their position. They are people who have letters of authorisation from the Department of Justice issued prior to 1 April.

Dr. O'Hanlon

Are they people who would have booked their planes before 1 April?

Mr. Shatter

I do not know whether they would have booked their planes before 1 April but they certainly would have got the documentation from the Department of Justice before 1 April and, perhaps, some of them booked their planes before 1 April or after 1 April. They are all people who would have had assessments carried out privately for the purpose of foreign adoptions. They would have already put a lot of work into having documentation notorised and translated into Romanian and all the other work that has to be done. They may have made plans in the context of their jobs. In February people might have made plans to take leave from their jobs in April or early May to fly to Romania.

We do a disservice to those people and to the children who are in institutions who might be adopted by them if we cannot come out of this Committee today with any clear date. If we come out with a clear date they know how they are fixed and this issue would be resolved once and for all. It is desirable that we fix a date. I would much prefer that today we fix a date for 1 July. If we could agree across the floor of this Committee that the date should be 1 June, I would certainly accept that. It is very unfair to those people to leave the matter in a sort of limbo. If, by chance, we are able to complete Committee Stage today and go back into the House on Report Stage in two weeks time, and by that time determine the date or the methodology by which we can deal with the post-1 April adoptions that are completed, I would be prepared to defer putting this amendment to a vote.

This is not a party political issue. We have dealt with this now by way of a consensus. It is a simple humanitarian problem which affects a number of people, some of whom have already committed themselves financially to fly to Romania before 1 April. It was only on 20 March that the Minister's proposals in this area got any major publicity in the context of being discussed at this Committee. Many families have gone to a lot of trouble to put funds together having gone through all the procedures and who are, in effect, committed to going. They have booked tickets and they simply do not know what to do. They can simply go and try to complete the adoption process and come back to Ireland. A small number of people affected by this will come back with completed adoptions and will be left in a position where their adoption may or may not be recognised. I have no doubt that some couples will take that chance. I genuinely believe on simple humanitarian reasons there is a very strong argument for agreeing to adopt a date today. If we cannot do that and if it was possible for us to agree to sit as long as is necessary this evening to complete Committee Stage, and if the Minister — and I guarantee the goodwill of the Fine Gael Whip — will agree to take Report Stage within two weeks, I will defer putting this to a vote.

I do not want to divide the Committee on this. I have no doubt that myself, Deputy McCartan, the Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour Party and The Workers' Party members of the Committee will, within the next 24 hours, get phone calls from people who will say to us: "I am booked to go next Monday or Tuesday, what should I do"? I do not know what in the world to advise those people. If we tell them to do not go, they may say: "well, if I do not go now I will not be able to make arrangements for another year to go". We are talking about children who have been brought out of Romania from horrific conditions by many Irish people.

I have absolutely no doubt that if some of the adoptions completed during the autumn, Christmas and winter of last year had not been completed, some of the children who are now happily in Ireland would not have physically survived the winter in Romania. They would have died in some of the institutions they were in. If people had waited for us to get about enacting legislation none of those children would be in Ireland and a substantial proportion of them would not have a possibility of any reasonable future life. It is not just a technical question, there is a humanitarian issue involved. I would love us to be able to agree to it this afternoon. I appreciate the Minister's concerns and there has been tremendous goodwill between the Minister and myself in all of the discussions we have had but we have reached something of an impasse on this.

I will not put this to a vote if we can complete Committee Stage and get into Report Stage in two weeks but I nevertheless believe it is desirable that we finalise this issue this afternoon if we can reach a consensus on it.

Dr. O'Hanlon

Listening to Deputy Shatter, he convinced me even more so that we should not select a date because it appears from what he is saying that despite the fact that we named 1 April on 15 March people are continuing to go to Romania as if nothing had been said. That is the case that is being made. It would appear to me that if we were to decide to move the date to 1 July then, in effect, we would resolve one problem but we would create another problem that we would have to deal with as soon as the Bill is enacted. I do not think it would be reasonable and I do not think anybody would want it. It is terribly important that we carry out our duties responsibly and that we ensure that in the case of children who are brought into this country all the necessary criteria are catered for.

We have given special consideration, and will give special consideration, to people who already have children here, people who brought children in before 1 April. I am sympathetic to the case that has been made by Deputies on all sides of the House to cater for those who brought babies since 1 April. Members can take it that babies in the country today will certainly be catered for. It would be totally irresponsible of us, particularly in the light of what Deputy Shatter has said about people continuing to go out to Romania as if we had never mentioned 1 April, to name a date ten weeks forward.

Mr. Shatter

May I just interrupt the Minister to make one comment? The Minister is confusing one very specific thing, it is enactment of legislation by the Oireachtas which actually determines what the law is and not ministerial announcements as to what a Minister hopes to do or achieve on any particular issue. I do not want to be unduly political about this but there have been many odd announcements made in the last few weeks about ministerial intentions across a broad range of different political issues which are not going to see reality in legislation in the way they were originally announced. I do not want to be unduly contentious but I say to the Minister that if we cannot reach a consensus on this I will withhold this amendment until Report Stage. There is no other way of dealing with the issue at this moment. No matter what goodwill the Minister has to young babies brought into Ireland in respect of adoptions completed after 1 April, unless the legislation specifically prescribes rules for the recognition of those adoptions they cannot be recognised.

Dr. O'Hanlon

To leave the matter to Report Stage is the correct way to proceed. It would be irresponsible of us today to decide 1 July and, in the light of what has been said, we would be almost encouraging people to try to beat the deadline. That would not be in the best interests of the children or, indeed, of the adopting parents.

Mr. McCartan

We have come to a stage where we say that we will leave the matter with the Minister until Report Stage in view of what Deputy Shatter said about not putting the matter to a vote and the Minister's approach. May I ask the Minister for his advice as to how one would deal with the queries. The Minister spoke about 1 April before. It is fair to say that at our meeting on 20 March there was a very strong locking of views on the date and we came away from that meeting thinking something would be ironed out in the discussions that took place subsequently. There was not a clear signal coming from the 20 March meeting about a particular date or a cut-off. I accept it was in the draft legislation and that the Minister had made his announcements and public statements about it. There was a certain amount of obfuscation and confusion of the issue after our deliberations on 20 March.

What would the Minister advise people who are either in the process and have tickets booked or those who are contemplating going to Romania to do? What signal would the Minister like to come out of this meeting today in regard to this issue because I am not too clear about what I should say to people?

Dr. O'Hanlon

It appears that we have moved somewhat from where we were on 20 March. On 20 March the case was made that there would be people who had the procedures mainly completed before 1 April, who would find themselves in the position where they would not have their baby brought into Ireland before 1 April. We said we would be sympathetic to those people and we would look at their case. It appears now from what we are hearing that there are people who, since 1 April, have commenced the procedure and who did not have any or very little processing done at that date.

Mr. Shatter

That is not what I said. The Minister has misunderstood me.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I am talking about what Deputy McCartan has said. He is asking for advice. My advice to people who had not largely completed their procedure before 1 April is that they should now apply to the health board and we will contact the health boards on their behalf to expedite their assessment. I do not believe that anybody will have to wait an undue length of time for that. That is my advice to people.

Mr. McCartan

The working of the legislation will be put in place as of now?

Dr. O'Hanlon

The assessment procedure is in place.

Mr. Jacob

It is a pity that we are getting hung up on this one issue and needlessly so. We discussed this matter the last day and I made my views very clear at that time. I do not want to go through it again.

I agree totally with the Minister's view on this matter. As I understand the situation, what we are doing is we are going to deem people eligible retrospectively because I do not think there is anything else we can do once these children are in the country unless we take them from the people at that stage.

If we continue on this way we will be going along that line. We cannot deem them suitable retrospectively. What the Minister has in mind is that proper assessment be carried out so that the people are deemed to be suitable. I would say to my colleagues around the table, in view of what the Minister has said, that he will treat the matter sympathetically, that the best way they can serve those people they are worried about is get us on to Report Stage as expeditiously as possible as we appeared to be doing at the earlier stage of this meeting.

Mr. Ferris

I do not think that is an unreasonable attitude. I accepted the Minister's assurance that any adoptions that had taken place up to the date the Minister announced the date — I disagreed with the date — he was going to treat favourably. What we are all ignoring is the fact that there is a very active Irish Romanian Adoptive Society here who have laid down certain criteria. I do not know of anybody who has gone away for babies without consulting with this group.

I have written down here all the criteria they had to follow and we have assured them that the procedure they followed was good enough. Anyone who is consulting with them even at this moment will be told what to do. From 1 April onwards it is obvious there is another procedure that the Minister is recommending. I do not think Deputy Shatter is suggesting anything else either. We have reached a compromise and the sooner we get to Report Stage the better.

Mr. Shatter

As we managed to reach a consensus, I am quite happy between now and the Report Stage to have further discussion with the Minister about this issue, so that we can resolve the problem in an uncontentious way.

Mr. McCartan

I would like the position of the Aliens' Section of the Department of Justice clarified. The last contact with the Department of Justice through our office has indicated that they were at this stage consulting with the Romanian authorities to see if they would recognise any applications coming from Ireland after 1 April in the old form, given our deliberations. There seems to be a huge amount of confusion. I would like to get some clarity as to the role of the Aliens' Office, how they fit into the order of things and from whom they are accepting advice or directions on this issue.

Mrs. T. Ahearn

The Minister has brought up the issue of age. We all must accept that many of the people going to Romania were turned down by adoption societies because of age. It is alarming how low the age has fallen. The Minister has said he has told the health boards to be flexible. Has he given any definite guidelines? The harshest decision that any couple can get is to be told that they are too old to adopt and, yet, if their curcumstances were different they were young enough to be natural parents.

Dr. O'Hanlon

On the question of age, the health boards will assess any couple and it will be a matter then for the Adoption Board, having regard to what the age criteria should be in a particular case. The position is, as Deputy Shatter has already pointed out, there is no legal age for adoption. It was purely something that was introduced by the adoption societies themselves. I am sure the reason was because there were not sufficient babies for adoption and they felt it was in the best interests of the child to select a particular age group The health boards will assess any couple and then it will be a matter for the Adoption Board. Obviously, there has to be a cut-off point but that will be entirely a matter for the Adoption Board, having regard to the circumstances. The fact that the age in this country is fairly restrictive in no way means that the age of adopting parents has to be restricted for foreign adoptions, other than, at some point, you must say that it is not in the interests of the child.

I refer to the question raised by Deputy McCartan about the Aliens' Section of the Department of Justice. They have been involved in the Romanian adoptions from the start. It is a requirement of the Romanian authorities that the adopting persons will have a letter from the immigration authorities in their home country, confirming that the child will be permitted to enter the country. That is where that originates. The letters have been provided by the Aliens' Section of the Department of Justice, since people started adopting Romanian babies.

Mr. McCartan

Is it envisaged, Minister, that administration of that matter would become an adjunct of the work of the Adoption Board in time or of the Department of Health, as the ministerial Department with responsibility? I would be concerned about an additional or a different set of criteria then being introduced. I do not want to get overly contentious about this, but the Aliens' Section of the Department of Justice is a law unto itself and it is a very unapproachable part of the administration of that Department. Once they make decisions it is very hard to get those decisions overturned or reviewed. It does appear that at the moment they have suspended issuing their letters of accommodation and they are leaving people in suspense. That is my worry there.

Dr. O'Hanlon

The position about the bringing a child into the country will always be a matter for the immigration authorities, not for the Department of Health or the Adoption Board. What will happen is that the Adoption Board will give a certificate to a couple that they are suitable for adoption in a foreign country. They will then receive a certificate from the immigration authority that they can bring a child into the country.

Mr. McCartan

Will that automatically follow on without question? If the Adoption Board says a couple is suitable for adoption purposes then a letter should automatically follow.

Dr. O'Hanlon

That is as I understand it, it will follow on automatically once there is a clearance from the Adoption Board.

Mr. Shatter

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 6:

In the third and fourth lines of subsection (1), to delete "shall be deemed" and substitute ", other than an adoption specified in section 2 or 3 of this Act, shall be deemed, unless such deeming would be contrary to public policy,".

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 6 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 1a and 1b to amendment No. 6 not moved.

Mr. Shatter

I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 6:

After subsection (2), to insert the following subsections:

"(3) For the purposes of this section, a person in whose favour a foreign adoption was effected at any time before the commencement of this Act and who was not a widow or the mother or father or a relative of the adopted child shall be deemed to be a person in whose favour an adoption order might, by virtue of section 15 of this Act, have been made on the date on which the foreign adoption was effected.

(4) A declaration under subsection (1) (iii) (II) (B) of this section shall be expressed to and shall apply only in relation to an adoption effected during the period of 12 months from the date of the making of the declaration or such longer period as, on application to it in that behalf by the persons concerned during the period of 12 months aforesaid, the Board, being satisfied that it is reasonable and proper to do so, endorses on the declaration.".

Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 6 agreed to.

Amendment No. 6, as amended, agreed to.

Section 4 deleted.

NEW SECTIONS

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 3, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

5.—(1) The Board shall establish and maintain a register (to be known as the Register of Foreign Adoptions).

(2) (a) If, on application to the Board in that behalf, in relation to an adoption effected outside the State, being an application made by the person who was the subject of the adoption or a person by whom a person was adopted pursuant to the adoption or any other person having an interest in the matter, the Board is satisfied that—

(i) the adoption is a foreign adoption to which section 2 or 3 of this Act applies, or

(ii) the adoption is a foreign adoption to which section 4 of this Act applies,

then, unless (in a case to which clause (II) of section 4 (1) (iii) of this Act applies) the Board is satisfied that the relevant circumstances have so changed since the date of the declaration under that clause that it would not be proper, having regard to section 13 of the Principal Act and section 15 of this Act, an entry shall be made in the Register with respect to the adoption.

(b) If the Court so directs under section 6 of this Act, an entry shall be made in the Register concerning a specified foreign adoption.

(3) An entry in the Register shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed by rules made under section 5 of the Principal Act.

(4) A person making an application to the Board under this section shall furnish the Board with such information as the Board may reasonably require and the information shall be in such form (if any) as may be specified by the Board.

(5) An error in an entry in the Register may be corrected and, if the Court so directs, a specified correction shall be made in the Register.

(6) If the Board is satisfied that an adoption in relation to which there is an entry in the Register has been set aside, annulled or otherwise rendered void under and in accordance with the law of the place where it was effected or if the Court so directs under section 6 of this Act in relation to an entry in the Register, the entry shall be cancelled.

(7) A document purporting to be a copy, and to be certified by an officer of the Board to be a true copy, of an entry in the Register—

(a) shall be evidence of the fact that the adoption to which it relates is a foreign adoption and is deemed by this Act to have been effected by a valid adoption order made on the date specified in the copy, and

(b) shall be issued by the Board, to any person on application by him to it in that behalf and on payment by him to it of such fee as may be specified by the Board with the consent of the Minister.

(8) Section 20 of the Principal Act shall apply to an application under subsection (2) of this section as it applies to an application for an adoption order with any necessary modification.".

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 7.

In the last two lines of subsection (7) (b), to delete "of the Minister." and to substitute:

"of the Minister,

and any requirement of the law for the production of a certificate of birth shall be satisfied by the production of such a document.".

Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 7 agreed to.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 7:

In the last line of subsection (8), to delete "any necessary modification" and substitute "the modification that the Board shall refer any question in relation to public policy arising on such an application to the High Court for determination and with any other necessary modification".

Amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 7 agreed to.

Amendment No. 7, as amended, agreed to.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 3, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

6.—(1) If, on application to the Court in that behalf by a person who may make an application to the Board under section 5 (2), the Court is satisfied that an entry should be made in the Register with respect to an adoption or that an entry in the Register with respect to an adoption should be cancelled or that a correction should be made in an entry in the Register, the Court may by order, as appropriate—

(a) direct the Board to procure the making of a specified entry in the Register,

(b) direct the Board to procure the cancellation of the entry concerned in the Register, or

(c) direct the Board to make a specified correction in the Register.

(2) If the Court refuses to give a direction under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section or gives a direction under paragraph (b) of that subsection, the adoption concerned shall be deemed not to have been effected by a valid adoption order.

(3) (a) The Court may direct that notice of an application under the said subsection (1) shall be given by the person making the application to such other persons (including the Attorney General and the Board) as it may determine and may, of its own motion or on application to it in that behalf by the person concerned or a party to the proceedings in relation to the application under the said subsection (1), add any person as a party to those proceedings.

(b) The Attorney General, of his own motion or if so requested by the Court, may, without being added as party to proceedings in relation to an application under the said subsection (1), make submissions to the Court in relation to the application.

(4) Proceedings under this section shall, if the Court so determines, be heard otherwise than in public.".

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Shatter

Could I say that in the context of the new format that we have agreed for the Bill. I agree to all of these amendments upon the Minister formally moving them.

Sections 5 to 11, inclusive, deleted.

Mr. Shatter

In that context, so that the procedure is not at any stage misunderstood and for the record of the Committee, let me say that many of the provisions contained in those sections are now incorporated in other sections of the Bill as we have now rearranged it, and indeed we have already addressed a number of issues that are referred to there. The only matter that we will not have is Deputy O'Donoghue's preference for a designation system by the Department of Health. The Adoption Board will be exercising substantially similar though not identical powers.

NEW SECTION.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 9.

In page 5, before section 12, to insert the following new section:

"12.—(1) Whenever a health board is so requested, for the purposes of section 4 (1) (iii) (II) of this Act, by a person or persons who is or are ordinarily resident in its functional area, it shall carry out an assessment of the person or persons as respects the matters referred to in section 13 of the Principal Act and shall prepare a report in writing of the assessment and shall transmit the report to the Board.

(2) Where, at the request of a person or persons, for the purposes of the said section 4 (I) (iii) (II), a registered adoption society has carried out an assessment of a person or persons as respects the matters referred to in the said section 13, it shall prepare a report in writing of the assessment and shall transmit the report to the Board.".

This amendment places a statutory duty on health boards to carry out an assessment or to delegate an adoption society to carry them out on their behalf.

Mr. Shatter

What is now section 12 largely reflects what was in the original section 12. We are just rearranging the wording of it and the amendment to amendment No. 9 which is in the joint names of myself and the Minister ensures that the report, the whole study report that adoptive parents require will be made available to them upon them being deemed suitable to adopt by the Adoption Board. The only difference between the original provision in the Bill and what we are now doing is we are bringing in the Adoption Board in making a declaration of suitability whereas previously the assessments would have been carried out by the health boards.

Mr. Enright

In regard to assessments by health boards I have seen a case in Britain recently where on health grounds the family refused permission to adopt a baby and the life expectancy of the father, who I understand had a heart problem was quite short. The mother was in indifferent health, putting it at its best, but she would have had a normal life expectancy all the same. They were refused permission and they appealed to the court and the court turned them down as well. Nobody knows their life expectancy and I disagreed with the decision of the adoption boards in England, I disagreed, and I imagine I would disagree with the decision of the courts in Britain on it. With modern science, medicine and everything else a persons life expectancy can be extended. There are a lot of one-parent families and I am sure the mother would have been able to look after the child. I feel that there can be instances of over rigidity and a lack of feeling.

Deputy Ahern mentioned age factors. Somebody who had no family, when they reach 45 years of age cannot adopt a baby. This couple in question were a youngish couple. I would ask that in a situation where somebody has an illness, as long as it is not a contagious type, they should certainly be given every possible leeway.

Dr. O'Hanlon

Basically it is a matter for the Adoption Board, who draw up rules and regulations, taking everything into consideration in this country, and of course the Adoption Board do have a lot of powers under the law, some similar to those of district courts. The assessment that will be carried out by the health board will be sent to the Adoption Board and it will be the Adoption Board that will issue the certificate.

Chairman

Will the Minister move the amendments to amendment No. 9?

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 9:

In subsection (1), to delete from and including "it shall carry out" in the sixth line to the end of the subsection and substitute "it shall, as soon as practicable,

(a) carry out an assessment of the person or persons as respects the matters referred to in section 13 of the Principal Act and shall prepare a report in writing of the assessment and shall transmit the report to the Board, or

(b) arrange for the carrying out of such an assessment and the preparation of such a report in relation thereto by a registered adoption society and shall transmit the report to the Board.".

Amendment to amendment agreed to.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 9:

To delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) Where—

(a) at the request of a person or persons, for the purposes of the said section 4 (1) (iii) (II), or

(b) pursuant to an arrangement under subsection (1) of this section,

a registered adoption society carries out an assessment of a person or persons as respects the matters referred to in the said section 13, it shall prepare a report in writing of the assessment and shall transmit it, in a case to which paragraph (a) of this subsection relates, to the Board and, in a case to which paragraph (b) of this subsection relates, to the health board concerned.

(3) Upon the making of a declaration under section 4 (1) (iii) (II), a copy of the report concerned under subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be made available by the Board to the person or persons who are the subject of the declaration and to any person in the place where the adoption concerned is proposed to be effected having an interest in the matter.

(4) The functions of a health board under subsection (1) of this section shall be functions of the chief executive officer of the board or a person acting as deputy chief executive officer of the board in accordance with section 13 of the Health Act, 1970.".

Amendment to amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 9, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 12 and 13 deleted.

NEW SECTIONS

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, before section 14, to insert the following new section:

"14.—(1) (a) A document, duly authenticated, which purports to be a copy of the document by which an adoption outside the State was effected shall without further proof be deemed to be a true copy of the document unless the contrary is shown and shall be admissible as evidence of the adoption.

(b) Documents, duly authenticated, which purport to be copies of the documents by which an adoption outside the State was effected shall without further proof be deemed to be true copies of the documents unless the contrary is shown and shall be admissible as evidence of the adoption.

(2) A document purporting to be a copy of a document or of one of the documents by which an adoption outside the State is effected shall, for the purposes of this section, be regarded as being duly authenticated if it purports—

(a) to bear the seal of the court or other authority or the person or persons by which or by whom it was issued or executed, or

(b) to be certified—

(i) by a person in his capacity as a judge or officer of that court or in his capacity as that authority or as a member or officer of that authority, or

(ii) by the person or persons by whom it was issued or executed.

(3) (a) The Minister may by regulations make provision in relation to the proof of adoptions effected outside the State and the regulations may make different provision as respects different places and different classes of adoptions.

(b) Provisions of regulations under this subsection may be in addition to or in substitution for the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) of this section and may amend those provisions.".

Subsection (3) is to enable the Minister for Health to make regulations in relation to the proof of foreign adoptions.

Mr. Shatter

A provision for the making of regulations was contained in section 13 of the Bill as originally published, and this is a somewhat more detailed provision. We need also to move the agreed amendment, the extremely important amendment to amendment No. 10 which is in the joint names of myself and the Minister.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 10:

After subsection (3), to insert the following subsection:

"(4) Where an adoption is effected in a place outside the State, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that it was effected under and in accordance with the law of that place.".

Amendment to amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 10, as amended, agreed to.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 6, before section 14, to insert the following new section:

"15.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, an adoption order shall not be made unless—

(a) the applicants are a married couple who are living together, or

(b) the applicant is the mother, natural father or a relative of the child, or

(c) the applicant is a widow or a widower.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, where the Board is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of the case, it is desirable, an adoption order may be made in favour of an applicant who is not a person specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of this section.

(3) Subject to subsection (1) (a) of this section, an adoption order shall not be made for the adoption of a child by more than one person.

(4) An adoption order shall not be made for the adoption of a child by an applicant who is married without the consent of the spouse of the applicant (which shall be given in such manner as may be determined by the Board) unless—

(a) the couple are living apart under—

(i) a decree of divorce a mensa et thoro, or

(ii) a deed of separation,

or

(b) the spouse has deserted the applicant or conduct on the part of the spouse results in the applicant, with just cause, leaving and living separately and apart from him.

(5) An adoption order shall not be made unless—

(a) the applicant and, if the applicants are a married couple, each of them has attained the age of 21 years, or

(b) the applicants are a married couple and one of them is the mother, natural father or a relative of the child and either of them has attained the age of 21 years.

(6) An adoption order shall not be made unless the applicant or the applicants is or are ordinarily resident in the State and has or have been so resident during the year ending on the date of the order.

(7) Section 11 of the Principal Act, section 5 of the Adoption Act, 1964, and section 5 of the Adoption Act, 1974, are hereby repealed.".

Mr. Shatter

The amendments to amendment No. 11 that are tabled in the joint names of myself and the Minister are to remove one or two anomalies in that as originally tabled and the amendment is agreed to.

Dr. O'Hanlon

In amendment No. 11 I am availing of the opportunity presented by the Bill to extend the categories of persons who are eligible to adopt and to reduce the minimum age limit for adoptive parents. The first change — I might say a word on this because it is an important one — relates to the eligibility of a widower. At present there is a distinction between the eligibility of widows and widowers to adopt. A widower may only adopt a child who has been in the joint care of him and his wife and whom both of them had applied to adopt before the wife died. I propose to abolish this restriction and it is provided for in subsection (1).

Subsection (2) permits a single person or a married person who is separated, to adopt in exceptional cases where the Adoption board is satisfied that this would be in the interests of the child. Subsection (3) repeats an existing provision which prohibits the adoption of a child by persons other than a married couple living together. This is in accordance with the European Convention on Adoption of Children which prohibits adoption by unmarried couples. Ireland has of course ratified that convention. Subsection (4) deals with the adoption of a child by a married person who is separated. Broadly speaking, it provides that the consent of the spouse shall be required, unless the couple are living apart under a legal separation or the spouse has deserted the prospective adopter. This provision is in conformity with a requirement of the European Convention.

Finally, subsection 5 would introduce a standard minimum age of 21 years for adopting parents, except where a parent or relative is adopting the child jointly with a spouse when only one of them would be required to be 21 years of age. The present minimum ages are 21, 25 or 30 years, depending on the relationship of the adopters to the child and the duration of their marriage. I see no good reason for continuing these distinctions. I might mention that these proposals are in line with recommendations by the Review Committee on Adoption, who reported to the Minister for Health in 1984.

Mr. R. Bruton

I wonder why the Minister feels it necessary to insert, in respect of single people, this clause about the circumstances of the case, since the whole procedure is to satisfy the Adoption Board that the adoptive parent is suitable. I wonder, if we are going to have a scarce number of children to adopt, it is not, in effect, writing out the hoped for extension the Minister is making to single parents if they have to get over an extra hurdle.

Dr. O'Hanlon

No, it is to allow single persons to adopt in certain exceptional circumstances, where there may have been a bonding between the child and the persons. The example I might have given the last day was where a nurse might have been looking after a child for a number of years in an institution and might have wanted to take the child to her own home and rear the child. Everybody will accept it is generally in the best interests of children to be reared in a home where there are two parents. It is not a general thing for a single person to adopt a child, it is only in very exceptional circumstances that it will apply.

Mr. Shatter

This provision will change the eligibility rules, not just in the context of foreign adoptions, as the Minister said, but in respect of domestic adoptions. My understanding is that this provision will alleviate difficulties in a number of cases pending before the Adoption Board for a number of years. There have been instances of adoptions not being completed perhaps for two or three years due to a mother changing her mind ultimately, the marriage of the adoptive couple breaking down, the adoptive mother or father retaining custody of the child and continuing to properly care for the child and the Adoption Board not being able to finalise adoption orders.

It is a very rare event that that happens, but I understand a number of such cases are in existence and this will allow these adoptions to be finally completed. Indeed, I would be aware of an instance of a wife who was deserted by her husband some time after a child was placed for adoption and who could not ever complete an adoption process. This is a welcome simplification of the eligibility rules.

Mr. McCartan

These are very sensible changes in the law, bringing the whole thing into uniformity. I recall Deputy Garret FitzGerald, in fact, made mention of an instance that he was related to. I understand that this amendment of the Minister's will assist in that instance again. These are an excellent selection of amendments that deal with some of the outstanding anomalies and they are to be very much welcomed.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 11:

In subsection (1) (b), to delete ", natural" and substitute "or".

Amendment to amendment agreed to.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 11:

In subsection (4) (a), after sub-paragraph (i), to insert the following:

"(ii) a decree of judicial separation, or"

Amendment to amendment agreed to.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 11:

In subsection (5) (b), to delete ", natural" and substitute "or".

Amendment to amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 11, as amended, agreed to.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 6, before section 14, to insert the following new section:

"16.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Adoption Act, 1991.

(2) The Adoption Acts, 1952 to 1988 and this Act may be cited together as the Adoption Acts, 1952 to 1991.

(3) The Adoption Acts, 1952 to 1988, and this Act shall be construed together as one.".

This is to make provision for the Adoption Board. The original Bill did not envisage any role for the Adoption Board and the amendments that have been accepted by the Committee will result in the board having new important responsibilities under the legislation. The Adoption Acts from 1952 to 1988 contain provisions in relation to the board's procedures and the board will have to apply many of these procedures in the discharge of their functions under this legislation. For this reason I consider it appropriate that the legislation be known as the Adoption Act, 1991 and that it be cited together with the other Adoption Acts.

Mr. Shatter

That is agreed and it is appropriate that the Adoption Board issue these declarations of suitability so that there will now be a record of the number of children adopted abroad by couples residing in Ireland. People will have a simple procedure to do that. I would also make the comment that if I had originally tried to give the Adoption Board that function in the Bill when published as a Private Members' Bill, I suspect that aspect of the Bill would have been ruled out of order as imposing a charge on the Exchequer in the context of requiring the Adoption Board to establish a new register. This sort of provision could only have gone into the Bill on an agreed basis. I think that is a welcome provision to have. It will be an agreed register which will delineate those foreign adoptions completed by the couples resident in Ireland that are recognised generally in this country.

I want to thank members of the Committee for their help and co-operation and I want to thank the Minister. As members of the Committee know, there is only one major issue outstanding. I would hope that that could be resolved satisfactorily between the Minister and myself with the assistance of the other Members of the Committee. I would hope that we might be able to take Report Stage within two weeks. We can get it passed through the Seanad and ensure that the new procedures that will be put in place will be working satisfactorily because even if the health boards or adoption societies are now carrying out assessments, there is nothing the Adoption Board can do with the reports that they may receive until the Bill is enacted and they are given the new powers. It is a matter of urgency that the Bill be passed, and we have done a good day's work in that context.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 14 deleted.

TITLE

Dr. O'Hanlon

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 2, lines 6 and 7, to delete "EXTEND RECOGNITION TO ADOPTION ORDERS MADE IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES" and substitute "PROVIDE FOR THE RECOGNITION OF CERTAIN ADOPTIONS EFFECTED OUTSIDE THE STATE".

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the title, as amended, be the title to the Bill."

Dr. O'Hanlon

I am considering the need to increase the membership of the board because of their increased workload and there are seven at the moment. I want to notify the Committee that I will be bringing an amendment to Report Stage to increase the number of Members on the board, from seven to nine.

Mr. Shatter

In that context if I could make one point to the Minister and it is that we have now had the Adoption Act, 1988, which started with the Fine Gael Private Members' Bill, the Adoption Bill 1987. I brought this Bill before the House which deals with adoption of abandoned children of marital parents. We now have this Bill and as we go through the legislation we will be making a number of worthwhile reforms to the Adoption Acts, albeit of a piecemeal nature. I would hope that we might, in the not too distant future, be in a position for the Government to bring before the House a comprehensive Adoption Bill to implement many of the outstanding recommendations of the Committee on Adoption which reported in 1984. Those, recommendations are being taken into this Bill in the context of eligibility rules and, perhaps, you might be able to tell the Committee, or tell the House on Report Stage what the possibilities are of us addressing some of the other issues that need to be addressed, and which have not been in the public spotlight to the same degree as foreign adoptions.

Dr. O'Hanlon

I would like to thank you, as Chairman, the Members of the Committee and the officials for the expeditious way in which we have been able to deal with this Committee Stage of the Bill. I would also like to thank Deputy Shatter for the constructive manner in which he approached the meetings. The meetings were very productive, and I think that can be seen here today in the way we were able to deal with the Bill. Particularly I would like to thank the officials in my own Department, because the officials in the child care division, as everybody here is probably aware, are particularly busy at present because the Government are committed to updating the law in the provision of services for children. They are involved with my colleague, the Minister of State, in a major initiative in providing new facilities for children. They have been involved very much in the child care legislation, which is mammoth legislation, and now this legislation. I would like to put on record that we appreciate their work. That leads me to the point Deputy Shatter is making. Of course, it is our desire that we should keep our legislation under review and, where necessary, amend it and we will be reviewing the legislation. Deputy Shatter's original Bill dealt specifically with the recognition of foreign adoptions but we have used the opportunity to bring in a number of very worthwhile amendments, many of them recommended by the Committee on Adoption that sat in 1984. Again, I would like to thank all the Members for the expeditious way in which we have dealt with this legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Chairman

I suggest that the report of the Special Committee on the Recognition of Foreign Adoptions Bill, 1990, be as follows: The Special Committee has considered the Bill and has made amendments thereto, and has amended the Title to read as follows—

An Act to provide for the recognition of certain adoptions effected outside the State, to amend and extend the Adoption Acts, 1952 to 1988, and to make further provision in connection with the matters aforesaid.

The Bill, as amended, is reported to the Dáil.

I will be making a report to the Dáil and will move that the Report of the Proceedings of the Special Committee be published and that the Bill, as amended, be printed. A date for Report Stage will then be agreed.

On a personal note, may I thank you all very much. We have built up here over two Committees of the Dáil a core of experience and knowledge in the care of children. I hope we will see its fruits down the road in the not too distant future. Go raibh maith agaibh go léir.

The Committee concluded business at 6 p.m.