Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll gave notice that on the Adjournment she would raise the subject matter of Question No. 6 on to-day's Order Paper.
Adjournment Debate. - Transfer of Children to U.S.A.
Before I start, A Cheann Comhairle, I understood I was raising the subject matter of Questions Nos. 6 and 7.
I think the subject matter is the same in both. I do not think that any new matter is raised in the second question.
At the outset I want to make it clear that my main reason for raising these questions is the fact that I am convinced that there have been serious contraventions of Section 40 of the Adoption Act, 1952. That is my only purpose. If it can be proved otherwise I shall apologise for any embarrassment or inconvenience caused; if it is proved that I am correct I trust the Minister will amend the Act to ensure that the cases I referred to in my questions will not re-occur and that children will be adopted in a legal manner.
The Deputy may not advocate legislation on the motion for the Adjournment.
Section 40 of the Adoption Act, sub-section 1, reads:—
"(1) No person shall remove out of the State a child under seven years of age who is an Irish citizen or cause or permit such removal."
Sub-section (2) of the same Act states:—
"(2) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to the removal of an illegitimate child under one year of age by or with the approval of the mother or, if the mother is dead, of a relative for the purpose of residing with the mother or a relative outside the State."
Sub-section (3) states:—
"(3) Sub-section (1) shall not apply to the removal of a child (not being an illegitimate child under one year of age) by or with the approval of a parent, guardian or relative of the child."
I submit that the section, as I interpret it—not being a professional legislator, and not having expert knowledge of legislation—clearly indicates that a child of under seven years of age shall not be removed from the State and that nobody has the authority to remove such a child. It further states that an illegitimate child under one year cannot be removed from this State even with the approval of the parents, parent, or guardian. In the case of an illegitimate child the consent of the parent or guardian can be obtained and such adoption can take place.
In my first Question to-day, No. 6, I asked the Minister if he would make a statement regarding the circumstances which led to the transfer to the United States of America, with a view to adoption of Anthony Barron and Mary Clancy of Camos, Bruff, County Limerick, and if he would state the date of each transfer and the place from which each transfer took place. The Minister in his reply stated:—
"From the inquiries that have been made I am satisfied that there was nothing unlawful or irregular about the removal of these children out of the State. In the circumstances, I have no further function in the matter."
I submit that not only was there something irregular about the manner of the removal of those children but something definitely illegal. My attention was drawn to this matter by a responsible association in this country and I based my questions on information supplied by that organisation. I made it my business to go to Limerick last Sunday. I went to the house where these children had been and I saw the grandmother of the children. I happened to see also the aunt of one of them.
I am satisfied beyond all doubt that Mary Clancy was born in 1952 and that Anthony Barron was born in 1953. The Minister's reply to me to-day states that both children were removed from this State this year. The ages speak for themselves. I was also informed, in reply to a further question, that Anthony Barron was removed from the Croom Hospital by his grandmother. I have here a photostatic copy of the letter from Anthony Barron's grandmother to the Mrs. Barron who had charge of the child. This letter was written after the removal of the child from the Barron household. The letter states:—
"Dear Mrs. Barron: I hope you are well, as this leaves me the same. Well, Mrs. I was surprised to hear that the child was gone. It is in Croom Hospital waiting to go to the U.S.A. Will you take it back if I get it for you? I will go down to see it on Sunday. If you can, will you write by return post? Yours truly, N. Barron."
I mention those two documents to substantiate that, on the basis of these two specific cases, something illegal took place. Two children over one year and under seven were removed from this State with a view to adoption.
Deputy O'Malley put a question to the Minister for Justice last April. It is in the Dáil Reports of 10th April, Volumn 165, columns 8:—
"Mr. O'Malley asked the Minister for Justice whether any children, who were temporary inmates of the County Hospital, Croom, County Limerick, were adopted by American citizens and, if so, if he will state the circumstances of such adoption."
The Minister replied:
"The answer to the first part of the question is that some such children have been taken out of the country with a view to adoption. I am satisfied that there was nothing irregular or unlawful about this."
In a further question, Deputy Desmond directed the attention of the Minister to some Sunday newspaper reports. I did not see the reports myself, but his question was based on some Sunday newspaper reports alleging that there was traffic in babies in this country. The Minister referred the Deputy to the reply given to Deputy O'Malley, and again reiterated he was satisfied there was nothing wrong in the whole matter and that it was merely cross-Channel misrepresentation.
I would ask the House to consider that, while these two isolated cases alone would have justified the fullest examination of the facts, in reply to a further question of mine to-day, I was given the information that in the last three years 523 such children have left this country with a view to adoption in the U.S.A. Five hundred and twenty-three is an appalling figure in view of the circumstances.
The present Adoption Act, which was passed after many years of agitation by interested societies and social workers, in its present form deals with the adoption of children in this country, and its application has proved to be most successful, most efficient and most beneficial to the applicants for adopted children and to the children adopted. I fail to see why we cannot take the same protective measures to ensure that those children who are leaving this country are guaranteed the same protection with regard to religious duties, and with regard to the type of home they are going to.
I know the Minister has stated, and sincerely meant, that investigations do take place on this side when these children go. Our Adoption Act is not effective in the U.S.A. How legally binding, therefore, are the undertakings given by the people willing to adopt? I think this is a very serious matter. I have no objection to the transfer of these children to America as such. It is quite probable that many of these children are getting an opportunity in life they could not and would not get here, that they can start a new life and that they will not have to go through life in this country with the stigma they normally have to bear. But I do not see why it should have to be done in an illegal manner. I again ask the Minister if he cannot put any interpretation on this section other than the one that is on it, to ensure that at an early date legislation will be brought in to ensure that these children are adopted in this country before they go?
Section 10 of the Act states that when parents in this country are adopting a baby in this country they must be resident in this country for at least five years before the baby is adopted. In my opinion that should also apply to a limited extent to parents from America who wish to adopt our babies. They should have a residential term in this country, so that their whole moral character and religious outlook and ideas could be examined. I think legislation should be introduced at once to amend this Act. If the Minister cannot assure me in this, then I would suggest that the Act should be made more specific. If the points I am making are not correct—and I am at a loss to see they are not, in view of my investigations—or if I am not right in my beliefs, I hope the Minister will amend the wording of the Act to make it more clear so that these children will be protected.
I think I made it clear at the outset that the Deputy may not advocate legislation.
I am sorry, Sir. I would like to go into the particular circumstances surrounding the removal of those two children I mentioned. It was specifically stated, in reply to a question of mine, that Mary Clancy was removed from Croom Hospital by her grandmother. As I said, I was in Limerick last Sunday and I found that that was not true. Mary Clancy's grandmother did not remove her from that hospital. Mary Clancy left Croom Hospital for an American plane at one o'clock in the morning. Her grandmother may have known she was going, but she did not remove her from the hospital.
Anthony Barron was not taken to Croom Hospital by his grandmother nor was he removed by his grandmother. I am quite satisfied, as a result of my personal investigations, that these facts are true. I do not know what the reason behind all this is. Apart from these cases in County Limerick I would consider this Adjournment motion necessary in view of the appalling figure of 523 children who have gone out of this country in three years and who, in my opinion, have gone out of it illegally. I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to give an adequate explanation and assure us he will do something to control the position.
Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll mentioned that I raised this matter in connection with the children originally. She mentioned that last April I got a reply from the Minister for Justice that he was satisfied nothing illegal had been done. I support 80 per cent. of what Deputy Mrs. Maureen O'Carroll maintains, but I deprecate the manner in which she has chosen to bring publicity to a question which, in my respectful opinion, would have been better dealt with by an interview, first of all, between Deputy Mrs. Maureen O'Carroll —if she does not mind my saying so— and the appropriate Minister. There are too many outside bodies waiting to have a crack at this country, without mentioning any names, and they lose no opportunity of vilifying us. What has been stated in all sincerity by Deputy Mrs. Maureen O'Carroll will be splashed across many a paper, not only in Britain but in other countries, to the detriment of this nation.
I support Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll 80 per cent. I admire her for the trouble she has taken in this matter. She went down to Limerick and interviewed the grandmother of the two children I mentioned here last April. There is no doubt that what she states is substantially correct. One thing emerges from this debate: the whole system of adoption of children is worthy of reinvestigation. I know, as everyone connected with Shannon Airport knows, that these children are going to very wealthy homes. There are two sides to that. Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll says she agrees it improves their lot in life and possibly they lose the stigma which might attach to them, under certain circumstances, if they continued to live here. The parents of these adopted children can afford to pay the passage of an employee of an American air company at Shannon to take the child, or children, over there. Her first-class return fare is paid. Evidently these children are going to very good families.
One point has not been stressed, though I think Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll has it in the back of her mind. Who is at the back of these arrangements? That is what we want to find out. Who is the negotiating body? Who is carrying out the deals for these millionaires, semi-millionaires and very high Catholic Americans? Who is the liaison officer between America and this country? No one can find that out. Money is passing to the very close relatives of these children, in certain cases to the unfortunate mother of the type of child to whom Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll referred. It is a temptation to such a mother if she is offered £100 or £150 in order to get her consent.
I live in Limerick and I could go into a lot of detail in regard to this. I do not say there is any illegal traffic. There may be technical breaches. I support Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll 100 per cent. and congratulate her in bringing this matter to the Minister's attention and in focussing the attention of the public on it. I hope, as a result of this debate, the whole system will be reinvestigated, but——
The Minister is entitled to the remaining ten minutes.
——I deprecate Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll's approach.
The facts in this matter are not in dispute. The position is that the two children referred to in the question asked to-day were both adopted in accordance with the terms of Section 40 of the Adoption Act. Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll appears to have misdirected herself on the interpretation of that section. Sub-section (1) of Section 40 provides a general prohibition against the removal of a child under seven years of age out of the State; but that sub-section is qualified by the subsequent sub-sections (2) and (3). Sub-section (3) provides that this prohibition will not apply to the removal of a child, whether legitimate or not, with the parents' consent unless the child is an illegitimate child under one year of age, in which case the child may be removed only for the purpose of residing with its mother or a relative outside the State.
In the two cases in question the children were removed with the consent of the mother in one case and the consent of the grandmother in another. Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll said that on the basis of the figures supplied in reply to other parliamentary questions to-day there would appear to be a traffic in these children. Although Deputy O'Malley sympathised with Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll, he thought she had not gone the proper way about raising this matter. I agree with the Deputy's solicitude for a proper compliance with the law. Unfortunately, Deputy O'Malley suggested that there were deals with millionaires. I have no particulars of such deals and it is wrong to suggest that there is anything in the nature of a traffic in the adoption of children.
The requirements of my Department concerning the issue of passports for the adoption of children are very stringent and full particulars must be supplied before a passport issues. In all these cases appropriate religious organisations in the adopting countries investigate the cases concerned. I have here a draft letter dealing with the applications of a Catholic legitimate child. In the case of children of other denominations the same requirements must be complied with.
In the particular case mentioned here the provisions of the Act have been complied with. Deputy Mrs. O'Carroll said that she had her information from a responsible association. I hope that their other activities are more responsible than is their attempt at an interpretation of Section 40 of the Adoption Act. If the Deputy has based her interpretation of that section on the information supplied to her, then she has misdirected herself. Only when the requirements are complied with is a passport issued. The other requirements involve a very careful study conducted by charitable organisations in the United States as to the circumstances, the background, the suitability and so forth of the adopting parents. If Deputies are interested, particulars may be had on application to the Department.
It is wrong to suggest that, because of the publicity that has attached to these two particular cases, in the 500 other cases in which passports have been issued, such passports have been issued irregularly. I deprecate the type of publicity which this debate will attract. Deputy Desmond put a supplementary question to-day. Great care is taken to see that the Adoption Act is complied with and that the prospective adopting parents are suitable and proper people to be granted the custody of a child. It is significant that the only comments on this have appeared in what we here call the yellow English Sunday newspapers, who avail of every, and any, opportunity to smear the name of this country. I do not propose to be a party to any such campaign and I hope that no Deputies in this House will lend themselves to it either.
The Dail adjourned at 10.57 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 19th July, 1956.