Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Nov 1963

Vol. 205 No. 7

Adoption Bill, 1963—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I said yesterday evening that this Bill is to a large extent introduced by the Minister as a tidying-up measure. In his statement on the Bill, the Minister says that the amendments it proposes are not radical and are entirely in the nature of modifications of the earlier Act, the Act of 1952. I was pointing out yesterday evening that there are in fact a number of rather important changes being made in the Bill. Some of them are, I think, commendable — certainly quite unobjectionable—but there are, however, a few matters contained in this Bill which the Minister should examine more closely before the Bill becomes an Act.

As I see it, there are six main features in the Bill. First, as the Minister pointed out, the Adoption Act, 1952, provides for the adoption only of either illegitimate children or orphans. The first change the Minister proposes making in the Bill is in connection with the case of illegitimate children where the natural parents have married in the interim between the birth of the child and the making of the adoption order. It seems to me to be reasonable, provided there are adequate safeguards in connection with the consent of the parents of the child, that the Board should have the authority to make an adoption order in such cases without having to go into all the detailed inquiries to which the Minister referred. All of us can see that from a practical point of view it is not desirable that the Board should be put to the trouble of making exhaustive inquiries in all cases when possibly there might be only one or two cases coming within the scope of the particular category which this change in the Act is designed to meet.

The second major change proposed in the Bill is the raising of the age limit of children who may be adopted. Under the Act, the children must be between the ages of six months and seven years. It is proposed in this Bill to raise the upper limit to nine years. The Minister indicated with regard to this change that it was being made at the request of the Adoption Board.

Mr. Haughey

They suggested 21.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

They even went further to suggest 21. My only comment is that I am surprised the Board should recommend this change. The change which the Minister is effecting by this Bill may be regarded as a minor one. It is a comparatively slight extension. In fact, I think it will apply only to cases where the child was in what I might call the family of the adoptive parents prior to attaining the age of seven years. To that extent, the change is certainly limited and I see no harm in it but it surprises me to learn that the Adoption Board were seeking to extend the upper age limit for the adoption of children.

The next change being brought about by the Bill is in connection with the ages of the adoptive parents. Under existing legislation, it is provided that the adoptive parents must have attained the age of 30 years. The Minister now proposes to reduce that to 25 years provided the couple have been married at least three years. Again, while that is a substantial change in the existing legislation I do not think anyone is going to object to it. I do not think exception can be taken to it.

The next matter to which I want to refer is a change that I regard as a rather radical one in the legislation notwithstanding the Minister's introductory statement that none of the changes proposed was radical. It is the changes in regard to the citizenship of the adoptive parents. Heretofore under section 11 (5) of the 1952 Act it was provided that the board might not make an adoption order unless the applicant, or if the applicants are a married couple, the husband, was an Irish citizen or had been ordinarily resident in the State during the five years preceding the date of the application. Under section 5 of the present Bill the Minister is simply sweeping away the existing provision regarding citizenship and the five years' residence within the State.

It is true, as the Minister says, that under subsection (4) of section 11 of the 1952 Act it will still be a necessary qualification for the adoptive parents that they should be residing in the State. I do not think that is any use once section 11 (5) of the 1952 Act is taken out. The meaning from now on, as far as I can see, is that so far as residence is concerned the only qualification which will be necessary for an applicant is to show that he is resident in the State at the time of the application.There is nothing whatever to provide that the week after an adoption order is made he may not clear out of the State for good.

I can see that in some cases of adoption that may not be of particular importance but remember that the code of legal adoption applies to orphans and it may be an orphan aged five or six or seven whose whole heritage has been Irish who can now be taken out of the State the day after an adoption order is made and the Minister seems to be relying as a safeguard against that kind of situation merely on the fact that section 11 (4) of the 1952 Act is still to continue in operation. It provides only that the applicants reside in the State. I think it is fair to say that the only meaning that can be attached to that is residence in the State when the application is made but that it does not in any way tie them to residence in the State once the order has been made. Consequently, I regard the change proposed in section 5 (2) of the present Bill as quite undesirable and I would strongly urge the Minister to reconsider it before the next Stage.

The next feature of the Bill which I regard as important and again, which I regard as an extremely radical change notwithstanding what the Minister said, is in regard to section 7 of the Bill. It is interesting that in his introductory statement the Minister dismissed section 7 as purely a drafting amendment not worthy of comment by him in the House. The explanatory memorandum which the Minister issued with the Bill gives considerably more information than the Minister himself gave in his opening statement.

Under the Adoption Act of 1952, certain essential requirements are laid down in section 13 with which the adoptive parents, the applicants applying for the adoption of a child, must comply. These requirements are in no way harsh but are the type of requirements that any reasonable person would feel are the bare essentials in the case of adoption. The applicants are required to be of good moral character; they should have sufficient means to support the child they are adopting and the applicants should be suitable persons to have parental rights and duties in respect of the child or, if the applicants are a married couple, that both of them should be suitable persons.Those were the minimum essential requirements laid down in section 13 of the 1952 Act. The Act then went further—I assume for the purpose of protecting the child that was to be adopted—and in section 17 authority was given to the Board to make what might be regarded as provisional orders, interim orders of adoption, where they were, so to speak, putting the adoptive parents on a kind of trial or probationary period.

The situation up to now has been that even in the case where the interim order is made the Board had to be satisfied that the minimum essential requirements of section 13 of the Act, good moral character of applicants, sufficient means to support the child and suitability to exercise parental rights and duties in relation to the child, were fulfilled and the Board had to be satisfied those essential requirements were fulfilled even when making an interim order. In his introductory statement the Minister referred to section 7 as only a drafting amendment which did not call for comment. In the explanatory memorandum, however, this explanation is given:

The Board has power, under section 17 of the 1952 Act, to make an interim order giving the custody of the child to the applicant for a probationary period not exceeding two years, provided the circumstances are such that it would be lawful for the Board to make an adoption order in the case. Strictly interpreted——

May I interpolate here that I think it should be strictly interpreted?

——this may mean that the Board must be absolutely satisfied at the time of the making of the interim order as to the suitability of the proposed adoption, although if it was in fact so satisfied the need for an interim order would not arise. This section of the Bill proposes to allow the Board to make an interim order although it is not, at the time, fully satisfied in all respects as to the suitability of the proposed adoption.

You have now, therefore, the situation in which the Minister is inviting this House to say to the Adoption Board: "Even though you are not satisfied that the applicants are of good moral character, or even if you are not satisfied that they have sufficient means to look after the child they propose adopting, or even if you are not satisfied that they are suitable persons to have parental rights and duties in respect of the child, you may nevertheless make an interim order giving these people the custody of the child for a period up to two years."

I think that is all wrong. I think the true meaning of the 1952 Act in relation to interim orders was that the Board, quite rightly, had to be satisfied on these minimum requirements, but they could have other doubts in their minds. They might have felt that, because of the age or condition of health of the applicants, there was some doubt in their minds on the general question of suitability. They might have felt, for example, that while the minimum requirements under section 13 were in every way complied with by the applicants, some matter regarding the environment in which the child would live — I am talking now not of the actual home but of the general surroundings where the home was situated—caused them some doubt because they did not regard the environment as entirely suitable. They might have some other doubts not related in any way to what I regard as the minimum requirements under section 13 and, nevertheless, because the minimum requirements under section 13 were complied with, the Board had the authority of the Legislature under the 1952 Act to make an interim order.

All that is now being swept away and the Minister is saying, in effect, to the Board: "It does not matter whether you have doubts regarding the good moral character or the general suitability of the applicants; you may thereafter, once this Bill becomes law, make an interim order for a period of two years." I believe that is an extremely radical change. I am surprised at a man of the Minister's intelligence not having either sufficient knowledge of the Bill he is proposing or else endeavouring to gloss over this as merely a modification, a mere drafting amendment, not requiring any comment. This is a very serious change in the Bill and one I would ask the Minister seriously to reconsider before Committee Stage.

The last feature in the Bill to which I want to refer is also, to my mind, if not entirely a radical change, certainly a substantial change in the existing law. It is the provision contained in section 9 of the Bill. As the Minister explained, section 9 of this Bill is designed to remove the obligation of notifying the local authority of the placement of the adopted child in a house in their area. Under section 2 of the Children (Amendment) Act, 1957, that obligation exists; it exists even in the case of adopted children in respect of whom an adoption order has been made or who have been placed by an adoption society.

I have some sympathy with the Minister's arguments but I do not think he is doing the right thing in making as substantial a change as he is making in this section of the Bill. The Minister is correct, I think, in his opening statement, when he says that "Prospective adopters would have been obliged by law to ascertain and pass on to the local authorities particulars which in several cases they did not know themselves and they did not want to know and that could, if known to them, be a source of constant anxiety." I take it what the Minister is referring to there is the obligation under section 2 of the Children Act, 1957, to notify the health authority with regard to the name, place, date of birth, and so on of the child. To that extent, I have some sympathy with the Minister's argument and I think it would be no harm at all to remove that particular obligation—to arrive at a situation in which, while notification was given to the health authority, it was not necessary to give the name, place and date of birth of the child.

I would, however, seriously recommend to the Minister that he should leave the rest of the obligation unaltered. The necessary machinery for child welfare inspections and child welfare care, if necessary, already exists in the various local authorities. As I understand the position, if the Adoption Board are themselves to be faced with the task of physically inspecting and satisfying themselves with regard to the homes in which these adopted children are placed, they will require a very large extension of their staff. The machinery is already there. I agree some of the particulars required under section 2 of the Children Act of 1957 could be eliminated, and might well be eliminated, in this Bill. The fact is, however, that the child welfare officers are already there in the service of local authorities and can be a valuable source of information to the Adoption Board; that machinery could be made available to the Adoption Board.

If the Minister operates section 9 of the Bill as proposed, it will mean, in effect, that the existing machinery, which is there and available to the local authorities, and at present available to the Adoption Board as a source of information, will in fact no longer be available. I would urge the Minister again to have another look at that section of the Bill before Committee Stage. As I say, I would go with the Minister to a limited extent. Some amendment to cut out the danger of anxiety or embarrassment to the adoptive parents, some measure to safeguard, if you like, the confidential nature of information given to them, might be desirable, though I am not sure it is necessary.

I feel sure the local authorities and their social welfare officers are very much alive to the responsibility of their position in this matter. If it is thought some measure to safeguard any information of a confidential nature should be taken, well and good. However, I think the Minister is making a serious mistake in removing entirely the obligation to notify, as he, in fact, is doing in Section 9. I do not think I have anything further to say except to express the hope that the Minister will reconsider the sections to which I have referred. If he does that, this is a Bill that will improve the present position. I should like the Minister to let the House know the extent to which the changes he is making in this Bill, particularly those to which I have referred, have the support of the Adoption Board or were made at the request of the Adoption Board.

Mr. McQuillan

I should like to join in the tributes paid to the members of the Adoption Board. I wish also to ask the Minister whether the Board made any recommendations to him in connection with the problem of birth certificates. The Minister will recall that up to the passing of the Act in 1952, there was only one birth certificate available and that was known as the long certificate, the normal certificate. Of course, that meant this was available only to legitimates.

The question arose in 1952, and, indeed, earlier, of providing some means of helping illegitimates to obtain birth certificates and thus remove this stigma of illegitimacy that had attached to them over the years. The 1952 Act provided for two certificates, the usual long certificate and, in addition, the short certificate which did not show the names of the parents. The long certificate still showed the names of the parents. Indeed, up to that the illegitimate child had the name of the mother only on the birth certificate.

The Act of 1952, in my opinion, was not sufficient to meet the problem as it existed and I should like the Minister to comment on how the present arrangement is working out generally in the country. I feel sure he has evidence in the Department on that and perhaps he has information from the Adoption Board on it as well. I can tell him that in parts of the country 90 per cent of the people who look for birth certificates demand the long certificate. That means that those who are unfortunate enough to be illegitimate are immediately suspect as far as their colleagues and companions are concerned when they can produce only the short certificate. Whatever about the situation in the city of Dublin, in rural areas, the position is anything but satisfactory. I have been asked by a number of people in very responsible positions to bring this to the notice of the Minister in the course of the Second Reading of the Bill. My personal belief is there should be only the one birth certificate.

Mr. S. Collins

Hear, hear.

Mr. McQuillan

At this stage there should be sufficient Christianity in the world, particularly in this country, to enable us to pass legislation at this stage that will bring such a situation into operation. I know that behind the scenes there are people who do not want that change in the legislation: there are people who preach Christianity and practise black magic, as far as I can see. They preach Christianity but they do not practise it. They want to visit on the children the sins of the parents.

I have nothing further to say except that I welcome the amendments in existing legislation which the Bill introduces. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some information on the position about birth certificates because I shall put down an amendment on the matter, if it is still necessary, when the Committee Stage comes along.

Mr. S. Collins

This question fortunately has now come into the realm of virtually non-controversial discussion and I feel in relation to this Bill that the Minister must at this stage be acting on the reasoned knowledge that has been acquired in the ten odd years of the working of the Adoption Act. I do not find myself obsessed by certain fears that have been expressed; I do not find I can read into this Bill some of the radical changes or some of the possible consequences that other people read into it.

I have a very definite outlook on this problem. I had it when the parent Bill was going through the House and still retain it. While we are dealing with a problem that does involve some delicacy in its ultimate resolution, I think it would be very unwise of this House to try to put any technical impediment in the way of the easier and more effective projection of this adoption conception into our society. I subscribe to the view expressed by Deputy McQuillan that it is our bounden duty to alleviate as far as possible, and to safeguard from any impact as far as possible, children who have no will, no control over the circumstances in which they were conceived and born.

My outlook has always been radical enough to consider that there are no illegitimate children, that there are only illegitimate parents, and that it is our duty as a Christian legislative assembly, as a predominantly Catholic legislative assembly, to help in every way this laudable and most successful work of the Adoption Board. Matters that have been attacked here and sections that have been attacked here as being radical are humane in their concept and serve to alleviate in the main the lot of the person who cannot alleviate it for himself.

I know the agitation in Deputy McQuillan's mind when he talks of the two birth certificates. It must agitate the mind of anybody with a really fundamental interest in this question of adoption, because there must be some reasonable formula to obviate this unconscious stigma which arises, possibly not in our highly populated areas but certainly in areas in rural Ireland with a limited population.The Minister is not so naïve that he does not realise that in rural Ireland everybody's business is everybody's business and anybody's business is everybody's business. When there is any question of prospective employment or of some kind of appointment, and there is a discrimination made between the long certificate and the short certificate, there is always this stigma which is not the responsibility of the unfortunate person who has to suffer the consequences of the short certificate but the responsibility of some people removed from the scene.

Over the years, I have watched the Adoption Board get over its growing pains and get down to work in a most commendable way. I do hope that, with his many failings, the Minister will not rush at this very involved and complex problem without having recourse to the opinions and experience of those people who have so ably served their purpose in the State structure. We should have a sufficiently broad concept of all the sensitivity behind this problem to ensure that our legislative proposals will be so framed as to enable the Adoption Society and the Adoption Board, in certain circumstances that they feel are to the advantage of the adoptee, to dispense with limiting technicalities and other matters that might cause a crux and might delay or prevent the establishment of a child in a home where it could prosper and grow up to be a worthwhile citizen.

I do not agree that the proposals made in relation to the change vis-à-vis the local authority or the health authority are as radical as suggested by my experienced colleague, Deputy O'Higgins. They are beneficial to the extent that they remove a stigma, even if it is only a shadow stigma, that need not be there. Rightly or wrongly, my concept of our approach to this whole problem is that we have to be as sensitive and as delicate as possible to ensure the least possible impact on the adoptee. In fact, I am prepared to accept what might be deemed radical if it gives the adoptee a better chance.

I do not believe that the people who have proved so effective and successful since the commencement of the 1952 Adoption Act will overlook the three essentials of moral standard, capacity to maintain the child and suitability of the parents for parental responsibility.I believe that the people who have tackled and grown up with this problem in the very effective way that the Adoption Board have will be more than conscious of these overriding necessities.

The atmosphere of non-controversy about this subject on this occasion is not quite the atmosphere in which we saw the embryo legislation of 1952 arrive among us. Fortunately, experience has been gained and a growing tolerance has set in and we now have the proof of the value of the Board that took over the task of pursuing the Legislature's intentions. We should be careful to ensure that every amendment we make in future comes before the House in a non-controversial way in the light of the experience of the people whose efforts to date we have commended so much.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

There are one or two provisions in this Bill with which I am not completely satisfied unless I am misinterpreting the changes which are being made. In my capacity as a public representative, I have come across cases in which difficulties have arisen and which I feel should be remedied. I noticed with interest one point the Adoption Board recommended to the Minister, that the upper age limit for adoption should be 21. As I read it, a period of grace of only two years beyond the age of seven years for a child to be adopted is allowed. Am I to take it from that that if the application has been made within the prescribed period, that is, from six months to seven years, the extension period is then allowed to nine years only, or am I to take it that the extension is between the ages of six months and nine years that the application can be made?

Mr. Haughey

Yes, provided the child was with the adoptive parents before the age of seven.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I appreciate that. I take it that if the application is made before the age of nine years and the child is with the parents before the age of seven years, the adoption may be granted at practically illimitable age. I should like the Minister to clarify that definitely because the Minister knows I have had one case before his Department and before the Adoption Board which perhaps is a somewhat unusual one.

Mr. Haughey

This new provision will apply only from now on. We are making provision for all past cases.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

It is retrospective?

Mr. Haughey

The new provisions will become operative only from the date on which this Bill becomes law. Most of the past cases where there is difficulty will be provided for in this legislation on a once-and-for-all basis.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I am not too clear about this matter. I take it if the application is made before the age of seven years, up to nine years may be granted. When the Minister is replying perhaps he would tell the House up to what age an adoptee may be accepted by the Adoption Board, always provided the application has been made before nine years. I feel that the two cases I have in mind are not covered by this new legislation but I stand subject to correction on that.

The other point I want to make is that the position is, and always has been, that the consent of the parents has to be given for the child to be adopted by whatever family propose to adopt the child. For that reason, I want to know what flexibility is allowed to the Adoption Board. I have in mind a case in which the parent concerned—there was only the one known parent in this case—gave consent to the adoption but did not give it according to the full legal terms which always appeal so forcibly to lawyers and who always like to have everything cut and dried. She had not signed a document before a commissioner for oaths. The parent left the country and although there was no tangible proof for the Adoption Board that she was still alive, she was supposed to be somewhere in the New World according to her grandmother who, however, produced no evidence whatever to show that this was so. As a result, this case was held up for about seven years.

I want to put it forcefully to the Minister that this child was growing up with this family with whom he had been since he was a child. He then reached the age at which he was to make either his First Holy Communion or to be Confirmed—I am not quite sure which—and for which he had to give his parents' names. He could not give the names of the parents who had adopted him because the Adoption Board would not accept him on account of the grandmother saying that the mother was alive. I made repeated applications on behalf of the people who wished to adopt him but I could not get anywhere.

I should like to know that there was, somewhere in this legislation, provision to cover cases like that. I admit it is an unusual one but I put it to the Minister that it very often happens that mothers of illegitimate children will go away to another country as they wish to start life afresh. They may go to America, to Africa or anywhere else. Are we to have a situation obtaining within the confines of this Bill that a difficulty such as this may occur, that a person may be waiting many years before the adoption will go through? In this case I believe that what happened ultimately was that the Chairman who administered the law very vigorously—I think he was a retired district justice—said that within the Act there was nothing he could do, but he was succeeded by another man, who I think was also a lawyer, who took another look at the Act and said that this was an impossible case, that they must do something about it and the unfortunate child was permitted to be adopted.

If the Minister takes a realistic look at the situation, he will realise that there are very many difficulties in regard to the illegitimate child, particularly in relation to the mother of the child who, in so many cases, goes away and starts a fresh life and gets married. I do not think we can divorce these two problems I have mentioned, one from the other. The first is in the event of a parent being out of the country. Surely it should be possible to provide for a period in the Act for the adoption of the child when the consent is not obtained. The child should be given a new chance in life. Why should the child be prevented from being adopted because the parent has gone out of the country or is too selfish to sign a document giving consent?

The other point is in regard to the upper age limit. I am thinking of one case and there was a second case, before the Minister became Minister for Justice, with which I had to deal in my constituency. The children in these cases had reached the age of 14 or 15 years before they could be adopted. Perhaps the Minister would clear up my problem. If he has not made provision for the type of cases I have cited, will he do so within this Bill because if he does not, then as far as I am concerned I believe the new Act will be utterly and entirely useless.

Minister for Justice (Mr. Haughey)

I should like, first of all, to thank Deputies who have contributed to the debate for the manner in which they have made their contributions and for the obvious care and thought they have devoted to this measure. I feel that most of the matters that were discussed could more appropriately be debated on Committee Stage and I do not wish at this stage to get involved in a Committee Stage discussion.The purpose of the Second Reading debate has been achieved in that it is clear that all the Deputies who have spoken welcome the Bill in principle and regard it, in the main, as being desirable and useful. I am very glad of that because, as some Deputies have said, we now have this system of legal adoption since 1952 and it has been a tremendous success. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, nearly 7,000 children have, through the workings of the Act and the Adoption Board, been given a chance in life which otherwise they would not have had, and the benefits which flow from that in the human and social spheres are inestimable. The benefits accrue not only to the child but, possibly in even greater measure, as we all know, to the adopting parents.

This Bill came about in this way. When I came into my present office, naturally one of the spheres of activity at which I looked was the system of adoption. I said to the Adoption Board in so many words: "You have been operating this Act since 1952, for approximately ten years, and I should like you to submit to me your detailed views on its operation and whether there is anything in it which is hampering your work or any way in which it could be improved." The Board did that with the very great care and thoroughness with which they do all their work, and they submitted a comprehensive memorandum on the manner in which the Act was working and where they were experiencing difficulties and where the path could be smoothed out.

We submitted these suggestions of the Board to the greatest possible scrutiny that we could bring to bear. Naturally we had discussions with persons who are engaged in this great work. I need not elaborate to the House on who these people are—they included social workers, persons in adoption societies, various religious authorities and so on. It was only when we went through that process of discussion that we finally made up our minds as to the modifications proposed in this measure.

I must, with all due deference to Deputy O'Higgins, who, I know, has considered this very carefully and has given his views in his usual forthright and sincere fashion, repeat my opening claim that there is really nothing radical in what is proposed in this measure. It is simply a process of modifying the original proposals in order to make them work better. The solid basis of the 1952 Act and the fundamental principles of that Act are not interfered with at all in this measure. I can assure the House that the officials of my Department, who keep in touch with developments all over the world in these matters and who attend international conferences, and so on, have more than once been complimented by delegates of international organisations on the adoption system in this country. Some people go so far as to claim that it is as fine a system as could be devised and has worked as well as any in the world and, as Deputy Seán Collins very wisely pointed out, it would be foolish and irresponsible to make any change without the most careful consideration of what we are doing. I want to assure the House that we have given the greatest possible care and thought to what we are doing and we are satisfied that it will not interfere at all with the fundamental soundness of the system and, at the same time, it will make possible a number of desirable adoptions which otherwise would not be possible. That is what we would all like to see.

Deputy McQuillan may regard me as doing something of a Pontius Pilate act when I say that, unfortunately, the question of the long and short birth certificates is not proper to adoption legislation. The Act in which he is interested is a piece of legislation promoted by the Minister for Health who controls the system of the registration of births, marriages, and deaths, the issue of birth certificates and so on. The Act which brought about the short birth certificate was the Vital Statistics and Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act, 1952. In so far as adopted children are concerned, there are two alternatives. They can have a short birth certificate using the adoptive surname but not disclosing the fact of adoption or they can have a long birth certificate showing the adoptive surname and the names of adopters as adopted parents. Neither certificate refers to the original name and I can make this point to Deputy McQuillan. There is nothing anywhere available to the public to connect the original registration of the illegitimate child in the Custom House either with the short birth certificate or the long birth certificate available to an adopted child. In other words, the cross-index between the adoption register and the original register in the Custom House is not available to the public.

I want to reinforce here, if I may, what Deputy Collins and Deputy McQuillan have said in this regard. I am aware of instances where there has been some modicum of stigma cast on adopted children. We will all agree that this is completely and entirely undesirable. We would all appeal to our fellow citizens that there should be nothing of this sort. Of course, the whole purpose of the adoption code is to make the adopted child equal in every way to the ordinary child born into the family. That is, of course, where I think Deputy O'Higgins is mistaken when he criticises the proposal to exclude inspection by local authorities. I think the institution of that system of inspection was accidental and was never meant because the idea of the local authority inspecting the home in which the child was placed for adoption is, I think, inimical to the whole system of adoption.

The machinery of inspection by local authority officers is, of course, a safeguard in cases, where children are boarded out with persons. I think it is a mistaken conception to apply that at all to adoption circumstances. That is particularly so when we realise that, if we were to continue this arrangement, the child placed for adoption would be subject to two different sets of inspection. It would, on the one hand, be subject to the thorough inspection, scrutiny, and so on, of the Adoption Board and its staff, which, of course, is only proper, but in addition, there would be a separate system of inspection by local authorities.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Does the Adoption Board, in fact, carry out inspections?

Mr. Haughey

Yes: they have a special staff. Indeed, they can, if they wish, also avail of local authority inspectors.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I know that, but do they themselves do so?

Mr. Haughey

They do. That is my main argument in rebuttal of the Deputy's case. There would be two systems of inspection. Far from the Adoption Board being denied——

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not want to confuse the matter. I am talking about inspections before the child is placed.

Mr. Haughey

Not before placement, but I am talking about inspection after placement of places where children are placed for adoption. These children are subject to inspection by the Adoption Board and its staff. I am subject to correction in this but I think I am right in saying that the Adoption Board may, if it wishes, request the assistance of the children's officer of the local authority if it desires to have a particular inspection carried out by that officer or to ascertain any particular piece of information.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

The Minister knows more about it than I do. I should like to ask the Minister to inquire into that. Is the inspection undertaken by the Board the inspection undertaken by the child welfare officer?

Mr. Haughey

The Adoption Board has its own inspectors to do this work. I am subject to correction here but I am almost certain it can also avail of the services of the children's officer of the local authority for particular purposes.But the essential thing is that it is all the time under the aegis and control of the Adoption Board, and not the local authority, and that is the way it should be. These inspections should be a matter for the Adoption Board and it is a misconception to place them under the local authority in any way.

As regards citizenship, I do not want to broaden this into a Committee Stage debate. We can go into it fully on Committee Stage when, I think, I will be able to satisfy the House completely that the abolition of the nationality citizenship requirement is completely desirable.

Briefly, the position is this: our citizenship laws are so wide at the moment that a very large number of categories of people can qualify as Irish citizens. Deputy O'Higgins's argument was that a person could adopt a child and immediately leave the country. Surely it is better that a person, who is going to adopt an Irish child and reside here, should use the machinery of our Adoption Act, thereby coming under the scrutiny of the Board rather than take the child out of the country and have it adopted under the laws of some other country, which may be any other country in the world? What we are now doing will make it easier for people to adopt children under our, as we think, nearly perfect system of adoption and then take the child abroad rather than do as they are doing at the moment, take the child abroad without any reference whatsoever to our Board.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

They can still do that.

Mr. Haughey

They can still do that but the requirement that they must reside here for five years or be an Irish citizen is an irksome restriction on these people and would encourage them—indeed, in some cases would force them—to take the child abroad without reference to our Adoption Board and have it adopted under the laws of some other country. If we do this, we do encourage them to submit themselves to the scrutiny of our Board and have the child legally adopted under our system.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

And if it is refused, they can still do the other?

Mr. Haughey

Yes.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I do not see what safeguard that is.

Mr. Haughey

It is not a safeguard but at least it is not a discouragement. If you are going to insist on the stipulation that prospective adopters must reside here for five years before our Adoption Board will give them legal adoption, then surely they are much more likely to take the child away, whereas if we abolish this requirement and make it possible for them to adopt a child when they have resided here for any length of time, provided the Board is satisfied as to their suitability, then they are more likely to avail themselves of the provisions of our Act and to have the child adopted in accordance with our requirements.

We will come to section 7 on Committee Stage and can have a full debate about it then. I just want at this stage to say that Deputy O'Higgins does not seem to me to be correct in his interpretation of what we are doing and why we are doing it but it is better to leave that over until we have the full freedom of the Committee Stage debate and, if Deputy O'Higgins can then persuade me that what I am doing is wrong, we shall have the Report Stage to mend our hand.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I hope the Minister agrees that it is more than a drafting amendment?

Mr. Haughey

I do not think so. That is all I have to say in concluding this debate. I want again to express my thanks to the House for the manner in which it has received the Bill and for the useful and valuable comments which have been made with regard to it and to assure the Deputies who have contributed, that what they have said can be fully debated and discussed when we come to Committee Stage.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Could the Minister state if my two problems are met or not?

Mr. Haughey

I shall inquire about Deputy Esmonde's two cases between now and Committee Stage. I can say to him at this stage that the law has always been—section 14 of the 1952 Act—that the Board may dispense with the consent of any person if the Board is satisfied that the person is incapable by reason of mental infirmity of giving consent or cannot be found. That seems to me to be one of the provisions relevant to one of the cases he mentioned. I shall certainly inquire about the two cases.

Mr. S. Collins

There is something that I meant to say and neglected to say. I was wondering would the Minister have a look at what the possibilities are of doing away with this question of interim certificate altogether? That could lead to the possibility that if there were no confirmation of an interim certificate, it might have devastating consequences on the child.

Mr. Haughey

I think the interim order can be very valuable.

Mr. S. Collins

Will the Minister look at that before Committee Stage with a view to considering whether there could be only one certificate?

Mr. Haughey

We will discuss it very fully on Committee Stage. The interim order can be a very valuable weapon in the hands of the Board and I do not see at all any of the dangers involved in changing it as Deputy O'Higgins suggested.

I am not sure if Deputy Esmonde got exactly what I was trying to say with regard to the change we are making about ages. There are two separate sets of circumstances. First of all, there are a number of cases at the moment which, because of the provisions of the 1952 Act, have gone over the age limit for adoption and we propose to give the Board power, in all of the cases we know of, at any rate, to put that position right.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

These are pending cases?

Mr. Haughey

These are pending cases, cases which are now, by virtue of the 1952 provisions, out altogether and cannot in fact have legal adoption. We hope to cater for most or possibly all of these cases on a once and for all basis. We are not subjecting them to any age limit, provided they were with the family since before their seventh birthday, and all these cases will have a chance of putting themselves right up to December, 1965.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

There is just one point that I am not happy about. When the age goes beyond nine before the adopter is accepted by the Adoption Board, up to what age can it go? I know that in the specific cases I have in mind the children have gone beyond that age.

Mr. Haughey

Are we clear on what I am saying about the existing cases that we are going to deal with on a once and for all basis?

Sir Anthony Esmonde

Yes; but what happens if such cases occur again.

Mr. Haughey

From now on, the position will be that provided a child is placed with the adoptive parents before the child is seven years of age and provided the application is made before the child is nine years of age, then the adoption order can be made, theoretically, at any time, but the Board will not, presumably, sit on applications and it is likely that all adoption orders will be made before the child is nine or, if not made before that, certainly shortly afterwards.

Mr. S. Collins

The age is referable back to the date of application?

Mr. Haughey

Provided the application is made before the child is nine years of age, then the Board can make the adoption order at any time.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I am satisfied.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 19th November, 1963.