asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware that there has been criticism of the Adoption Acts; and if he has any proposals for their amendment.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Adoption Acts.
41.
The Deputy will appreciate that, as a general principle, I cannot undertake to disclose what legislative proposals I may have under consideration at any particular time, either in relation to legal adoption or any other matter.
If the Deputy wishes to support the criticism of the Adoption Acts to which he presumably refers and consequently to recommend that the legal rights of mothers of illegitimate children should be reduced, I am of course prepared to consider what he has to say, though I think I should make it clear that, so far, I have seen no argument to convince me that the existing law ought to be changed and the rights of mothers of illegitimate children reduced.
It is quite unreal of the Minister to read into my question any proposal to reduce the rights of anybody. What I had particularly in mind was the inhuman position which arises at the moment where there may be children in orphanages available for adoption and a perfectly suitable married couple are prepared to adopt these children but because this couple have differing religions they are not allowed to do so under our law. Would the Minister not agree that is wrong and should be amended immediately?
And unconstitutional.
No, that is not the position. The number of applications to adopt children far exceeds the number of children who are available for adoption so there can be no question of children failing to be adopted for the reason given by the Deputy. The reference to the reduction of rights was due to the fact that the recent criticism to which apparently the Deputy refers was mainly centred on that point.
(Cavan): Can the Minister say whether himself or his predecessor got a recommendation from the Adoption Board or members of the Adoption Board on the very lines suggested by Deputy Cooney?
That in the case of mixed marriages the persons will be entitled to adopt.
No, I do not think so.
Would the Minister accept as a humane principle that persons of different religions should be allowed to adopt children?
They are, of course, subject to certain limitations.
What limitations?
I am sure the Deputy is aware that this is, indeed, a very delicate matter and, in arriving at the position which is at present set out in the Act, a great deal of consideration was given to the views of all the churches.
Does the Minister not accept that views have changed, particularly in the past two years, on this matter having regard to the principle of ecumenism which is now very strong?
My primary concern with regard to this whole question is the welfare of the children concerned.
Quite.
Because the number of prospective adoptive parents far exceeds the number of children available for adoption no hardship is caused to any children.
Is the Minister defending the principle that the religion of the prospective adoptive parents should prevent them adopting children? I should like to be clear on whether the Minister is defending that principle. It sounded to me as if he was. I do not want to accuse him unfairly.
What I am endeavouring to do is to say that I am primarily concerned about the welfare of the children and, as long as no child fails to be adopted because of these provisions, I feel that the Acts are fulfilling their primary function.
Would the Minister answer my question? Is he defending the existing position.
I do not think the existing position needs either to be defended or attacked because it is not affecting the rights of children.
It needs to be changed.
A belt of a crozier did not stop Fianna Fáil from bringing in the Act in 1952.
Could we have an explanation of the Minister's statement that no children are now remaining in orphanages and not adopted?
No children are failing to be adopted because of the provisions of the Adoption Acts with regard to religion.
Why are they failing to be adopted?
They are not failing to be adopted where they are suitable for adoption. There are more applicants than there are children for adoption.
Why are there some children who are not being adopted?
It certainly has nothing to do with religion.
What is the reason?
The Deputy's party refused to introduce this in 1956.
At the age to which the Act refers, and where the matters are not in dispute, there are ample prospective adoptive parents looking for children to adopt.
Why are there still children in orphanages?
Who will adopt Joe Lenehan?
There must always be children in orphanages.
Why?
(Interruptions.)
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.