: It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 6, 11 (all Votes in 11), 1, 7, 8 and 2. By agreement this business will be completed at 10.30 p.m.
Order of Business .
: Are the Government prepared to give time, either of the time allocated now or additional time, for the purpose of passing the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1978, in the name of Deputy Eileen Desmond?
: The Government do not propose to give time during this session because of the very wide implications and possible repercussions generally if the Bill in its present form happened to be enacted.
: I accept that the Taoiseach and the Government have reservations that I do not share about certain aspects of the Bill. It is generally accepted that the part dealing with the validity of existing adoption orders made by the Adoption Board, according to opinion of senior counsel, seems to be of a doubtful nature, and that extreme mental anguish is caused to many thousands of adoptive parents in relation to this doubt which hangs over the orders. Will the Government, without prejudice to us pursuing at a future date the other aspects of the Bill which we regard as of extreme importance, be prepared to accept the portion of the Bill which deals with adoption orders and make time available for it to be passed?
: Deputy Cluskey approached me about this and we discussed it reasonably and responsibily together. I indicated the Government's general objections. I certainly share Deputy Cluskey's concern for adoptive parents and that concern is shared by the Government. I assure the Deputy that we are very conscious of the need to relieve the anxiety of adoptive parents in this respect as soon as possible. The Minister for Justice, who is immediately responsible had a number of meetings with the representatives of the adoptive parents, the last one being not later than about 10 days ago, and indicated to the delegation from the adoptive parents group the Government's concern and gave them assurances as to the Government's interest and willingness to do whatever is necessary.
Subsequently, they made it clear in a public statement that they were satisfied with the assurances given by the Minister. It is not appropriate at this stage for me to comment in any detail on the Labour Party's Bill but initial examination of it suggests that it is probably inadequate to secure even what appears to be its main objective while on the other hand some of its proposals could have repercussions far beyond what I assume the sponsors intend. I need only refer to the suggestion of deleting certain words in Articles 41 and 42 of the Constitution. Article 41.1.1º of the Constitution says:
The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
It will be observed that the Bill seeks to delete the words "inalienable and imprescriptible" from the Constitution. Even a very superficial examination indicates that that could have very serious repercussions. There is also a suggestion of dealing similarly with the "inalienable" right of the family in Article 42.1. As I have indicated there could be far more serious repercussions arising which could not be contemplated now if we were to adopt the Bill in its present form. It is better to await the examination by the Government and by the legal advisers to the Government which is being conducted as expeditiously as possible. I hope that in the early future the matter can be resolved to the satisfaction of the adoptive parents.
: We are fully conscious of the family unit as the basis of our society but when the Taoiseach quotes the Constitution in relation to the family is he aware that there was a recent court judgment which does not define, for instance, an unmarried mother and her child as a family unit under the Constitution and that the Constitution as interpreted by the courts has indeed a very conventional and narrow concept of the family unit? The opinion placing in doubt the validity of the adoption orders dating back from 1953 to 1976 and those which have been made since, was given in March 1977. Have the Government any draft legislation with a view to correcting that situation in relation to adoptive orders?
: We must not have a debate.
: I will conclude on this.
: The Deputy may ask a question.
: The Taoiseach has raised issues, the interpretation of which I do not agree with. This matter should not be a matter of party politics and I am anxious as is the Taoiseach, I believe, from the private conversation I had with him, that this should not be a matter of party politics. If the Government wish to introduce a Bill confined solely to the question of the adoption orders at this stage we will facilitate its passage through the Dáil before the recess. Any reasonable person will accept that, as the Dáil is going into recess until October sometime, the anxiety and mental torture of many thousands of adoptive parents, due to the uncertainty that has been raised regarding the validity of the adoptive orders since 1953, should be relieved immediately. I know that in order to do so it would be necessary to have a constitutional amendment requiring a referendum, but if the Dáil unanimously passed a Bill which called for an amendment of the Constitution and was to make provision for a referendum to be held, it would strengthen the court in any actions that may be brought before them in this area. It would also give considerable relief to the large number of people placed in this intolerable position, where they have in their custody as their own over a long period of years, children who may be claimed back through the courts because of the uncertainty of the orders made since 1953. We will withdraw our Bill if the Taoiseach is prepared to submit a Bill in the Government's name that deals only with that aspect of the adoption orders. We will pursue the other aspects of the Bill that the Taoiseach does not agree with at a future date.
: Deputy Cluskey raised three matters. First of all, the matter in relation to the definition of a family, whether it should be ascribed only to people properly married and so on. That is one of the questions that will have to be considered.
: A judgment was given recently that did not define an unmarried mother and a child as a family.
: I did not interrupt the Deputy. I am merely saying that that is one of the matters that requires very close consideration. I have consulted with the Attorney General about doing something quickly. What the Deputy has just suggested—the validation of adoption orders—is one such matter that I discussed with him. Having fully in mind the anxiety that adoptive parents have I can only say to Deputy Cluskey that even that limited assurance, which would remove anxiety, is not a very simple matter either and requires very detailed consultations and preparation for the purpose of legislation, if that is decided. I can assure the Deputy that we are proceeding with all possible expedition and haste and with full appreciation of the difficulties and anxieties to which he referred. I could not undertake to introduce a Bill.
: We cannot have any further debate. I have allowed an unusually long time for a question of which I have had no notice.
: Could the Taoiseach say what defect, if any, is in that section of the Bill in the name of Deputy Desmond, dealing with the question of adoption orders made since 1953? Could the Government not take that section of the Bill and, if they wish, submit it in their name——
: We are not getting into a discussion on the merits or demerits of the Bill at this stage.
: ——and delete the other sections which we would pursue as a party, at a later date?
: For all the reasons I have given—and I have the utmost goodwill towards the purpose of the Labour Party's Bill—I regret that I could not adopt even that part of the Bill.
: Might I ask one question arising out of this problem in which we are all very interested? The Taoiseach referred, in October 1977, to the holding of a referendum on the constitutional amendment on adoption. Is it correct that present Government thinking is that the problem can be resolved without reference to a constitutional amendment?
: There is no decision on that. If the Deputy will re-read what he said I said, I am sure he will find that I qualified what I said about the possibility of a referendum not only on adoption but on bail as well. Therefore the Deputy will agree with me——
: I accept that that was in October 1977. But could the Taoiseach give us any idea as to whether this is still a possibility or whether the Government have come to the conclusion that the matter can be resolved without a constitutional referendum?
: The whole matter is being considered. I cannot say definitely.
: In view of the fact that the Taoiseach has not been able to give us any undertaking that meets our satisfaction or the problems with which we are trying to deal here, am I entitled to move the Second Stage of the Bill and introduce it?
: The Deputy is entitled to move and it will come up for discussion on the first sitting day on which there is Private Members' Business after the recess. Is the Deputy moving?
: I move.
: I think the Deputy is moving that it be taken in Private Members' time.
: Yes.
: Not necessarily confined to Private Members' time.
: I do not want to divide the House on this issue.
: The Bill must be taken in Private Members' time. It is a Private Members' Bill. The next sitting day on which there will be Private Members' time will be after the House reassembles. Is the House agreeable to that?
: Well, it is not being moved now, Sir.
: I thought the Deputy moved that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
: I thought the procedure was that if Deputy Eileen Desmond wishes to move the Second Stage of the Bill at the earliest possible moment she may do so. The Chair has indicated that the earliest possible moment we can move it is when Private Members' time is available after the recess. If it was possible—and if the Chair would guide us on this—for us to move the Second Stage now, I am sure it would be the wish of Deputy Desmond to do so.
: Is the Deputy moving that it be taken in Private Members' time.
: I want to move the Second Stage for discussion at the earliest date that can be made available to us.
: To be taken in Private Members' time.
: If it is being opposed, Sir, the Government might indicate now that it is being opposed and, as I understand, it could be voted on now.
: I would not wish that Deputies would press this to a division. As this Bill stands, for the reasons I have given and for many others as well that I could give, it would have to be opposed in its present form.
: The only thing the Deputy can move is an Order that it be taken in Private Members' time and that it would come up for discussion.
: Yes, in Private Members' time in due course when——
: If that is your ruling, Sir, I move: "That Item No. 3 on today's Order Paper be taken in Private Members' time."
Ordered, that Item No. 3 be taken in Private Members' time after the recess.