I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I wish to share my time.
Private Members' Business. - Adoption Bill, 1996: Second Stage.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
The purpose of this Bill, and of the Committee Stage amendments I propose to table, is threefold. First, the Bill provides for the registration in Ireland of adoptions of children made in the People's Republic of China and will ensure that they are made valid under Irish law. Second, it will enable the Minister for Health, by way of regulation, to designate other countries from which adoptions will be regarded as valid under Irish law and provides that these adoptions will also be entered in the register. Third, it makes provision for a voluntary contact register to enable a birth mother and an adopted child to make contact with each other if they so wish. I have received many representations on the two latter issues and I will table Committee Stage amendments to deal with them.
Today's world is little more than a global village, communication is instant and the pace of development in new technology, information, mobility and travel is now so fast that it challenges our ability to cope. As we have seen on many recent occasions, a tragedy on one continent is instantly transmitted to all others. People are no longer prepared to wait for Ministers or bureaucrats — I use this word in the best sense — who delay and prevaricate to take action. They are correct in wanting action to be taken urgently. It is time we learned to cherish all the children of the world equally, to treat them without prejudice or discrimination and to make whatever provision we can for their needs.
For far too long the cloak of public policy has been used to prevent the recognition of foreign adoptions. In this way we have been guilty of visiting the perceived sins of their elders on innocent children. As a country which endured famine and foreign domination and which has 72 million sons and daughters scattered throughout the world, we should not hesitate in giving recognition to the needs of orphans or abandoned children abroad. We should be among the first nations to come to the aid of these children and offer assistance, support and a welcome home to them. Our people have been among the first to come forward and our duty as Members of this House is to ensure that our laws keep pace with their generous spirit.
The appalling revelation of the plight of millions of children, mostly girls, abandoned in orphanages and other institutions in the People's Republic of China has touched the deepest emotions of the public. In the context of recent humanitarian disasters, it cannot be denied that the treatment of these children is a humanitarian disaster on a grand scale. Every year 1.7 million children are abandoned in China and some of these suffer prolonged and agonising deaths in the so-called dying rooms. As a country with a tradition of active concern for the suffering of all humanity throughout the world, we must respond to this disaster in any way we can within our power and make a contribution in relieving the appalling suffering of these children. It would be easy to feel overwhelmed by the sheer size of the problem and do nothing on the basis that the little we can do will not make an appreciable impact on the overall problem. However, Fianna Fáil is determined to look at any practical measures which will help even a small number of children. Humanitarian aid and technical support are needed if there is to be a long-term solution to the problem. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs is making representations in this regard, as are voluntary groups and orgnisations. In the meantime we can facilitate the generous response of many Irish couples who could adopt some of these children, and the Bill will do this.
The Adoption Act, 1991, does not permit adoptions effected in the People's Republic of China to come within the definition of foreign adoptions as contained in section 1 or to be registered in the register of foreign adoptions set up under section 6. As Chinese adoptions are not recognised here, the Chinese authorities will not allow Irish couples to adopt children in their country. This restriction in our adoption law prevents Irish couples from adopting Chinese orphans. The Bill proposes to amend the Adoption Act, 1991, to enable Irish couples who are regarded as suitable and eligible under normal Irish adoption criteria to effect adoptions of Chinese children which will be recognised under our law. Many couples have been assessed and are anxious to proceed with the adoptions as quickly as possible and offer loving homes to children living in appalling conditions. I am confident that the public will regard the Bill as an appropriate response which will enable Irish couples to help some of these children. I hope the Government will support the Bill.
One could be forgiven for asking how those empowered to act on our behalf can heistate or delay in any way in arranging for the registration of Chinese babies. Some couples have been certified as eligible adopters in Ireland while babies have been identified and approved for adoption in China. However, the authorities here will not register these children because of potential differences between the laws and customs in the two jurisdictions. For example, Chinese law provides that in certain circumstances an adoptive relationship could be terminated by agreement while such a possibility constitutes a peceived impediment to registration here. This can be overcome by amending our law to provide that adoptions which take place in the People's Republic of China can be registered in the register of foreign adoptions. We have provided for this in the Bill.
The Bill provides that it will be possible for the Adoption Board to prevent the validation and registration of foreign adoptions if they are considered to be contrary to public policy. This safeguard is not intended for use in any normal circumstances and should not be regarded as a means of avoiding or delaying positive decisions. In order to ensure that it will not be abused, the Bill provides for the making of an application to the High Court to direct that the adoption be registered in the register of foreign adoptions.
It has been suggested that because in China there are restrictions placed on the number of children per family and that such controls can lead to a climate of secrecy, the adoptions could be regarded as being contrary to public policy here. Given the millions of abandoned babies in China, the very small number who may come to Ireland and the openness of our laws and provisions, this is not a valid reason to prevent registration.
Since this Bill was published I have been approached by people who have adopted children in other countries and who wish to have them entered on the Irish register of foreign adoptions. At present the Minister does not have the enabling power to act on our behalf and designate those countries from which adoptions will be validated and registered. We trust the Minister in this regard. Accordingly, rather than have to introduce new primary legislation in respect of each country, we plan to provide in section 2 that the Minister may, by regulations, designate any such other country or countries. These regulations will provide for the validation and registration here of any such adoptions. This would enable the Minister to meet the needs of children who have been adopted here and their adopted parents.
The stance adopted by the Chinese arises from the fact that Chinese adoptions are not recognised here because they are considered to be incompatible under the Adoption Act, 1991. Other states in a similar situation have allowed Irish families to adopt children through their courts. As a result, a growing number of adopted children living here do not have their status recognised in this State. I think Members would agree it is totally unacceptable that any of the children who find new homes in Ireland should be regarded as second class citizens here and in the EU. We want to give the Minister the power to regularise their position and give them a genuine welcome.
Since 1993 Lebanon and, in some circumstances, France, Germany, Belgium Luxembourg, Paraguay, Poland and some other countries have not been recognised. People would probably be surprised at this. We want to make it possible for the Minister to recognise these countries by regulation.
The dramatic events of the last week have shown clearly the urgent need for a voluntary contact register as a means of bringing birth mothers and adopted children together. Irish children sent for adoption in the United States or other countries, as well as those adopted in Ireland, want to know their birth mother or both natural parents where this is possible. It is time to heal the pain these children and their parents have suffered. This is a sensitive matter and potentially a legal minefield for the Government. The Government has already said it will be some time before it is in a position to make any decisions. In The Irish Times of 9 March Andy Pollak stated: “A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said it was still undecided who should have responsibility for co-ordinating the Government's response to the revelations about Irish children sent abroad for adoption”.
According to the Irish Independent of 8 March, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, announced the previous night that he had “discovered there are up to 1,500 detailed adoption files which are the property of the Department but are held in the National Archives”. It was also stated that another 500 files were unearthed in the Department last Thursday. This was major news of crucial interest to many adopted children who are now adults and are searching for their birth mothers and their roots. It also transpires that the Department was informed last Christmas Eve by an archivist with the National Archives that a file on 20 Irish children had been found in documents received from the Department. It contained the names of the adopting parents in the US and the birth mothers in Ireland. It appears that no action was taken by the Government from Christmas Eve until a further file was discovered. It had come from Iveagh House and contained data on 1,500 Irish children sent to the US for adoption. We were told last Friday that there are another 300 files in the Department with details of adopted children sent to the US.
It is time for the Government to act with considerable urgency in this matter. It should immediately assign responsibility for the details and files on these children to one Department. This is not a time for saying we are not sure who is looking after the matter — this is what was said last week. I understand that this could have been said in the early stages because it may have been the reality but now is the time to take action and assign responsibility to one Department.
The Government should collate the information and form a comprehensive data base in a matter of weeks. It should establish immediately the voluntary contact register we are proposing. It is the only hope many adopted children have, whether they came from Golden-bridge, the US, or elsewhere. Where a mother gave false information on handing over a baby because of some fear — we know the many kinds of fear which existed in the 1940s, the 1950s and the early 1960s — she could submit the correct details now before it is too late.
Fianna Fáil is providing the Government with the opportunity to put this matter right. We are dealing with sensitive matters which deserve an all-party approach. A register provides a safe and confidential way for birth parents to assure an adopted person that contact would be welcome. It is essential that the rights of adopted children and birth parents, and the pain they have suffered, are now formally acknowledged by setting up a register. The Adoption Board has called for the establishment of a contact register and adoption agencies have lobbied for one. It should be provided immediately.
The amendments I propose have been circulated in draft form in the revised Bill. I have taken the trouble to revise the Bill to include the amendments for the convenience of the Minister. I will now have these amendments passed to him.
Is the Deputy giving them to me now?
Yes. These are the amendments I will propose on Committee Stage.
Does the Deputy want me to respond to them now?
No. On Second Stage we deal with the general principles of Bills and proposals for Committee Stage.
What I have been handed does not relate to the Bill the Deputy introduced.
It is the same Bill.
I think Deputy Woods is showing the Minister extreme courtesy.
I am showing the Minister how the amendments can be fitted into the Bill. This is not unusual on Second Stage, the purpose of which is to speak about the principle of the Bill and to suggest how it might be improved or modified on Committee Stage.
I do know what a Bill is about.
The Minister asked me a question. I am only replying. The amendment I propose can be discussed in detail on Committee Stage. In a new section 3 we will propose setting up a voluntary contact register under the control of the Adoption Board broadly as follows:
3. (1) The Board shall maintain a register to be known as the "Voluntary Contact Register".
(2) The said register shall contain two parts and shall be in such form as the Minister shall by regulations made hereunder prescribe.
(3) One of the said parts to be known as Part I shall contain only such details as may be prescribed by regulations made hereunder by the Minister, of the identity of birth mothers and their children in respect of whom adoption orders have been made by the Board or where adoptions were made under the laws of such countries as the Minister may by regulations designate.
(4) The other part of the said register to be known as Part 2 of the Voluntary Contact Register shall contain such details as may be prescribed by regulations made hereunder by the Minister, of the identity of adopters of children and of the children adopted under adoption orders made by the Board or where adoptions were made under the laws of such countries as the Minister may by regulations designate.
(5) [i] In the case of birth mothers, no details as provided for herein shall be entered in the said register, for the purpose of Part I of the register, unless the birth mother provides such details as may be prescribed by regulations and consents in writing to the entry in the register of the said details.
This, will be particularly important because consent will be essential in providing such a register.
[ii] In the case of adopters or adopted children, no details as provided for herein, shall be entered in the said register, for the purpose of Part 2 of the register, unless the adopted child provides such details as may be prescribed by regulations and consents in writing to the entry in the register of the said details.
(6) The Board shall not accept any details of identity as may be prescribed by regulations hereunder for entry in Part 2 of the Voluntary Contact Register, from an adopted person, until that person has reached the age of 18 years, save that where an adopted person is under the age of 18 the Board shall accept such details of identity for the purpose of Part 2 of the Voluntary Contact Register as may be perscribed by regulations, from the adopter or adopters of that person.
(7) The Board shall not permit any of the details of identity contained in either part of the Contact Register to be disclosed to any person, unless and until the birth mother and her adopted child inform the Board in writing, separately, that each wishes to make contact with the other.
This subsection will also be important. It is especially important that both birth mothers and adopted children know that that will be the situation.
(8) Where the Board is informed in writing separately by a birth mother and her adopted child that each wishes to make contact with the other, the Board shall, forthwith, furnish to the birth mother the details of identity in Part 2 of the Contact Register and to the adopted child the details in Part I of the Contact Register.
(9) The Board shall not furnish details pursuant to subsection (8) of this section to an adopted person until that person has reached 18 years.
(10) Where a birth mother requests in writing to the Board that any details of her identity entered in Part 1 of the Contact Register be deleted from the said register the Board shall forthwith delete the said details from the said register.
(11) Where an adopted child requests in writing to the Board that any details of identity entered in Part 2 of the Voluntary Contact Register, be deleted from the said register, the Board shall forthwith delete the said details from the said register.
(12) Where a birth mother in respect of whom details have been entered in Part 1 of the Voluntary Contact Register dies, and thereafter her adopted child whose identity details are entered in Part 2 of the register informs the Board in writing that the said adopted child wishes to make contact with the said birth mother, the Board shall forthwith furnish to the said adopted child the details of identity of the said birth mother in Part 1 of the Voluntary Contact Register.
(13) (i) Where a birth mother of an adopted child has died, the Board shall accept such details of identity of the said birth mother as may be prescribed by regulations, from the next of kin of the said birth mother and provided that the said next of kin consents thereto in writing, the Board shall enter the said details of identity in Part 1 of the Voluntary Contact Register.
(ii) Where details of the identity of an adopted child have been entered in Part 2 of the Voluntary Contact Register pursuant to this section, and where details of the identity of the birth mother of the said adopted child are entered in Part 1 of the Voluntary Contact Register pursuant to subsection (13) (i) hereof, the Board shall forthwith furnish the details of the identity of the said birth mother in Part 1 of the register to the said adopted child. Where the Board are informed in writing by the said adopted child that the said adopted child wishes to make contact with the said birth mother, the Board shall forthwith furnish the details of the identity of the said adopted child to the next of kin of the said birth mother where the Board are informed in writing by the said next of kin that the said next of kin wish to make contact with the said adopted child.
I have set this out in detail because there is great concern about the issue of a contact register. I want it to be clear that the register we are proposing is a confidential voluntary register. This is something we should have already. It should not be difficult to conclude the voluntary contact register aspect of these proposals.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the adoption of babies from the People's Republic of China. It is two months since the nation willed that something be done for them and Irish couples are waiting to hear from Dáil Éireann. They do not understand the delays, and they want their politicians to act on their behalf. The measures we have proposed are simple and direct. They provide for the validation and registration by the Adoption Board of Chinese babies. If the Government wants to propose amendments on Committee Stage we will be very glad to cooperate in that regard.
We are also making provision by way of amendment on Committee Stage for the designation by the Minister of other countries from which adoption would be valid under Irish law. There are also couples with children here in Ireland who are waiting for this important recognition. Why should we keep them waiting any longer? They and their children deserve better from us. Surely this House does not want to keep them waiting any longer. We have in this Bill the vehicle to put the necessary legislation through quickly.
The voluntary contact register which we propose would provide an immediate response to an appalling situation, much of it our own making. It would be of immediate benefit to thousands of adopted children and their birth mothers at home and abroad. As Maggie Butler said on "Morning Ireland" on 8 March: "My goal is to find her, my heart's desire is to meet her". There is no more time for questioning and delay, we must act urgently. I am sure all Deputies agree with the principle of the Bill. We call on the Government to support it and discuss amendments in open forum on Committee Stage. We offer our fullest co-operation in finalising this legislation as soon as possible.
It has been suggested that the Government will consider these matters in conjunction with the Keegan case later in the year. There is no need to associate these measures with that issue. They are naturally associated with the Adoption Act, 1991. Consequently, they can be tackled and provided for now as a matter of urgency. This is feasible and will be widely welcomed in the community.
While acknowledging the good that was done we abhor and denounce the evils of the past where they occurred. In its place we present a bright vision of a future filled with caring and compassion and a commitment to cherish all our children equally. But how will we handle the realities of the present? We have an opportunity to do something practical now. Let us do it. We urge the Government to support the Bill and to make any desirable amendments on Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House.
I welcome the Bill and contratulate Deputy Woods on bringing it forward. Its publication is timely and it will greatly reassure those presently in the process of adopting children from the Chinese jurisdiction. It should make the process a great deal easier for prospective parents.
At any stage the process of adoption is emotional, a time when prospective parents do not need extra pressures and when life should be made as uncomplicated as possible for them. It is essential that they be reassured that the action they are about to take and the lifelong commitment they are about to make will have the full approval of the law and that their adopted child will have all the protections of the Constitution at present enjoyed by children born in this State or adopted from countries which have been approved by law.
It is with these ideals in mind that Deputy Woods initiated this measure and I ask the Minister to note the compassionate nature of the legislation and facilitate its passage into law.
The Irish are a most compassionate, decent and charitable people in the broadest meaning of those terms. Traditionally, there has never been a shortage of people to care for children who, for one reason or another, have been deprived of the safety, security and love which is the lot of the vast majority of Irish children. Even in the hardest of times, when food and other material benefits were scarce, people took children who needed a home into their care and gave them the best they had to offer.
Much is being made of the conditions which prevailed in some of our orphanages in the 1940s and 1950s. If the allegations are sustained no defence can be put forward. Cruelty and degrading treatment to the extent alleged was, and is, wrong and nothing can excuse it. However, I counsel against tarnishing the reputation of the many fine institutions and those who maintained them by attributing to them all the kind of behaviour which has recently been alleged.
There is no suggestion that such behaviour was the norm in every institution which provided care for children or that such behaviour was indulged in by all those in charge. Members of religious orders who gave lifelong, dedicated service to the boys and girls in their care and who have, since the present horrific stories have broken, been congratulated and complimented on the performance of their duties by the children for whom they substituted as parents, are greatly distressed by both the revelations and their being associated with those wrongs. They were perpetrated by a tiny minority and we must have regard to the feelings of, not to mention natural justice towards, those countless others who served with distinction, kindness and consideration and not tar them all with the same brush. It is not our right or place to rush to judgment on them. It is easy, at a remove of 40 years, to consider what was normal then to be exceptionally harsh now, and we must distinguish between what was acceptable in those less well off and less well informed days and what could not be accepted in any circumstances.
When, through one legal impediment or another, adoption was not possible the people extended a helping hand and a welcoming home by means of fostering. They often lost out when the children to whom they had grown attached and given freely of their love and care returned either to their parents or to the institution. I wish to record the State's appreciation of those selfless people who were so charitable. In recent years the number of children available for adoption has reduced. In may respects that is good as it reflects a change in attitudes and a greater tolerance than might have been present heretofore. It also reflects a greater willingness on the part of young mothers and their families to face up to their responsibilities in regard to the children they brought into the world. However, the same cannot be said for the male population. Many fathers who have chosen not to, or who are not in a position to, marry the mothers of their children still think that the responsibility for child rearing rests solely with the mother. There is need for legislative change in this area with a view to requiring fathers to accept their responsibilities.
The financial and other assistance which the State affords single parents is a basic right and must be maintained. The cost to the Exchequer is significant but if we are to fulfil our responsibilities under the Constitution it is the least we can do. Much as people would like to see some form of social sanction on the growing trend of having children out of wedlock, the ultimate losers would be the children and, to coin a phrase, that would be inconceivable.
The number of children in Ireland available for adoption to couples who are unrelated to the child has fallen dramatically in the past 30 years from 1,200 per year to less than a third of that. This has resulted in Irish couples looking elsewhere for children in need of a good home. That was most noticeable after the fall of the various Communist regimes across Europe. When Irish people saw the plight of the children in Romanian orphanages they responded immediately. The experience of trying to adopt a Romanian baby was not always an easy or happy one in the initial stages but ultimately many couples succeeded in bringing home a child whom they hoped would be recognised as theirs and as a citizen of the State. Some did not know what the official welcome would be but, thankfully, the Government of the day regularised this new approach to adoption in the Adoption Act, 1991. It did so by adopting the Private Members' Bill put forward by Deputy Shatter. That Fianna Fáil led Government was magnanimous enough to appreciate the legislation was necessary and I hope this Government will recognise the need that exists now.
There is no doubt that with the new mobility across frontiers, ease of travel and improved economic circumstances, the principle of foreign adoption is here to stay. It is ludicrous to place any barrier in the way of adopting couples who wish only to enrich their lives through the benefits of parenthood not otherwise available to them.
I am sure this Bill will have the support of all Deputies who do not wish to see a repeat of the situation prior to passing the 1991 Act. The Bill extends all the provisions of that Act to adoptions and adopted children from China and seeks only to legitimise those procedures in the same way as the Oireachtas did in the Romanian situation.
Deputy Woods's amendments also empower the Minister to designate other countries, which is an eminently sensible step. It is crucial also in light of what has happened recently that a voluntary contact register be put in place and that it is, obviously, voluntary on both sides.
I will support this measure and I ask the Government to do likewise.
With your permission and that of the House, I want to share my time with Deputy Shatter.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I commend Deputy Woods for his initiative in tabling a Bill to deal with the recognition in this country of Chinese adoptions. However, I am in some difficulty because the Bill originally presented is so different from this one which is, effectively, a new Bill. It must be unprecedented that such major changes have been made by the proposers between the First and Second Reading. It would seem to indicate in the strongest possible way that the initial Bill was not carefully thought out or worked out.
If the Minister reads mine, he will see from where it came.
I will deal with the Bill before the House.
The Government shares Deputy Woods's concern about the large number of children who have been abandoned in the People's Republic of China and who are currently being maintained in orphanages there. It is sympathetic to the plight of these unfortunate children and is aware of the desire of Irish people to adopt some of them to provide them with an opportunity of growing up in a family environment.
We are all aware of the criticisms that have been expressed recently about the conditions in some of the Chinese orphanages in which the children are being maintained. However, in the light of recent revelations about the regimes in the past in some of our residential institutions, we need to examine our own consciences about the manner in which we, as a society, allowed innocent children to be locked away and then effectively forgot about them. We must learn from our mistakes of the past and, in the case of the abandoned Chinese children, seek to work in close co-operation with the relevant Chinese authorities on a number of fronts in promoting the welfare of the children.
There appear to be many abandoned Chinese children available for inter-country adoption. A number of countries have already entered into bilateral adoption agreements with the People's Republic of China to facilitate the adoption of children from there by persons resident in those countries. The Government, for its part, is prepared to explore with the Chinese authorities the possibility of agreeing procedures for the adoption of Chinese children by Irish residents. We should, however, be concerned to ensure that any such agreement would contain appropriate safeguards to avoid the type of situation that is now emerging in the case of our own children who were sent abroad for adoption in the past.
The Government is committed to improving co-operation at international level to safeguard the welfare of children, in particular, in the area of inter-country adoption. To this end, it recently authorised the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to arrange for the signing, subject to ratification, of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption of 29 May 1993. This important convention was prepared under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, of which Ireland is a member. The primary objectives of the convention are to provide safeguards to prevent the abduction or sale of, or trafficking in, children and to establish a system of co-operation among countries to ensure that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of the children concerned. The convention takes account of the principles of a number of international instruments designed to protect the fundamental rights of children, in particular, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Ireland has ratified.
Before the Hague Convention can be ratified here, it will be necessary to give the convention the force of law in the State. This will involve making major changes to our domestic adoption legislation. While it is likely to be some time before the necessary legislation is brought forward, the Government has authorised the signing of the convention to demonstrate our support for the instrument and its objectives, and to signal our intention to ratifying it eventually.
Both Ireland and the People's Republic of China participated in the preparation of the Hague Convention. However, until that convention has been ratified by both countries, it appears that procedures for the adoption of Chinese children by Irish residents would have to be set out in a bilateral agreement.
We understand that a precondition set by the Chinese authorities for signing a bilateral adoption agreement with another country is that adoptions effected under such an agreement must be recognised in the other country concerned. This is a perfectly reasonable approach on the part of the Chinese authorities who are concerned to ensure their children will enjoy the same rights and privileges as children adopted under the internal law of the country where they will be brought to live. It is clearly desirable, in the interests of the children, that there should be no doubt about their legal status in the country where they are to be brought up. The non-recognition of a Chinese adoption or, indeed, of any foreign adoption would affect the adoptive parents' entitlement to exercise parental rights with respect to the child, an issue which I am sure all Deputies will agree is fundamental.
It is the question of whether an adoption effected in the People's Republic of China qualifies for recognition under Irish law that has given rise to difficulties. Until this issue is resolved, it will not be possible to negotiate an adoption agreement with the Chinese authorities for the adoption of Chinese children by Irish residents.
I am aware that Chinese adoption law provides for the termination of adoptions effected under that law in certain circumstances. I understand that the adoption board has taken the view that those provisions render Chinese adoptions ineligible for recognition under the Adoption Act, 1991.
The 1991 Act provides a secure legal framework for the recognition under Irish law of adoptions effected abroad. This enlightened, progressive legislation was also introduced as a Private Members' Bill by my party colleague, Deputy Shatter.
Which we accepted.
His initiative was motivated out of concern for those parents who had adopted children in Romania and in other countries and who, at the time, were encountering various difficulties with their adoptions in the absence of a statutory framework for the recognition of foreign adoptions here. Deputies from all sides of the House who were involved in the special committee appointed to examine that Bill can be justifiably proud of the manner in which they helped to develop Deputy Shatter's original proposals. A remarkable feature of the Bill was the fact that it was processed through both Houses without a single division. This illustrated the level of good will on the part of all parties to the legislation and its objectives.
The 1991 Act has been of enormous benefit in regularising the legal position of children adopted in foreign countries by Irish residents and other persons. I understand that since the enactment of the legislation some 590 foreign adoptions have to date been entered in the Register of Foreign Adoptions maintained by the adoption board under the Act, including 464 Romanian adoptions.
Broadly speaking, recognition under the 1991 Act is confined to adoptions effected in countries which operate systems of legal adoption similar to our own system. Section 1 of the legislation contains a definition of what constitutes a foreign adoption, and only adoptions effected abroad which comply with the terms of that definition are entitled to be recognised here.
Among the conditions of the current definition of a foreign adoption that have to be satisfied is condition (b) which requires that the adoption must have essentially the same legal effect as respects the termination and creation of legal rights in the country where it was effected as an Irish adoption order. On the making of an adoption order under the Adoption Acts, the natural parent loses all parental rights and is freed from all parental rights with respect to the child. These rights and duties are transferred on a permanent basis to the adopters and the adopted child is thereafter regarded in law as the child of the adopters as if born to them within marriage.
The Adoption Board considers that this condition precludes the recognition of adoptions effected in countries whose laws permit the termination or revocation of adoptions. The People's Republic of China is not the only country whose laws contain such provisions. The adoption laws of a number of other countries, such as Peru, Guatemala and Thailand, also provide for the termination of adoptions.
Deputy Woods put forward the idea that the Minister for Health has power under regulations to designate countries where adoption would be recognised. That was provided for but rejected in a Bill which is now the Adoption Act, 1991. Under the 1991 Act each adoption is looked at individually to establish whether it complies with the definition of a foreign adoption. The Adoption Board examines the adoption laws for foreign countries to see whether they are compatible with the definition of a foreign adoption. This approach serves the same purpose as a system of designating countries.
This brings me to the first major difficulty the Government has with Deputy Woods's Bill. It proposes to extend the current statutory system for the recognition of adoptions effected outside the State to include adoptions effected in the People's Republic of China only. He recognised his mistake in his Bill mark two. He must have recognised that this disregarded the fact that the adoption laws of other countries contain similar provisions relating to the termination of adoptions. The Government accepts the desirability of modifying the current definition of a foreign adoption in order to secure the recognition of adoptions effected under such laws. However, it considers that such a modification must, in the interests of equity, apply to adoptions effected in all relevant countries rather than be confined to those effected in the People's Republic of China. The acceptance of Deputy Woods's proposal would exclude this possibility. I am sure that this is not what he intended.
It would not exclude it. The matter could be dealt with more fully on Committee Stage.
The Bill discussed by this House before the Deputy had a fundamental change of view is the one I am discussing now.
If the law is to be changed to provide for the recognition of adoptions effected in countries whose laws permit adoptions to be terminated, it would seem appropriate also to provide for the withdrawal of recognition in any case where a foreign adoption which has been recognised is subsequently terminated under and in accordance with the law of the place where it was effected. However, no provision has been made in the Bill for such an eventuality. I presume Deputy Woods recognises this is a serious omission.
A further fundamental problem that the Government has with the Bill is that it proposes to restrict recognition to Chinese adoptions effected in favour of Irish residents only. It is important to bear in mind that the Adoption Act, 1991 contains statutory mechanisms for the recognition of foreign adoptions effected in favour of four principal categories of adopters who on the date of the adoption were ordinarily resident in the State, or ordinarily resident for at least 12 months in a foreign country, or domiciled in a foreign country, or habitually resident in a foreign country.
The acceptance of Deputy Woods's proposal would only benefit persons who are ordinarily resident here. I can see no justification for the exclusion from the Bill of Chinese adoptions effected in favour of persons who are ordinarily resident, domiciled or habitualy resident in a foreign country. This would mean, for example, that an Irish couple living in London for some years who adopted a child in the People's Republic of China would not be entitled to have the adoption recognised here, even though the adoption would qualify for recognition under English law.
However, the most anomalous situation that would emerge from the acceptance of the proposal to restrict recognition to Chinese adoptions effected in favour of Irish residents would be that adoptions effected in the People's Republic of China in favour of Chinese citizens would not be recognised here. Such an approach would be unsustainable.
It is important to remind the House that while the Adoption Act, 1991 was primarily framed with the Romanian situation in mind, its provisions apply to adoptions effected in countries throughout the world. Any change in the law must reflect the scope of the provisions of the 1991 Act and encompass all of the categories of adopters specified in the legislation. This has not been done in the Bill we are debating now.
I do, however, welcome the fact that the Bill proposes that only Chinese adoptions granted to Irish residents who have successfully completed the pre-adoption assessment procedure set out in section 5 of the 1991 Act would be entitled to recognition. This assessment procedure provides an important safeguard for the welfare of a child being adopted abroad by Irish residents. It is fully in compliance with a provision of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which requires states to ensure that children involved in inter-country adoption enjoy safeguards and standards equivalent to those required for national adoption. I am relieved that the Bill contains nothing that would undermine our compliance with this requirement.
Certain other aspects of the Bill give me cause for concern. The first of these relates to the proposal to modify the application of condition (c) of the definition of a foreign adoption contained in section 1 of the 1991 Act to Chinese adoptions. That condition provides that the law of the foreign country require that an inquiry be carried out, as far as practicable, into the adopters, the child and the parents or guardian. I am not aware that this condition presents a difficulty where Chinese adoption law is concerned. Indeed, I have been informed by the Adoption Board that Chinese adoptions appear to satisfy this condition.
Apart from condition (b) which I have already referred to in some detail, the other condition of the definition of a foreign adoption that raises a difficulty in relation to Chinese adoptions is condition (d) Broadly speaking, that provides that the law of the foreign country required the relevant adoption authority, before effecting the adoption, to give due consideration to the interests and welfare of the child. The adoption law of the People's Republic of China does not appear to contain an explicit requirement in this regard, although it is founded on the principle that "adoption shall be in the interests of the upbringing and growth of adopted minors".
Is the Minister of State suggesting it would not be in their interests to come here?
It seems to me that condition (d) will also have to be modified in order to allow Chinese adoptions to be recognised here. However, the Bill before the House contains no proposals in this regard.
The final matter I wish to comment on is the lack of clarity in the Bill as to the date from which a Chinese adoption effected in favour of Irish residents would be recognised. The Bill appears to provide that such an adoption would be recognised on the making of an application to the Adoption Board for the adoption to be entered in the Register of Foreign Adoptions. If this is the case, then it represents a curious departure from the approach set out in the 1991 Act. Surely if a foreign adoption qualifies for recognition here, it should be recognised from the date on which it was effected. This is the position under the 1991 Act but not in the Bill. In any event, I would point out that there is no requirement on Irish residents who adopt a child abroad to apply to have the adoption entered in the Register of Foreign Adoptions, although there are practical benefits in their doing so.
I regret I cannot accept the Bill because the proposals contained in it are fundamentally defective and would, if implemented, result in inequities in our treatment not only of different categories of adopters but also of different countries. I have outlined in some detail the nature of those defects and their implications. I hope Deputy Woods will accept that my criticisms are not motivated by party political reasons but by a strong desire to ensure that the changes that need to be made to the Adoption Act, 1991 are the correct ones. As those who were involved in the processing of that legislation through this House are aware, this is a complex area of the law and any proposed amendments must be very carefuly framed. It is vital that nothing is done which would create anomalies in our statutory recognition system.
On behalf of the Government, I assure the House that we will be bringing forward proposals to address the difficulties that have emerged in the operation of the 1991 Act, including those relating to the recognition of adoptions effected in countries whose laws permit the revocation or termination of adoptions in particular circumstances. Specific legislative proposals in this regard have already been prepared by my Department and circulated to relevant Departments and offices for their urgent observations.
The Government is committed to changing the law to provide for the establishment of an adoption contact register to assist adopted persons and birth parents who wish to re-establish contact with one another. It would be my firm intention that an adopted person's right of access to his or her original birth records would also be considered in that context as the two matters are inter-related. However, such changes would need to be carefully drafted to ensure an appropriate balance is struck between the rights of the respective parties, and that proper safeguards are provided. I do not consider it would be appropriate to do so in this Bill.
It is intended that all of these proposals will be incorporated into the proposed new Adoption Bill to address the issues raised by the European Court of Human rights in the case of Keegan v. Ireland. That case was brought by the father of a child born outside marriage who was placed for adoption without his knowledge or consent. In the light of the European Court ruling, it will be necessary to amend our domestic adoption laws to give the fathers of non-marital children a greater say in the adoption process. I expect to be a position by the end of the month to seek Government approval to draft such a Bill which will include provision for considered amendments of the 1991 Act. Those amendments will deal not only with what Deputy Woods has sought to achieve, but also with certain other issues that have come to light since the 1991 Act was enacted. It all the circumstances, I ask Deputy Woods to withdraw both his Bills.
Shame.
Definitely not. Is the Minister of State against the principle of the Bill?
Deputy Woods is doing the House a service by bringing this Bill, which I welcome, before it. Since it was first published, other related issues have been in the public limelight, particularly in relation to the contact register. What Deputy Woods has proposed this evening on that issue is of interest.
This measure should not become a political football or result in party political wrangling; it should also not be used by parties in this House to wrong-foot one another for some political advantage. This Bill deals with the problems which arise in the context of foreign adoptions. In 1990 I published what became the Adoption Act, 1991. This measure, which initially resulted in some political wrangling between the Government and Opposition, rapidly became law with a great deal of co-operation from all sides of this House. I hope the Government will reconsider its approach to this measure, and Fianna Fáil will reconsider putting this matter to a vote tomorrow evening, so as to afford the Government additional time to consider the substantial changes Deputy Woods has proposed.
The problems which have arisen in recognising foreign adoptions have come as no surprise to me. These problems derive directly from amendments to the Adoption Bill I originally proposed, which the then Minister for Health, Deputy O'Hanlon, insisted be included in it. We achieved a consensus on that Bill and, as the Minister of State said, it was passed without contention, because of negotiations which took place behind the scenes to facilitate the measure being rapidly enacted. The provisions in section 1 were insisted upon by the then Minister for Health and, I think, his departmental officials. Those provisions created the difficulty whereby the Adoption Board has determined that we cannot recognise approximately 20 countries' adoption orders.
When the Adoption Bill was being debated in 1991 it was my view that making some progress was better than no progress at all. That Bill, in its final form, would have allowed not only for the recognition of Romanian adoption orders but for a large number of other adoptions effected in other countries. It was inevitable that the type of problem we are dealing with this evening would fairly rapidly surface. Deputy Woods and the Minister of State mentioned some of the countries whose adoptions we currently do not recognise, which also includes some of our EU partners.
It was always my view that paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 1 of the Act would give rise to difficulties, particularly paragraph (b). In this context, I am in disagreement with both the Minister of State and Deputy Woods. The Minister of State is right that there is no problem with paragraph (c). Neither do I see any problem with paragraph (d), as the provision in the Chinese adoption laws, which became operative in 1992, cited by the Minister of State satisfies the requirements of paragraph (d).
The real problem is with paragraph (b), which requires that a foreign adoption order must have the same effect with regard to the termination of parental rights as an order made in this State. That wording has — as I believed it would — created the situation whereby adoptions which could be terminated by the countries in which they are effected cannot be recognised. In those countries on which it is possible to terminate an adoption order, normally such terminations can only take place in exceptional and unusual circumstances. It is my understanding that they are a very rare event.
I agree there are serious defects in this Bill. However, I seriously suggest to the Minister of State to consider using this Bill as a vehicle for dealing with the problems which arise under this area of the law. This House is supposed to be a legislature and I pressed the view very strongly from the Opposition benches — and my view has not changed now that I am on this side of the House — that Members of this House should be allowed to act as legislators. There are clear problems with the Bill as originally drafted, and the amendments proposed to it by Deputy Woods tonight will not adequately deal with the complexity of some of the issues which need to be addressed. However, I see no reason, if this Bill is given a gestation period and allowed to come back to a Committee of this House after the Easter recess or a week prior to it, why the drafting changes required could not be dealt with by a Dáil Committee. I ask for that aspect to be seriously considered.
I welcome the Minister of State's promise of legislation, particularly his statement that the Government has in principle made a decision to address this area of the law. The Minister of State is telling us that the Government will deal with the issue, but it will take some time because there is not yet even a draft Bill. I know, as does Deputy Woods and the Minister of State, that when there is not a draft Bill the bureaucracy of Government means it normally takes many months rather than a couple of weeks for a Bill to appear. If the Bill is to address a wide variety of areas in regard to adoption, we will do well if we see it this side of the summer recess and there is very little chance it will become law before the autumn.
If the Adoption Bill I published in December 1990, which became law by April 1991, had not been swiftly passed through this House many of the approximately 500 Romanian adoptions, which are now recognised, would not have been recognised and great difficulties would have been created. Speed is of great importance in this area.
None of the previous speakers pointed out that Catriona Crowe, the archivist, deserves the congratulations of all Members of this House for discovering so many records relating to the adoption of Irish children abroad. We now know that in the period under discussion approximately 3,000 children were adopted outside Ireland. We also know that since 1952 approximately 40,000 children have been adopted within Ireland.
The need for a contact register has been known for many years. It is extraordinary that the vehicle which is now pushing this as a political imperative is the number of adoptions that were effected abroad. They are a serious reason we should have the register. However, a greater reason is the many Irish people, now adults, who were adopted in Ireland and the many Irish mothers and some fathers whose children were adopted years ago who would like to make contact. We must provide a vehicle that enables such contact to take place and we should do it with a degree of urgency.
Deputy Wood's proposals on this issue merit serious consideration. Neither Government nor Opposition parties should use this issue as a political football. Let us enact the legislation that is required and do it in proper form without delay.
I wish to share my time with Deputy McDaid.
An Leas-Comhairle
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I support Deputy Shatter's final comments wherein he requested the House not to turn this issue into a political debate. It has not happened so far but we steered a little close to it on one or two occasions. This is a sensitive issue that can cause great anxiety for the people directly affected.
The Minister of State, Deputy Currie, took issue with Deputy Woods about the changes he is introducing. However, that was not a valid argument for withdrawing this legislation. I doubt that a single Bill has passed through this House that has not been changed. In some cases, Bills have been greatly changed on Committee Stage, and not necessarily through amendments proposed by the Opposition. In many cases, substantial amendments are made by the Government. In my brief time in the House I have seen sections of Bills being deleted on foot of Government amendments. There is nothing unusual in legislation being changed on Committee Stage; that is what Committee Stage is for.
Deputy Woods said many of the changes he is introducing arise from the recent debate on adoption. I have received correspondence from people who have adopted children from countries where I was unaware such adoptions could take place. Only this morning I received substantial representations about these matters. As a result of such representations and for other reasons Deputy Woods has introduced his amendments.
I pay tribute to Deputy Woods for bringing forward this legislation, particularly following the present public debate on the issue. It is a short Bill but it is important for those affected by it. Deputy Woods has broadened its scope with his contribution tonight and shown how it might effectively deal with adoptions from other countries. We can tackle the issues raised in this debate on Committee Stage. We understand that inter-country adoptions are complex. Complicated matters must be attended to and dealt with and it is not easy for adoptive parents to effect inter-country adoptions. We have a responsibility to put in place supporting legislation to allow such parents to meet their requirements with regard to adoption, especially as the number of children available for adoption in this country has dramatically decreased in recent years. It is our duty to help people who wish to adopt.
With regard to the voluntary contact register, this House will be confronted with a major issue very soon. There is growing support for the establishment of a voluntary contact register and we all would agree with that. However, we will soon be challenged to go a step further. Let us say a national voluntary contact register is established and an individual who has been adopted wishes to contact his or her natural parents. Contact is made through the register with the natural parent, usually the mother, and she indicates that she is not willing, for a number of genuine reasons, to effect a contact. Whose right is of paramount importance? Is it the right of the mother or the father who, for their own reasons, do not wish to make contact or is it the right of the adopted person?
We will be challenged to confront that issue and to make a decision. It will be tough and will cause much anxiety but we must confront it soon. I am not suggesting that we do so tonight but there should be a public debate on the matter so that at some stage we will be able to clarify our thinking as to what might happen in the circumstances I have outlined. In other countries the adopted person has a right to have knowledge of his or her natural parents and sometimes has a right to go further than that. We have to reach a level of maturity where we can begin to consider that issue and consider how best we might deal with it. It is an important issue and it will not go away.
Legal adoptions were first introduced in this country in 1953 and up to 40,000 people have been adopted since then. The subject of this Bill is inter-country adoptions. We last discussed this issue in 1990 in the context of the adoption of Romanian children. There were difficulties for those involved in that debate. Complex social and ethical issues were raised. There were known cases in other countries of people going to Romania to adopt children and of money changing hands in order to secure such adoptions. That was a difficult situation and it caused immense problems in Romania.
The complexities of inter-country adoptions mean that we must get the legislation right. However, we must try to come to terms with those we are trying to help. We must put in place legislation which will give people the opportunity to adopt and give children the opportunity to be adopted. That is the purpose of this legislation.
I ask the Minister to consider carefully his colleague's wish that this issue should not be politicised. The Government should accept this legislation and, on Committee Stage, bring forward appropriate amendments. Some of them, as the Minister of State said, might be major in content but this side of the House is prepared to carefully consider them, just as we are prepared to push the amendments proposed by Deputy Woods. Let us not delay this legislation; let us bring it to Committee Stage where it can be thrashed out in detail. At the end of the day we must produce legislation that will give expression to what all sides of the House are trying to achieve — a Bill that will enable inter-country adoptions to be dealt with in a caring and compassionate way. If we do that the House will have done itself a service, apart from the service it will do for adoptees and adoptive parents.
Through television and other media we have got used to being shocked on a regular basis by disasters of many kinds. They include natural disasters such as earthquakes, famine, disease epidemics and so forth. Unfortunately, such disasters also include manmade disasters which arise from actions of policies, deliberate or otherwise, which leave countless innocent victims in their wake. When the victims are little children, the images presented on our television screens pull even more on the heart strings and nowhere is there a more positive and compassionate response than in Ireland.
I congratulate Deputy Woods for introducing this Bill which is designed as an urgent response to one such tragedy. I refer to the revelation that countless unwanted babies exist in China. There is little to be gained at this time by launching an attack on the Chinese authorities because of the alleged ill-treatment of many children in its orphanges. We must remember that the allegations have not been proved and we must also bear in mind the recent shocking revelations of what happened in our orphanages during the life time of most Members of this House.
China has experienced a huge population explosion despite its draconian birth control regulations. Little children are the innocent victims of being brought into a part of the world which has no room for them. Ireland, on the other hand, has many couples who long for the opportunity to become adoptive parents but have little chance of doing so because of the dramatic social changes in recent years.
An unmarried mother no longer feels she has to avoid the squinting windows of old by giving up her child for adoption, yet the obscenity of cross-channel abortions is continuing at the rate of thousands each year. If only these women or young girls could come to terms with their situation and realise that abortion is the worst choice of all. They are now happy to raise their children, usually with the loving support of family and friends. The numbers who choose to take the boat to England are fewer, although I am aware that hundreds, if not thousands, of prospective adoptive parents are heartbroken when the annual figures are published.
Deputy Woods has rightly appealed for an all-party approach to the proposals and it appears that his appeal has been heard and acted uppn. The most important principle is that a child adopted in Ireland, regardless of the country of origin, should not be a second class citizen either here or in any part of the European Union. The amendments proposed by Deputy Woods will ensure that does not happen. Amendments from either side of the House which are designed to close perceived loopholes in the current legislation will be welcome. Deputy Woods stated that he trusts the Minister's discretion in using the proposed enabling powers in relation to the Irish register of foreign adoptions. I concur with him on that point. I cannot imagine that any present or future Minister could not be trusted in a similar fashion. We may have our different political approaches to certain matters but I have yet to see this House play politics with the lives and happiness of children.
There has been much discussion recently about the urgent need for a voluntary contact register as a means of bringing birth mothers and adopted children together. This was emphasised in the past couple of weeks with the news that a large number of babies from Ireland were adopted in the United States 30 or more years ago. The records in many of these cases were either hidden away or did not contain accurate information. Like Deputy Shatter, I extend my congratulations and thanks on behalf of so many people to Ms Caitriona Crowe who brought this matter to light.
It is natural for people to be curious about their roots even when they have been brought up by their natural parents. How many times have we seen Irish Americans, in particular, searching for their ancestors' records? If a person knows that he or she was adopted, it is natural for them to become curious about their parents. However, that does not mean the person has not had a happy and loving relationship with their adoptive parents. Many adopted persons have no desire to contact their birth parents. Deputy Woods said this is a highly sensitive area. We must be careful about how we, as legislators. handle this issue. I agree with the idea of a voluntary contact register but it must be confidential. Such registers, which will probably be computerised, must be foolproof as far as security is concerned. We have all considered the scenario of a happly married woman with a family who is suddenly confronted with a young adult, who is the child of her teenage years, but whom she concealed from her husband and family. This Bill will ensure that does not happen.
One aspect of adoption which is barely mentioned is adoptive parents who spend a lifetime of love and sometimes sacrifice to bring up their child. There was a lot of publicity recently on radio and television and in the press about the efforts of adopted people to trace their birth mothers. Many adoptive parents go through the agony of wondering if they will lose the only son or daughter they have ever known. It is possible that some adopted people feel pressurised to embark on this search because such publicty could make them feel guilty if they did not do so. More consideration should be given to adoptive parents.
From the moment a child is adopted too many people refer to the fact that the child is not "one of your own". That is the most insensitive remark anyone can make. Another insensitive remark is that the child is lucky to be adopted or that the adoptive parents are heroic people for giving the child a good home. Most people know they are lucky to have such wonderful parents and, as parents, we know we are lucky to have such wonderful children. Love is or should be mutual and it is no different for adopted children.
The maximum age requirement is a perpetual cause of heartbreak to couples who are desperate to adopt a child. Many married couples in their forties and fifties have no difficulty conceiving and giving birth to children. However, some couples, for medical reasons, are unable to do so, yet they may not have this fact confirmed until they have reached the earlier age at which adoption is not allowed. I presume this rule will also apply to foreign adoptions so that many abandoned children will be sentenced to life without a home in a family environment. It is time to examine such obstacles and to do something about removing them.
This Bill is designed, among other things, to take many children out of the legal limbo because their adoptions are not valid in this country by giving the Minister the power to designate such adoptions as being valid. I heartily commend the Bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.