Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 Mar 1996

Vol. 463 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Adoption Bill, 1996: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Mr. Currie)

On a point of order, yesterday evening when Deputy Woods moved Second Stage of his Adoption Bill, 1996 which was ordered by the Dáil to be printed on 13 February last, he displayed a document entitled, Adoption Bill, 1996. This document, also entitled the original No. 8 of 1996, differs substantially from the Adoption Bill, 1996, which was given a First Reading in this House.

This bogus version of the Adoption Bill, 1996, was delivered to me in the House minutes before I was due to speak on the Bill and I was not given an opportunity to read it, never mind give it the consideration a Minister's reply demands. At the very least, it introduced confusion into the debate on a subject about which many people feel passionately and which requires to be handled with the greatest sensitivity. I ask you, a Cheann Comhairle, to rule whether the action by Deputy Woods was in accordance with the rules and procedure of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

I want to make it clear, without doubt or ambiguity of any kind, that there is but one Bill before the House, that is, the Adoption Bill, 1996, the official House document printed on green paper which Dáil Éireann gave leave to introduce on 13 February last and which will be decided on by this House later this evening. I deem it, therefore, premature, irregular and most confusing to talk of an amended text of a Bill as this is a matter for a later Stage, if the Bill is proceeded with. It pre-empts any consideration by the Chair of the allowance of any proposed amendments in that regard. It is something which I cannot countenance and which I hope will not arise again.

Dr. Woods

I would like to make it clear that on many occasions amendments are suggested on Second Stage. That is a normal procedure employed by Ministers and Members of the Opposition. I did so in my speech and I outlined the type of amendment involved. As a courtesy to the Minister, I gave him a draft copy of how the Bill would look if it was so amended on Committee Stage. There is nothing confusing or irregular about that. Indeed, the only difference was that as a courtesy I set out for the Minister how those amendments would fit in with this Bill. At no stage did I suggest that the Bill in question was not the one before the House.

Mr. Currie

The Deputy did.

Dr. Woods

I did not. I resent the statement by the Ceann Comhairle in this regard. In terms of the precedent and custom of this House, it is clear that Committee Stage amendments are introduced and discussed, at least in principle, on Second Stage. The only point on which it would appear that the Chair is taking exception is in relation to the further draft copy of how these amendments would affect the Bill; there is nothing unusual about that. I spoke on the Bill before the House. I believe the Minister did not understand what was happening and I will deal with that in my reply.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sure Deputy Woods was very well intentioned in what he did, but I assert that it caused complications. I will give some of the reasons there are additional complications. It is a long-standing rule of the House that a Member wishing to circulate a letter or a document in the House must do so by permission of the Chair and its officials and no such permission was sought from me yesterday during Private Members' time. I should say further that a Minister, according to precedent, is allowed to read important statements of policy or fact and, on this basis, is allowed to circulate a script. In the case of other Members, however, the Chair takes the view that Members are referring to extended notes and not reading from a prepared script. The Chair has given a great deal of latitude in this regard.

However, if a Deputy, other than a Minister or Minister of State, attempts to distribute a script in advance of speaking, then the Chair would be left with no alternative but to insist on the long-standing rule that a Member is not entitled to read his speech but may consult notes. A Minister, according to precedent, is allowed to read important statements on policy or fact. The rule exists and I have deliberately and of set purpose very largely ignored that rule because to apply it, in the strictest sense, would disadvantage the majority of Members and would snip scripts from their hands. The rule exists if Members want it, but they cannot have it both ways.

Dr. Woods

I want to object to this matter being raised without me being given notice. It is clear the Chair and the Minister were aware that this would be raised but I was not given notice by either.

Mr. Currie

The Deputy did not give me notice yesterday.

Dr. Woods

I do not particularly mind about that because I am prepared to take what the Minister has to offer. However, I strongly object to the introduction of a precedent with which I agree, that is, that Members should only refer to notes. However, the Chair knows that that precedent was dropped years ago and has not been implemented in this House because I have commented on this frequently. I had notes which I will show to the Ceann Comhairle and of which I gave a typed version to the Official Reporter and made available elsewhere. I assure the House they were prepared by me last weekend.

An Ceann Comhairle

I do not doubt that.

Dr. Woods

In case there is any other insinuation in the House, I wish to point out that it is extraordinary that the Government should start this charade now. It is doing so because it suffered this morning. The Government knows that it should not reject this Bill.

Mr. E. Byrne

That is silly.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is solely concerned about the procedures of this House.

Dr. Woods

I am concerned about the use of the Chair in this matter.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have no apologies to offer to the Deputy or any Member for upholding the procedures of the House.

Dr. Woods

Nor I to you, a Cheann Comhairle.

Mr. D. Ahern

On a point of order, as the Fianna Fáil Party Whip I strenuously object to the way in which this matter was raised without notice. I was in my office watching the debate on television when it first arose. I had no notice of it. My colleague tells me he had no notice of it either. Had Deputy Woods not been in the House, the Minister would have raised the matter in his absence. I object to that. It is not the way to proceed and I concur with what Deputy Woods has said.

Mr. Currie

I am not sure whether the Chair would rule on that as a point of order. When this new Bill was introduced yesterday——

Dr. Woods

It is not new.

Mr. Currie

——half way through Deputy Woods's speech, no advance notice was given to me. I was supposed to comment on that new Bill immediately.

Mr. D. Ahern

It would have been no more than a courtesy.

An Ceann Comhairle

Can we resume the debate on this Bill? It is to conclude by 8.30 p.m.

Mr. Currie

The Deputy's stunt has become unstuck.

Deputy Woods approached the Chair.

Dr. Woods

Here are notes, in my own handwriting. If you would like to see them, I will show them to you.

An Ceann Comhairle

Do not approach the Chair in this manner. Return to your seat.

Dr. Woods

I shall return to my seat. I will leave my notes there for anyone to see. On a point of order, I hope the precedent you have reintroduced now will be continued at other times when we are not talking about adopting couples, Chinese babies, Paraguayan babies and the voluntary contact register.

Mr. T. Kitt

I compliment my colleague, Deputy Woods, for introducing this Bill. I have been following this debate and am amazed at the Minister's disgraceful behaviour. I cannot understand why he is getting involved in splitting hairs on such a sensitive matter, one which is of genuine concern to every Member of this House. I was here this morning when Deputy Woods asked for the co-operation of the Government parties on this Bill. I was astounded then at the negative response of the Tánaiste on behalf of the Government and I think that is the reason for what has happened tonight.

The Minister is missing the point. Deputy Woods, on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, is trying to tell the Minister that this Bill is tailor-made for the committee system. One of the Minister's colleagues, Deputy Alan Shatter, agrees with Deputy Woods on that point.

We heard much about and were lectured on Dáil reform. We were told of the need to make the committee system work and become more meaningful. We were told by Ministers and the Chief Whip that it is important to give Members of the Opposition a chance. All that rhetoric was a lot of nonsense. Is it any wonder that we have such poor attendance at committee meetings when Deputies realise that the committee system is merely being used as another means of propping up this Government and giving key positions to members of its parties?

Mr. E. Byrne

That is silly.

Mr. T. Kitt

It is the truth. The committee system is being used to stifle a good Bill which has tremendous public support. It is a relatively simple Bill but it has profound implications for many people, thousands of adopted children and adoptive parents who want their children to be given the status they deserve, a status which should be recognised in Ireland. It is not much to ask that these children not be treated as second class citizens. China's adoption laws are not compatible with the Adoption Act, 1991, and we must deal with that matter.

Many Deputies have been approached by the parents of adopted Paraguayan children. I know one couple who have adopted a child from Paraguay, a country which would also fall into the category of incompatible states. Deputy Woods's Bill will allow by way of regulation for countries, including Paraguay, to be regarded under Irish law in a similar way to China. It will provide for registration as in the case of Chinese adoptions.

Recently the Tánaiste announced dramatically that 1,500 adoption files had been discovered in the national archives. The Bill will provide for a voluntary contact register to enable a birth mother and an adopted child to make contact with each other if both wish to do so, not just children adopted in the US and other countries but also children adopted in Ireland. This is an important point. Everybody accepts this is a sensitive and complex matter but it is evident that such a register would help heal much of the pain and trauma for all concerned.

I cannot understand why the Minister would not support this basic and humane proposal. We have heard much about the special position of children in this Government's programme of legislation. Sadly, having observed the Minister's response to my party's legislative proposals, there is little evidence to support that concern. What we have heard tonight exposes the hypocrisy and the platitudes of this Government. All its statements of concern mean nothing. Let it be judged by its actions. I call on the Government to support the passing of this Bill to Committee Stage. I warn the Minister not to oppose it because he will not be thanked for doing so.

What we have heard tonight is not acceptable. I was a Member of this House when Deputy Alan Shatter produced a good Bill in Opposition. This Bill is in the same vein. It has widespead support among the general public not only in relation to China. I ask the Minister to stop this nonsense of trying to stifle a good Bill produced by the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. E. Byrne

I propose to share my time with Deputies McGrath and Penrose.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is in order. The revised times are: Government, 7.16 p.m. to 7.46 p.m.; Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats, 7.46 p.m. to 8.15 p.m. and again from 8.15 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. E. Byrne

This Bill was published by the Fianna Fáil Party on foot of the appalling revelations regarding the conditions in Chinese orphanages. I appreciate absolutely the impulses which prompted Deputy Woods to draft this legislation.

In drafting the Bill he did not know, nor could any of us have known, that we would gain a new insight a few weeks later into the tragic history of Ireland's orphanages in the 1950s and 1960s. Irish children were consigned not to dying rooms but to rooms and buildings where they suffered intolerable pain and suffering. The revelations in the documentary "Dear Daughter” shocked us profoundly, yet at some level we were aware of the facts it contained. We all knew that the children of what were then seen as illicit liaisons were not cherished equally as per the Constitution. We all knew that those children were made to pay the price for their parents' so called transgressions, real or imagined. During the past few weeks, we were forced to look into the mirror of our own past and what we saw reflected there was not a pretty sight. It was a portrait of intolerance, bigotry and of a narrow morality which places conformity above compassion at every turn.

While the country was still trying to come to terms with the ordeal undergone by Christina Buckley and her companions, we were forced to confront yet another hidden corner of our past — the confirmation that up to 2,000 children were exported to the United States of America. The issue of foreign adoptions is not confined to China, Romania or the famine stricken regions of Africa. The terrible revelations of the past few weeks have brought the matter uncomfortably home to us, not only in this Parliament but among the general public at large. The children who were exported to the United States, whom we as a society had decided were surplus to requirements, were denied the most basic right of all, their own past. Birth certificates were falsified and other details surrounding their birth were also deliberately obscured. For far too long, both as a society and a State, we have covered up our mistakes in the past and shoved them under the carpet.

In deciding to reveal the existence of the archives detailing the export of our children, the Tánaiste made it public as soon as he became aware of them. This was a welcome break from the time-hallowed tradition of concealment. Not only the individuals concerned but we as a society owe him a debt of gratitude in that respect. However, the Tánaiste's announcement was only the first step in a process. We are now faced with the far more difficult task of deciding how these files should be handled. While they should obviously not be open to the general public, neither should they be permitted to disappear again into the vaults of bureaucracy.

I have no doubt that the relevant authorities will handle this matter sensitively and with due regard for the rights of all concerned — the birth mother, the adoptive parents and most importantly, the child. It may never be possible for us to give back their history to all the children of the 1950s and 1960s. However, it is possible for us to ensure that no child in the future is ever denied his or her past. We now know something of what happens to children who are sent for foreign adoption. We must draw on our own experience to ensure that no child brought into Ireland from another jurisdiction suffers what happened to our children in the past.

The Adoption Act, 1991, provides that an adoption must be carried out in accordance with our law and the laws of the child's country of origin. That provision may not of itself be sufficient to safeguard a child's interests. Recent revelations regarding present conditions in other jurisdictions and past conditions in Ireland have given us a new insight into the problems surrounding adoptions, particularly transnational adoptions.

The Minister accepts the desirability of modifying the 1991 definition of a foreign adoption to secure recognition of adoptions effected under laws such as those in China. While I welcome the Minister's statement last night, we have to revisit our adoption law as a whole. In the long term we need to formulate a new consolidated adoption law which provides an updated and sensitive framework for both domestic and foreign adoptions.

In the context of such legislation, we must examine the establishment of a contact register enabling children and their birth mothers to make contact with one another, should they so wish. Such contact must obviously be restricted and regulated to protect individual privacy and to ensure psychological and emotional strain is kept to a minimum.

There are already strict regulations in place governing the rights of adopted children to trace their natural parents and they could easily be adapted for the reverse situation. We also must address the regulations governing the adoption process. At present, adoption procedures are largely determined by individual adoption societies and many of the criteria applied to prospective adoptive parents are too stringent and militate against the children's interest. Children up for adoption who are, by definition, vulnerable, must be placed in a stable and secure environment. However, current practices effectively exclude many prospective parents for financial, religious or age reasons. These reasons would not prevent them from becoming parents in the natural course of events and they need not prevent them providing a loving and stable home.

I would like to see a regulatory system which is transparent and unbureaucratic and takes full account of the individual circumstances of all concerned — the children and the natural and adoptive parents. In tabling this Bill, Deputy Woods has provided us with a welcome opportunity to debate some of the issues surrounding adoptions. I congratulate him.

For the reasons I outlined, we should not add yet more legislation to the often impenetrable jigsaw which constitutes our adoption laws. Rather, legislation in this area should be revisited as a whole. This debate, prompted by Deputy Woods, will help clarify some of the issues which must be addressed.

Mr. McGrath

I was listening to Deputy Kitt's contribution when I was preparing to speak. I was amazed to hear him talk about this Government prevaricating etc. I have not been a Member of this House for long — I came here in 1989 — and I had the experience of seeing Fianna Fáil in Government for most of that period. It is a little painful to hear a Deputy from that party criticise this Government in its approach to committees and in getting work done. The Deputy has only to look back through the records to see the performance of many of his colleagues in that period.

Deputy Kitt was speaking on a Bill about which I know nothing. The Bill I read in preparing for this debate was the Adoption Bill, 1996, as presented by Deputy Woods. As far as I know, there is no other such Adoption Bill before us. This was the Bill issued to my office. It is the only Bill on this matter that I have and hence I will speak on that alone. Deputy Kitt's statements seem to indicate that there is a totally different Bill available but I have not seen it.

I congratulate Deputy Woods for bringing forward this Bill. Having been a spokesman in Opposition, I know what it is like. I also know the difficulties associated with trying to put material together with scarce resources. One is depending on the good will of friends and experts in the various fields to help them to survive in Opposition. It is not good enough. Some form of support and resources should be made available for Opposition spokespersons because they do not stand a chance against a Minister on the floor. It should be considered in the long term and I agree with any move to provide increased support to Opposition spokespersons.

The purpose of this Bill is to validate the adoption of children from the People's Republic of China. I support the very worthy aspiration that people who adopted children from China should be supported by the legislature. Recent television programmes have led us to believe that the conditions in Chinese orphanages for children who have been deserted or abandoned are anything but good and children are brought up in terrible conditions. If people in this country can provide a family setting for some of those children and give them the opportunities available to Irish children, it is worth doing. The sentiments in this Bill are to be commended. The Bill was introduced out of concern for children and their adoptive parents who, having taken these children in, should be permitted to keep them.

During my short time in public life I have met many couples anxious to adopt children but none were available here for adoption. They sought to adopt in Romania and elsewhere. I recall one couple who were desperate and felt they should adopt relatively quickly before they became too old. They were offering, to any child they might adopt, a stable home, a comfortable future and good educational opportunities. The adopted child would probably have enjoyed succession rights in that family. That is something worth considering. The couple felt their lives were incomplete without children and wanted to share what they had with someone else.

This legislature should, as far as possible, facilitate such people and the Bill proposes to do so. However, it is somewhat incomplete and that is borne out by a letter many Members received yesterday from the parents of adopted Paraguayan children. It states:

Other incompatible states have allowed Irish families to adopt children through their courts with the result that a growing number of adopted children living in this country do not have their status recognised in this State. Paraguay is one of these countries. The Irish families who have adopted in Paraguay are anxious that any new legislation should take account of their position and remove them from the legal limbo they currently occupy. The compatibility requirement of the 1991 Act is at the root of the difficulty in both the Paraguayan and Chinese cases.

The parents proposed an amendment but if it was made, who is to say there might not be difficulties with adopting children from Chile or some other country in the future? I welcome the Minister of State's commitment to bring forward comprehensive legislation to deal with all cases. This must be done carefully, cautiously and correctly, in the first instance because it involves the future of young children and the happiness of their adoptive parents.

I recall meeting another couple anxious to adopt a child. They were given a child initially to foster. The child lived with them for a number of months and they hoped for a legal adoption. After six months, the natural mother wanted her baby and it had to be returned to her. The adoptive parents were shattered. We must ensure this type of situation does not recur. It is traumatic for the parents and the child and this must be borne in mind in our discussions.

In recent months we heard much about past adoptions in Ireland. We should hang our heads in shame at the practices which were commonplace in Ireland. There was a home for unmarried mothers in my own area — Castle-pollard, County Westmeath. Young girls were placed in this home, gave birth and, in many cases, put their children up for adoption. Records of many adoptions are available from county councils, which, at that time, were responsible for health care within their areas. When the Tánaiste reviews the information available on those adoptions he should request county councils in whose areas such homes were located to review their archives. I am sure more material will come to light.

The contact register is a very worth-while proposal. I am sure the Minister of State will seek to introduce it. I am reminded of the case of a young man I know quite well who has been trying to trace his natural mother for a number of years. He enlisted my help and I identified his mother. I have not been able to contact her but have requested her family to ask her to contact the young man or make herself available to him. No response has been forthcoming and the individual in question is shattered that his mother may be alive but is not anxious to meet him. That is particularly sad for him because of a recent high profile reunion of another adopted person — who may even be his cousin. The young man saw the case in the newspaper, realised he shared the same name and wondered about the possibilities. Each day he waits for the postman to deliver a letter from his real mother stating that she is anxious to meet him.

Mr. Penrose

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Until recently adoption seems to have been a controversial issue in Ireland and the number of infants offered for adoption was in decline. In 1994 the number of in-family adoptions represented almost 60 per cent of all adoptions. I compliment Deputy Woods on his initiative in bringing forward this Bill. I hope the Government responds with promised speed to ensure that the necessary changes, to which the Minister of State's speech referred, are effected without undue delay.

Deputy Woods has done a fine service in bringing forward this Bill which attempts to deal with recognition, in Ireland, of adoptions completed in China. Deep public concern was aroused following the recent television programme dealing with orphanages in the People's Republic of China. There is obviously a desire among Irish people to adopt such children to give them the opportunity to grow up in a settled family environment.

Recent revelations about the regimes that existed in some of our own residential institutions do not permit us to sit in judgement of events in other countries. As a society, we abrogated our responsibilities in so far as we appeared to adhere to a policy of out of sight, out of mind. We must learn from the mistakes, errors and inadequacies of the past and work in close co-operation with the relevant Chinese authorities to promote the welfare of children. The latter must be the paramount consideration in legislation here and elsewhere.

We should consider entering a bilateral adoption agreement with China as quickly as possible to facilitate the adoption of children by persons resident in Ireland. We must learn from the situation which confronts us in Ireland, and to which several speakers referred, where children were sent abroad in the past. We must ensure that any such agreement with China would contain appropriate safeguards to avoid this type of situation.

To effect an effective bilateral adoption agreement with China, the aim must be to ensure that the status of Chinese children adopted in this country would be fully recognised here. We would thereby ensure that these children will enjoy the same rights as children born and reared here. The nonrecognition of Chinese or other foreign adoptions, such as Paraguayan adoptions referred to by Deputy McGrath, affects the adoptive parents' entitlement to full parental rights with respect to the child. This arises from the non-compatibility of the adoption legislation of countries, such as China and Paraguay, with Ireland's legislation as required by the 1991 Adoption Act.

Adoptive parents now find themselves in limbo. Any changes we wish to bring forward must be fundamentally compatible with the 1991 Adoption Act. This legislation, which has been referred to very often in the House over the past 24 hours, had its genesis in a Private Members' Bill which was similar to that introduced by Deputy Woods. The Bill was introduced by Deputy Shatter who was motivated by concern for those parents who adopted children in Romania and were encountering problems caused mainly by the lack of legislation providing for the recognition of foreign adoptions here.

This extremely important Act dealt with the consequential and final effects of an adoption order, such as the rights and duties of the adoptive parents when the adoption order is made and recognised. This is the nub of the problem in relation to China in so far as it is possible to terminate or revoke the adoption under its legislation. This is obviously at odds with the position under our legislative framework. I understand that the Government accepts the desirability of modifying the existing legislation on foreign adoptions to secure the recognition of adoptions effected under such laws. This should apply to a number of countries, such as Paraguay which has already been mentioned, and others.

I accept Deputy Currie's reservations about a number of aspects of the Bill proposed by Deputy Woods but it should not be too difficult for a draftsman to extend the scope of the Bill to recognise foreign adoptions and encompass the four principal categories of adopters as recognised in the 1991 Act based upon ordinary residence, domicile and the habitual place of residence. It is critical that any change effected in the law would, as a minimum, encompass all these categories as specified in the 1991 legislation.

I compliment Deputy Woods on ensuring that the pre-adoption procedure provided for in section 5 of the 1991 Act applies to his proposal. It is imperative that it applies to any proposals brought forward in this field to ensure that Irish residents complete this procedure to have the adoption recognised as valid.

This is a complex area of law and we must pay careful attention to any amendments brought forward to ensure that, in affecting a desirable amendment to our law on foreign adoptions, we do not create an anomaly down the line in our system of statutory recognition. No matter what Bill is eventually brought forward, it will have to be teased out on Committee Stage to ensure the desired effect of the Bill would encompass necessary details and an anomaly is not created.

The Minister indicated that the Government is urgently bringing forward specific legislative proposals to deal with these matters. I am also glad to note that the issues raised by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Keegan v. Ireland will be dealt with in any new adoption Bill. I was disappointed that the issues raised in the Keegan ruling were not addressed at an earlier stage. I commend Deputy Woods on his initiative in bringing forward this Bill and I hope that the Government responds with the promised speed to ensure that the changes referred to are effected without delay. Otherwise, the words of concern expressed over the past number of weeks will be nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Mr. O'Dea

I wish to share my time with Deputies Mary Wallace and Keogh.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. O'Dea

I deplore the antics of the Minister of State, Deputy Currie. The procedural wrangle which Deputy Currie initiated without notice and his condemnation of my colleague, Deputy Woods, are only another decoy, a shabby excuse and alibi for inaction. Now that the Minister for Health has appeared in the House, I appeal to him directly to change his attitude and the Government's approach to this Bill which is frankly nothing short of contemptible.

I listened carefully to Deputy Shatter, a respected member of the Fine Gael party, speaking last night. Deputy Shatter has more experience, expertise and knowledge in this area than any Member. He made two requests, one of the Opposition and one of the Government. He told the Government that this Bill is an appropriate vehicle which can be amended on Committee Stage and said it is the best way to get action at the earliest possible time. He pointed out that the Government's approach would mean an infinitely longer time before the unfortunates which this Bill is designed to deal with can be helped. He said the Fianna Fáil Bill was an appropriate vehicle which could be amended on Committee Stage and he asked the Government to do so.

Deputy Shatter pointed out to the Opposition that this should not be made a political issue or political football and we should not be confrontational or contentious in the matter. I am prepared to accept his advice, although with great difficulty, because I could be very contentious in this matter if I wished. However, I will accept Deputy Shatter's advice and I ask the Government to accept his advice and the request he made to it.

Deputy Shatter is the author of the Bill dealing with Romanian babies. He admitted last night that if the Government in 1991 had not accepted that Bill immediately, with all its flaws and defects which were ironed out on Committee Stage, and moved to process it with alacrity, hundreds of parents who adopted Romanian babies would not have had the opportunity to do so and hundreds of babies would not have been adopted and found care, love and affection in this country.

When I was Minister of State in the Department of Justice, Deputy Shatter introduced a Private Members' Bill on quite a different topic and I was asked by the Government of the time whether we should accept it. It proposed changes to the law on commercial tenancies. I advised the Government that we should accept it and we did. The legislation which was eventually enacted after a detailed Committee Stage debate was different in many material respects from the Bill proposed by Deputy Shatter.

If we proposed a Bill to deal with some other aspect of landlord and tenant law and the Government refused to accept it, we could justifiably complain. We could say the Government is not being consistent as we accepted an Opposition Bill on a similar topic, complete with flaws, and ironed it out on Committee Stage. The Bill we are proposing tonight is infinitely more important. Landlord and tenant law is only about property. Tax legislation is only about money and local government legislation is only about local government. This Bill deals with matters of life and death.

Unwanted Chinese babies have been herded in orphanages in conditions of unspeakable, almost sadistic, cruelty and deprivation. They are dying in their hundreds on a regular basis. These are human beings who have the right to life and if we can help a few of them, why should we not do so now? Have they not waited long enough? How much longer are they supposed to wait while the bureaucracy in this country takes its course? Thousands of Irish parents and children have a void in their lives which can only be filled by being united with each other. We can facilitate that process now. Many of these parents are elderly and many do not have long to live. Have they not waited long enough? Should we not help them at the earliest possible opportunity? We can do that now by using this Bill as a vehicle rather than waiting for a Government Bill which will not appear until some time in the future.

I was disappointed with Deputy Currie, who is Minister of State at various Departments. He was sent in as some sort of political woodpecker to find holes in this Bill as an excuse not to accept it by a Government dominated by people who masquerade as socialists and people of concern. Of course there are flaws in this Bill. Has there been a Private Members' Bill or a Government Bill which could not be improved by debate on Committee Stage? Has there not been a Government Bill longer than one section which contained some flaw that was not ironed out on Committee Stage? There are flaws in this Bill which we will sort out on Committee Stage. I am prepared to sit here for two or three days a week over Easter, if necessary, to sort out these flaws.

I want to look at some examples of obstruction about which Deputy Currie was so concerned that he could not accept this Bill. He is worried that the terminology "the interest and the welfare of the child" might not be equivalent to the terminology "in the interests of the upbringing of the child". We can change that phrase with an amendment on Committee Stage. He is also worried that Irish people resident abroad for a short period will not be able to avail of the Bill's provisions. We can also change that on Committee Stage. He pointed out that there is nothing in the Bill about the date from which it would be effective. That is one of the reasons advanced by the Minister of State for refusing to accept the Bill. These nit-picking objections pale into insignificance when we remember the cries from the dying rooms. This legal jargon and talk about paragraphs and schedules ignores the suffering, helpless human beings which this Government is refusing to help now.

I do not want to patronise Deputy Currie who has a long record of concern about civil rights. What civil rights are as important as Chinese babies' rights to life, love or care? What civil rights are greater than the rights of parents and their natural children to meet each other? Deputy Currie who has refused to accept progressive legislation from this side of the House is allowing himself — shamefully — to be turned into the Government's abominable no man.

All Members agree that the people this Bill is designed to help should be helped. The only point at issue between us is whether we help them now or at some time in the future. I agree with Deputy Shatter who said time is of the essence. Our bounden duty and moral responsibility is to help them now. There is no logic and, more importantly, there is no moral basis for further delaying tactics or prevarication. These people are crying out to us in their anguish to help them. We can extend a helping hand to them, so let us do so now. No legalistic jargon, such as we heard last night, nit-picking or shabby excuses constitute an acceptable delay when human life is at stake and human suffering can be ended.

I appeal to the Minister to change his attitude to this Bill. He will not be thanked if he maintains his present hard-faced approach but he will earn the respect and appreciation of many people who deserve help if he changes it.

Miss M. Wallace

I join Deputy O'Dea and other speakers in expressing concern about the Government's tactic in relation to this Private Members' Bill. The same tactic was employed by the Government when I introduced the disabled voters' access Bill. On that occasion, the Minister for the Environment expressed his support for the Bill's provisions, but promised to take his own action. He stated that the issues would be considered by the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs on 12 and 13 March. However, the Committee did not address this issue yesterday or today. It meets tomorrow when it will briefly discuss a timetable but is unlikely to hold any substantive discussions before the summer recess. I am, therefore, concerned about this Bill since the Government is employing the same tactic.

Deputy Woods should be congratulated for introducing this Bill. This is an emotional topic. The relationship between children and parents is unique and personally defining. Adoption has been given a lot of coverage in the media recently but it has always been an important issue. I have been struck by the cases put by groups pushing for change in the statutory regulations on adoption. There is a need for immediate action to address the key points. Deputy Woods deals with these issues through a simple but effective amendment to the existing law. He strives to give peace of mind to all those involved in the adoption process in other states. In addition, he seeks to meet the calls of the Adoption Board and other agencies by establishing a voluntary contact register.

The principal provision of the Bill deals with adoption between this State and the People's Republic of China. The provision deals with an important issue about which I am sure every Member has received representation. The Bill, as drafted, meets the needs of those concerned and it will provide them with the security they require. The other provision in the Bill to allow the Minister to extend the number of countries with whom we have regularised adoption arrangements is also important. This would allow for reasonable flexibility and for speedy action by the Minister.

The other major issue which Deputy Woods is attempting to address is the establishment of a voluntary contact register. Many people want to know more about their parents or children and this is a sensible, caring response to that situation. This issue should not be delayed. The Adoption Board and other adoption agencies have called for the establishment of a register. Deputy Woods's proposal answers those calls.

This Bill is a reasonable response to an important issue and Deputies should support it. I am disappointed the Government has decided to use its strength to defeat the Bill. In his contribution Deputy Currie demonstrated the short-sighted and inadequate Government response to this important matter. While he expressed appreciation for the Bill's provisions, he stated it was not properly thought out and that it contains defects. He asked us to accept his plan to hold discussions on the issue and promised that the Government will at some future date propose changes to the Adoption Act, 1991.

This Government's response boils down to a simple result — delay and inaction. Unfortunately, this is its attitude to many issues brought forward in Private Members' Time — I referred earlier to my Bill on disabled voters' access. The Government is incapable of giving a serious reply to these important matters when included in Private Members' Bills — it can only resort to delaying them. Parliamentary time has been allocated to this issue and the prospect of a cross-party consensus would lead us to expect a reasonable response from the Government and a constructive contribution. The matter is too important to be dealt with in the way the Government is attempting to handle it.

Members of the Opposition must do their own research and drafting work and while they involve different experts and advisers it is inevitable that there will be shortcomings in their proposals. However, a reasonable response from the Government would be to allow the Bill to go to Committee Stage and then table amendments. It is nowhere near adequate to say discussions will be held and changes proposed sometime in the future. The need exists, the issue is before the House and Deputy Woods has expressly offered to deal with any amendments the Government might produce. I am greatly concerned about this, especially because my disabled voters access Bill was treated in the same way. There is delay and inaction on important issues which the Government can and should deal with, on which there is a consensus and which deserve a constructive response.

I compliment Deputy Woods on his initiative in bringing forward the Bill which provides a reasonable response to a serious issue and the Government should reverse its decision to oppose it. I join Deputy O'Dea in appealing to the Government to be sensible and constructive even at this stage and allow the Bill to go to Committee Stage.

Ms Keogh

I am delighted to support the Second Reading of this Bill which is a response to a specific need, to provide for the registration in Ireland of adoptions of children in the People's Republic of China, to ensure they are valid in Irish law. It is in response to an anomaly whereby Chinese law on adoption is not compatible with our legislation, although it was under the 1988 Act. The Bill also provides that the Minister for Health can, through regulation, designate other countries from which adoptions are regarded as valid under Irish law and allow them to be entered in the register. The other provision is for a voluntary contact register so that a birth mother and an adopted child can make contact if they so wish.

The Bill may be seen as a humanitarian and possibly a "quick fix" reaction to recent television programmes which alleged the ill-treatment of children in Chinese orphanages and showed harrowing pictures of what happened to them. There must be an emotional response to such scenes but the Bill goes beyond that — it is not simply a kneejerk reaction to a specific incident, although it seeks to address those scenes.

Not only are there people who wish to respond to those cases, there are Irish couples who went through the adoption process long before these programmes were seen or allegations made. One couple waited at least three years to adopt a baby from China. Their papers have been in Beijing for at least three months, long before the recent publicity. They were told by the Adoption Board that everything was in order but their hopes were dashed when the Chinese authorities were subsequently informed by the Department of Foreign Affairs that the adoption could not be recognised as valid under Irish law. Despite what we saw taking place in orphanages, the Chinese authorities care about their children and would not allow them to be brought to a jurisdiction where they could not receive the full protection of the law. In this heart-breaking situation, the couple have gone through all the proper procedures, have been deemed suitable adoptive parents by the Chinese and saw the lovely child they wished to adopt literally taken from their arms. That should not be allowed to happen.

I am always reluctant to be critical of another country's record on the treatment of children, especially in the light of revelations about abuses at home, such as the most recent ones about orphanages. However, we cannot support or condone abuses anywhere and we must sound a cautionary note on the abuses in China. We must be absolutely secure in the knowledge that our values and standards as a society are beyond reproach. It must have been ironic for the Chinese Ambassador to have to respond to questions from people about the appalling conditions in her country at a time when there were revelations about child abuse here.

I support the Bill because it must be open to Irish couples to adopt children from whatever country they wish, if they are seen as fit parents. We must be aware of the particular difficulties in cross-cultural adoption — I do not mean that we should discourage Irish couples who strongly wish to adopt children from other countries and to offer them a caring family environment in Ireland. However, we must strike a balance and recognise the special emotional needs, behavioural problems and questions of trust involved in cross-cultural adoption. As Deputy O'Dea said, we have all received heart-breaking representations from putative adoptive parents but we must take on board the caution expressed by the Adult Adoptees Association about cross-cultural adoptions. That body says that even within multi-cultural societies, cross-cultural adoptions have been shown to be fraught with difficulty for the adopted person.

Deputy Wood's Bill is pertinent on this point because the closed adoption system adds to the difficulties for foreign children or their original families who want to re-establish contact in years to come. Those children may be linguistic or cultural aliens when they return as adults to their country of origin, according to the association. It is important that we have specialised training to integrate institutionalised children into family life, quite apart from recognising the additional linguistic and cultural gulfs. We must learn from the Romanian experience, when some children were returned to their orphanages when the difficulties became insurmountable for their Irish adoptive families, because no resources or statutory support systems were made available. Irish couples should have the freedom to adopt children from other countries provided they go through due process and the Bill provides for that. Post-adoption facilities must be in place for both families and children to cope with the undoubted extra strains imposed by cross-cultural adoption.

Other so-called incompatible states have allowed Irish families to adopt children through their courts, with the result that a growing number of adopted children living here do not have their status recognised in the State. This was alluded to earlier; the example given to me was Paraguay because Irish families who have adopted there are anxious to be removed from their current legal limbo.

It should be possible through amendment to this Bill to allow the same validity in Ireland for adoptions in Paraguay and other countries as we are seeking for adoptions in the People's Republic of China. It is right that under the 1991 Act Irish families have to go through arduous and lengthy assessment procedures before obtaining the Adoption Board declaration and the Department of Justice entry visa they require to adopt abroad. It is indefensible that following that the children involved should be regarded as second class citizens in Ireland and the EU.

I welcome the provision for a voluntary contact register. The previous Minister for Health gave a commitment that such a register would be established for adopted people wishing to contact birth relatives. I support the principle of a register although there are some reservations about it being under the control of the Adoption Board which had the same status as a court and thus is inflexible. In this context, it is sad that details of the large number of babies from Ireland adopted in the US only came to light due to the work of Ms Catriona Crowe. A voluntary register would alleviate the difficulty and the pain of many adopted children and their adoptive and birth parents. It would provide a safe, confidential environment where the issue of contact would be handled with sensitivity.

Many women who had to give up their children for whatever reason genuinely fear being contacted and confronted by the child now an adult, and having their lives disrupted. If it was handled sensitively and there was an environment in which contact could be established with sensitivity, it would be very helpful for the many people who wish to find where they came from and know about their birth parents and grandparents. The urgent need for the register has been highlighted by the experience of the children adopted by American families many years ago.

Minister for Health (Mr. Noonan,

Limerick East): I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but, on a point of order, I understood I was to speak at 8.10 p.m. according to the normal arrangements.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There was a delay at the start and the time arrangements have altered radically. By order of the House I must call Deputy Woods to conclude the debate at 8.15 p.m.

Mr. Noonan

(Limerick East): That is unfortunate. I apologise to the Deputy for the interruption.

Ms Keogh

The Minister of State, Deputy Currie, is reluctant to accept the Bill. He said last night it was fundamentally defective and that the Government would bring forward its own proposals to address the difficulties which have emerged with the operation of the 1991 Act. We expect Bills to be amended on Committee Stage and perhaps on Report Stage. This Bill has the potential to alleviate specific problems which are causing great suffering to children and prospective parents. I am disappointed there was not the openness in Government to accept the Bill, flawed as we may believe it to be, and seek to amend it on Committee Stage, It does not augur well for openness when Private Members' Bills from the Opposition are not accepted when, if they are deemed to be flawed, they can be amended.

Dr. Woods

I am sorry the Minister of State, Deputy Currie, is not present for my reply. We are dealing with item 22 on the Order Paper which is the Bill. There seems to have been some consternation about this matter and a misunderstanding on the part of the Minister of State which I find hard to understand. Most Members understand how the business of the House is conducted.

I stand condemned for efficiency and courtesy to the Minister of State in trying to be helpful in explaining our Bill and the amendments we would make to it. Anyone who knows how I behaved as Minister for Social Welfare will know that I provided the maximum possible information. I transformed the Department in that regard. Perhaps it is time to transform some of the procedures in the House. We should be a little less shirty about the provision of information and courtesy.

I mentioned my proposals for amendments on Second Stage. That is a normal procedure. There seems to be some confusion as to how I came to make these proposals. I put forward this Bill initially in response to the Chinese babies. Representations were made to me and others about babies adopted from Paraguay and other countries to see if those categories could be included in the Bill. We all agree the voluntary register is needed urgently and that the Legislature should tackle it.

I participated on Committee Stage of the Powers of Attorney Bill, 1995. I put forward 27 amendments which I had signalled on Second Stage. The Minister also put forward 27 amendments. He accepted some of my amendments, we agreed on others and left others to be argued on Report Stage. The Bill is better for that process. That Bill is to help people suffering from Alzheimer's disease, for example.

There was nothing extraordinary about the procedure on this Private Members' Bill. The matter is only a red herring. It is a pity the Minister of State did not listen to our proposed amendments before making inaccurate observations on the Bill.

The Minister of State referred to the Hague Convention. I am pleased the Government is to sign the convention. However, as the Minister of State clearly indicated it will be some considerable time before the convention becomes part of our law and before our adoption law is amended to accommodate it. As the Bill is not inconsistent with the convention there is no good reason for not enacting it. It is likely that even with the convention, legislation such as we propose will be necessary to deal with the problem of recognising adoptions effected in countries whose adoption law differs from ours.

It is not good enough to put off enacting this Bill, which deals with an immediate and compelling need, on the lame excuse that the adoption code will have to be amended in any event to accommodate the convention. To do this is to ignore the urgent plight of those Chinese orphans who could be given good homes by Irish couples and the other babies and children who are seeking recognition here. Surely the Minister cannot impose this kind of hardship for such an unworthy reason.

The Minister refers to the question of a bilateral agreement on adoption with China. While such an agreement would be a good thing, it is not necessary for Irish couples to effect adoptions in China. Once a couple complies with the requirements of Chinese law in regard to adoption, and assuming they have been declared eligible and suitable under the 1991 Act, they can effect an adoption in China and, under our proposed Bill, have it recognised and registered here. This is a matter of international law and does not require a bilateral agreement between the Governments of Ireland and China. Deputy O'Dea was right to refer to these as red herrings.

If the Minister is contemplating a bilateral agreement with China, he must have legislation of the kind proposed in our Bill which seeks to do precisely what the Chinese authorities require, namely to provide for the recognition in our law of adoptions effected in China. For this reason alone, the Minister should welcome and support this Bill.

The Minister refers to the fact that the 1991 Act was introduced by Deputy Shatter as a Private Members' Bill and he properly acknowledges the work of the special committee which developed Deputy Shatter's original proposals into that Act. Is it not a pity that the Minister is unable to take the same enlightened approach adopted by the Government of that time in supporting Deputy Shatter's Bill in principle and taking advantage of the goodwill towards it which existed on all sides of the House, with the consequent result that a very fine piece of humanitarian legislation was produced? If the Minister induces his colleagues to vote against this Bill, a valuable opportunity to legislate on this important matter on an all-party basis will have been lost.

It is a pity that the Minister and his officials have not paid attention to the amendments to the Bill proposed by us. The amendment to section 2 (1) of the Bill which states: "any such country or countries that the Minister may, by regulations designate," will clearly and unambiguously enable the Minister to extend the Bill to such other countries as he may see fit. Extending the scope of the Bill in this way would mean that further legilsation would not be required while at the same time the Minister would be able to satisfy himself that any such extension is justified and does not compromise the integrity and quality of our adoption system. Now that the Minister has belatedly considered this amendment, which solved his difficulty with the Bill, I assume he will change his attitude and support the Bill.

The difficulty the Minister has with regard to the absence of a provision to cater for adoptions which are terminated under the law of the country where the adoption was effected is misplaced. The Minister should know that, when a foreign adoption is recognised and registered under the Act of 1991, the adoption is recognised in our law and has the same status and effect in our law as an adoption made under our own adoption code. The fact that the adoption might be terminated under the law of the country where it was originally effected, after it was recognised and registered here, would not effect any change in the legal status of the adoption here.

Whether one should make provision for revoking recognition and registration in these circumstances is debatable. Many would feel that, for good reasons, this should not be done. I appreciate that others, for equally valid reasons, might disagree. This should be teased out on Committee Stage. We on this side of the House would carefully consider any amendment the Minister proposes to deal with his concern on this issue.

The Minister is critical because the scope of the Bill is restricted to adoptions effected by Irish residents. As a central provision of the Bill dilutes or relaxes our law to a certain extent with regard to recognition of foreign adoptions. It is important, in the interests of maintaining the very high quality of our adoption system, to limit the extent of this relaxation to the minimum degree necessary to solve the problem which our Bill seeks to address.

The purpose of our Bill is to respond to the urgent need to enable Irish couples who have been declared suitable and eligible under the Act of 1991 to have adoptions effected in China, and such other countries as the Minister may designate, recognised and registered here. In order to achieve this most desirable objective, the scope of the change in our adoption law proposed in our Bill has rightly been confined to a specific class of persons, namely Irish couples who have been declared eligible and suitable, and necessarily are residents of Ireland.

I am surprised the Minister has overlooked the fact that the process of declaring persons to be suitable and eligible by the Adoption Board is confined to the residents of this State. In view of the fact that the Minister welcomes the retention of this process in our Bill, his criticism of the Bill because it is not extended to apply to adopters living abroad, who would not be subject to the assessments that result in a declaration of eligibility and suitability, is as surprising as it is inconsistent.

Our Bill is crafted carefully to meet a specific and urgent need. If the Minister wishes to extend it further to provide for adoptions by people living abroad, we will listen respectfully to his proposals. If they have merit we will support them on Committee Stage. The modification of condition (c) of section 1 of the 1991 Act, made in view of the fact that potential adopters must, before anything else, obtain a declaration of eligibility and suitability, is justified. The fact that many of those orphans most acutely in need of adoption end up in orphanages in circumstances in which the kind of inquiry envisaged by condition (c) would not be entirely practicable accentuates the need for this change.

The change the Minister suggests with regard to condition (d) of section 1 of the 1991 Act does not appear, on the advice available to us from those familiar with this aspect of adoption, to be necessary. However, if the Minister can make a convincing case for this change on Committee Stage we will support it. His difficulty concerning lack of clarity about the date of recognition is the result of the omission of the word "and", which should have been included between the words "order" and "upon" in the fourth last line of section 2 of the Bill. This should read: "...to have been effected by a valid adoption order and upon an application on that behalf having been made to the board". One of our amendments to the Bill is the inclusion of the word "and" as above discussed. We have often included such words for Ministers in the form of routine technical amendments. I am sure that when the Minister considers this amendment he will be satisfied that there is no lack of clarity on this matter and no departure from the scheme of 1991 in this regard.

I reject the patronising assertion by the Minister that the proposed Bill is defective. If he had attended to his duty by carefully considering the Bill and the amendments to it, which were circulated to him, he could not have made this ridiculous observation. There are matters which, as with all Bills, require further teasing out on Committee Stage. We look forward to taking advantage of the good will evident on all sides of the House with regard to this matter to produce, on Committee Stage and in co-operation with the Minister, excellent legislation. The main objective is to address the urgent need to provide recognition in our law for the adoption of orphans from China and other countries, such as Paraguay. We cannot fail to respond in a generous way to those Irish couples who seek our assistance.

The Minister and the Tánaiste wish to associate this Bill with the Keegan case. It has been almost two years since the decision in the Keegan case. The Government has promised that its proposals will soon be ready. However, it has nothing to do with this matter. There is no policy reason for associating these two issues. It is purely a delaying tactic to avoid proceeding with our Bill. The Government is more concerned with taking the credit for being seen to act than for taking practical steps to solve an immediate and urgent need. This Bill is ready to go to a select committee now. It has taken us two months to get this far. Even if the Government keeps its new promise, at least two more months will be involved. Four months is a long time for a baby to wait in the dying rooms. The Government says it is concerned for the family, it is politically fashionable to be concerned for the family now. I call on the Government to show concern for families who want to adopt and for the children they want to adopt. Do not engage in this political charade. Do not oppose this Bill on Second Stage. Members on the Government side have suggested that this Bill be used as a vehicle. If the committee system is used this new law can be in place by Easter. Nothing could be more suited for all party agreement.

Let Members be quite clear that if they vote against this Bill on Second Stage they will be voting against its principle. Forget the confusion created by the Minister of State. The issue is the principle of the Bill and there is no basis for voting against it. I do not believe Members can do this and I suggest that they let it go to Committee Stage to be considered on an all party basis. Let us put the children first, for a change.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 55.

Tá

• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Brennan, Matt.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Cullen, Martin.
• Davern, Noel.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Ellis, John.
• Fitzgerald, Liam.
• Flood, Chris.
• Foley, Denis.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Seán.
• Haughey, Séamus.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Keogh, Helen.
• Kitt, Tom.
• McDaid, James.
• McDowell, Michael.
• Moffatt, Tom.
• Morley, P.J.
• Moynihan, Donal.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donnell, Liz.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Batt.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Smith, Brendan.
• Smith, Michael.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Woods, Michael.

Níl

• Allen, Bernard.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Bhamjee, Moosajee.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Bree, Declan.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Burke, Liam.
• Burton, Joan.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Coveney, Hugh.
• Crawford, Seymour.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• Deasy, Austin.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Durkan, Bernard J.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• Fitzgerald, Brian.
• Fitzgerald, Frances.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Seán.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Mulvihill, John.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
• O'Shea, Brian.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Penrose, William.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Ring, Michael.
• Ryan, John.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, P.J.
• Shortall, Róisín.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Taylor, Mervyn.
• Upton, Pat.
• Walsh, Eamon.
• Yates, Ivan.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies D. Ahern and Callely; Níl, Deputies J. Higgins and B. Fitzgerald.

Question declared lost.