Vol. 494 No. 6
8 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Health and Children the reason legislation has not been introduced to outlaw unregulated foreign adoption agencies operating or offering their services to prospective Irish adoptive couples. [18903/98]
46 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Health and Children the plans, if any, he has to introduce compulsory DNA testing of foreign adoptable children and their birth parents before an entry visa is issued for the child along the lines of the Canadian Government's system which has proved very effective in combating child trafficking. [18904/98]
89 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Health and Children when it is intended to ratify the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children of Inter-Country Adoptions signed in July 1997. [15435/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 46 and 89 together.
I will first make a general statement regarding the measures I am taking to ensure that, where Ireland is concerned, inter-country adoption procedures conform to the highest possible standards. It is internationally recognised that it is by concluding bilateral and multilateral arrangements between states of origin and receiving states that the most effective measures to ensure that inter-country adoptions take place only if they are in the best interests of the children concerned can be put in place. The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption, 1993, provides a means of achieving this. The primary objectives of the convention are to provide safe-guards to prevent the abduction or sale of children and to establish a system of co-operation amongst countries to ensure that inter-country adoptions take place in the best interests of the children concerned. It strives to achieve these objectives by dividing responsibilities with regard to the processing of inter-country adoption between the sending and receiving states by establishing general central authorities to oversee inter-country adoptions in each contracting state and by providing for the accreditation of agencies involved in inter-country adoption.
I am fully aware of the importance of bringing the convention into effect in Ireland and I have made the drafting of legislation to enable ratification of the convention a priority. Specific staff in the newly established child care legislation unit have been assigned to the preparation of the legislation.
Ratification of the convention will involve major and fundamental amendment of our inter-country adoption laws. At present, our inter-country adoption laws deal mainly with the approval of suitable prospective adopters and the recognition of foreign adoptions. Among the items which the convention Bill will have to make provision for are: the designation of a central authority with overall responsibility for inter-country adoption; the accreditation of competent bodies such as adoption agencies to undertake certain tasks in relation to arrangements for the inter-country adoption of children and automatic recognition of adoptions made under the convention.
I emphasise that I intend to take a wide ranging approach to the Bill to use this legislative opportunity to tackle a number of issues which have arisen in inter-country adoption since the enactment of the Adoption Act, 1991. Today and in questions tabled last Tuesday, the Deputy raised some of these issues. Further issues have been identified in the Law Reform Commission's report on the convention. I would like to make it clear to the House that all aspects of our inter-country adoption law are being reviewed in the context of the Hague Convention Bill and this review will also incorporate procedures for adoption from non-convention countries.
The ratification of the convention is a priority and consideration of all the relevant issues together will facilitate an integrated and coherent approach to inter-country adoption and one which conforms to the highest possible standards. There are difficulties in trying to deal with specific issues outside of the Hague Convention Bill as the overall structure of our foreign adoption law is based mainly on the recognition of the adoption laws of other states and does not give a direct role to the Adoption Board in the processing of individual adoption applications.
On the issues raised by the Deputy prospective adopters use the services of foreign adoption agencies as there is no state to state channel for processing applications for adoption with the exception of adoptions from China, Romania and Belarus. The organisations used by prospective adopters range from large American agencies to individual lawyers in the child's state of origin. It is important to bear in mind that the majority of these organisations maintain no presence in this country and that prospective adopters contact them by means such as the Internet, word of mouth and contacts in the child's state of origin. I have concerns about prospective Irish adopters seeking the assistance of adoption agencies, facilitators, mediators, etc., who are unregulated in this country, as the practice contains potential for abuse. I have made these concerns clear on previous occasions. Speaking on this issue in the Seanad on 13 March last and in the Dáil on a number of occasions, I stressed the need for prospective adopters to seek the best available advice prior to embarking on the adoption process and recommended that they contact the adoption agency or one of the support groups for adoptive parents to inform themselves on the reality of the adoption process.
The possibility of foreign adoption organisations taking advantage of childless couples wishing to adopt abroad was made clear from last night's RTE "Prime Time" documentary. An even more sinister possibility is that of mediators involving themselves in child trafficking under cover of inter-country adoption. I emphasise, however, that under our present adoption laws, the Adoption Board has no role in the process by which a person or persons who have been declared eligible and suitable by the board to effect a foreign adoption goes on to effect such an adoption: this procedure being conducted in accordance with the law of the state of origin. As regards foreign adoption agencies which choose to maintain a presence in this country, I understand that the Adoption Board has sought legal advice as to whether their activities are in contravention of certain aspects of the Adoption Act, 1952. I urge prospective adopters not to engage the services of foreign adoption agencies without first consulting the Adoption Board or one of the support groups for adoptive parents.
There would be considerable difficulties in trying to deal with this issue prior to the introduction of the Hague Convention Bill. To be effective, any legislation would have to provide for the regulation of agencies which offer their services outside of Ireland as well as those which offer their services to prospective adopters inside the country. The Adoption Board would have great difficulty in policing such a system under our present foreign adoption laws which operate mainly on the basis of the recognition of foreign adoptions and where the board does not have a direct role in the processing of individual adoption applications. I consider that measures to regulate inter-country adoption agencies could be much more feasibly introduced under the Hague Convention Bill and I will address it in that context. The convention Bill will establish the necessary supporting apparatus to tackle the issue, that is, a central authority with wide powers to oversee the inter-country adoption process and direct state to state co-operation in the processing of individual adoption applications.
As regards compulsory DNA testing of children and their birth parents, there would be great difficulty in introducing such a system under our present legislation which operates on the basis of the recognition of foreign adoption laws including the manner in which consents to adoption are obtained under those laws. I see a further difficulty in introducing such a system as part of the Hague Convention Bill as Article 4 of the convention imposes the obligation to obtain the necessary consents to the adoption in the state of origin rather than in the receiving state.
I am not convinced that the introduction of DNA testing on a general level would be practical or desirable as it could conflict with the law of the state of origin and undermine the co-operation between the central authorities for the successful implementation of inter-country adoption procedures. Co-operation between the central authorities of sending and receiving states and the restriction of mediation in the adoption process of accredited agencies offers a more feasible means of ensuring that child trafficking does not take place under the cover of inter-country adoption.
Irish residents have adopted from Guatemala under the Adoption Act, 1952, but due to the incompatibility of Irish and Guatemalan law the Adoption Board has appointed an authorised person in that country to ensure the valid consent of the adoption has been obtained. This person recently carried out DNA tests in two cases where he was not satisfied about the identity of the person claiming to be the natural mother. The tests showed that the person claiming to be the natural mother was in fact the mother in both cases.
Ireland signed the Hague Convention on 19 June 1996. I regard ratification of the convention as a priority. I secured the appointment of six additional staff for the new child care legislation unit in my Department to process work on this and a number of other Bills. Work on the legislation has commenced and it is intended to hold the consultative process with the relevant interests shortly. I am fully aware of the urgency of the Bill and will bring it before the House as soon as possible.
I thank the Minister of State for his detailed reply. He will agree that foreign adoptions, which are largely unregulated, can be abused by unscrupulous persons as was seen on Prime Time last night. Horrific cases were described where vulnerable parents were completely let down and many fraudulent practices were in evidence. The Taoiseach indicated it would be the middle of 1999 before the legislation to ratify the Hague Convention would be ready. Will the Minister of State consider introducing the legislation sooner? This is a matter of great urgency given that it appears to be impossible to regulate those who abuse the system. I urge him to bring this legislation forward given that there is extra staff in the Department.
I assure the Deputy that the legislation will be brought forward in the shortest possible timescale. However, it is complex legislation and involves a wide range of legislative proposals. I am using the legislation to incorporate other aspects of foreign adoptions and I must be realistic, as the Taoiseach has been, with the House. We must undertake a consultative process, prepare the heads of the Bill and then draft it. The legislation and contacts on it are the highest priority of the new unit. Every effort will be made to bring the legislation before the House as quickly as possible.
The 1991 legislation was introduced in a hurry to deal with the Romanian situation that pertained at the time. Nobody recognised then that such developments in, and problems with, inter-country adoptions would occur. I have taken every opportunity in both Houses and through press statements to warn people about a number of operators that carry out mediation, etc. regarding adoptions. People should not deal with any agency without going through the Adoption Board. They leave themselves in a vulnerable position if they do so.
We have concluded agreements with Belarus, Romania and China over the past 12 months and there are ample opportunities to adopt children from those countries, especially Romania. We ask people to use recognised agencies and the Adoption Board because, otherwise, they are liable to face the difficulties seen in last night's programme.
Considering the Minister of State has got a great deal of mileage out of his involvement in the adoption issue since he took up office, will he accept that his answer is a disappointment? It will take until mid-1999 at the earliest to prepare this complex legislation. It will then be debated and follow the normal process after which the process of setting up structures will begin. Does the Minister recognise that the length of time involved will be much longer than six to nine months and that in the meantime people in a vulnerable position can be exploited? Will he consider isolating legislation to deal with this? The legislation the Minister has in mind is more wide-ranging than simply dealing with this problem.
Will he consider a state to state arrangement with Russia? It appears that 12 families have already adopted Russian children. Will he consider embarking on a route whereby such adoptions would be legitimised? I am surprised that the Adoption Board is the body taking legal advice. Does the Attorney-General have a role? Will the Minister of State seek his advice given that he is extremely expert regarding possible breaches of the Adoption Act, 1991, and other measures?
Democratic Left will introduce a Bill during this session, without any great preparation, to deal with the trafficking of asylum seekers and criminalise employers who might take them on. The adoption issue concerns babies and potential parents who are vulnerable, yet the Minister of State is asking them to wait years to deal with this outrageous situation.
The Deputy displays an inordinate lack of understanding about this problem in suggesting that there is a way of separating this issue. The only way to deal with this problem is through ratification of the Hague Convention because it ties in all the other countries. I resent the Deputy's statement that I am getting mileage out of this issue. One of the first problems I was presented with when I took up office was that Ireland did not have an agreement with any country regarding adoptions and a free for all was in place. People were trying to adopt for years from Romania and China. The first requirement was that there would be inter-country agreements between ourselves and the Romanians and Chinese. I set out to do that and it has been successful.
The Deputy's suggestion regarding Russia is a possibility and we are looking at it. Russia is not a signatory to the UN convention and that may cause a problem. With regard to legal advice, the Adoption Board must give licences to adoption societies and, consequently, the board is the State's regulatory arm in this sector. We are trying to see if there is any way under the 1952 legislation to prohibit the operation of agencies such as those seen on last night's television programme. The best form of prohibition is for people to understand that they should not deal with agencies which are not recommended by the Adoption Board.
I am concerned that while we await the legislation, operators such as Brendan Moloney, who was highlighted in last night's programme, will remain unregulated. Will the Minister confirm if there is any way in which agencies operating outside the country can be regulated in the meantime? Those agencies may be allowed to continue operating without any regulation until the necessary legislation is implemented. The report of the Law Reform Commission outlines comparative measures in countries such as Britain and France which have ratified the convention. It might be possible to speed up the introduction of the legislation by examining the measures used in those neighbouring counties. We cannot afford to wait until the necessary legislation is introduced to regulate this type of operation, particularly in view of what we saw on television last night.
The time involved will be much shorter than the time it normally takes to introduce legislation. We are talking about a matter of months. Members who have been involved in the preparation of legislation will know it takes a number of months for the parliamentary draftsman to prepare legislation. I do not want to give a promise here on which I cannot deliver. We will move as quickly as we can on this. In the meantime we cannot regulate those agencies because the 1991 legislation gave recognition only to adoptions from Romania. It was limited legislation which was rushed through the House. It was introduced by Deputy Shatter and was substantially rewritten. There is not an easy solution to this. We have to introduce new legislation.
Is the Minister aware that the 1991 Act applies generally to the recognition of adoptions and does not specifically mention Romania or anywhere else? He might confirm that in so far as it was rewritten, most of the problems that derived from that legislation derive from the rewriting undertaken by his colleague, Deputy O'Hanlon who was then Minister for Health. Will he clarify if the adoption legislation will be given priority in the context of legislative drafting over the previously promised prioritised legislation to provide a social services inspectorate, which seems to have dropped from sight? It would be of help to the House to know which legislation will be published first?
The 1991 legislation was introduced as a result of the Romanian situation.
It was introduced because legislation on foreign adoptions had not been introduced since the foundation of the State.
It is an example of legislation that was rushed through the House by Deputy Shatter, who had good intentions, but it has proved to be——
The Minister of State does not know how pathetic that is. The problems derived from the advice given by officials in his Department to Deputy O'Hanlon. He should tread very warily.
——ineffective when it comes to addressing real problems. The two Bills with which we are dealing and which have had the highest priority over the past 12 months, are Bills relating to a contact register and this legislation.
The Minister of State is referring to the contact register in this legislation.
Yes. I did not give priority to the introduction of legislation on a social services inspectorate. I said that the first priority was to set up a social services inspectorate. That is being done. It is being set up on an administrative basis and in time it will be given a legislative base.
The Minister of State might have sufficient information in his brief to confirm that something in excess of 1,000 foreign adoptions have been recognised by the Adoption Board under the Adoption Act which gives protection to each of those children by ensuring they have the same rights under Irish law as children adopted here. The Minister of State told this House in or about this time last year that he was prioritising the legislation on a social services inspectorate. Why should we believe him when he tells us that he is prioritising this legislation? Will he confirm whether he is saying he might publish a Bill on this some time in the middle of the next summer? Will we see it next autumn or, in view of how he has forgotten what he said about a social services inspectorate, will he tell us when Second Stage debate of the proposed adoption legislation will be taken?
My commitment to a social services inspectorate was to set it up and then to put it on a legislative basis.
The Minister of State has not done that. He has been in office for 16 months. That was not much of a commitment.
The Minister of State please, without interruption.
We advertised and are now appointing a chief inspector and staff for the social services inspectorate. It is being set up on an administrative basis.
When will it be set up? Is it operating today?
Deputy Shatter should not interrupt in that way.
The process of setting up the inspectorate is going ahead apace.
The Minister of State said the same last June and we still do not have a social services inspectorate.
I had to start from scratch because the Deputy made many promises, but he did nothing when his party was in Government.
The Minister of State has spent too much time scratching and there has not been enough action.
Regarding whether this proposed legislation will be introduced before next summer or next autumn, an additional 17 members of staff——
We will not see a Bill until this time next year. You have not produced a Bill in 16 months.
The Minister of State please, without interruption. Deputy Shatter should address his remarks through the Chair.
Does Deputy Shatter want to hear the facts? An additional 17 members of staff have been recruited in the child care section of the Department of Health and Children. The staff has increased from ten to 27. Ten staff were expected to wave the magic wand that Deputy Shatter has waved since he got into that seat 12 months ago and which he is waving again today. I do not have a magic wand when it comes to the time it takes to introduce legislation. All I can say is it will be introduced in the fastest possible time.
The Minister of State has not produced a single Bill in 16 months.
I accept the genuine concern expressed by members of the Labour Party, that they are anxious that this legislation be introduced quickly and that they have taken a keen interest in it. I will respond to their concern which is much more genuine than the magic wand Deputy Shatter has been waving.
The Labour Party should not rely on the Minister of State's assurances.
I am concerned about what the Minister of State said about the social services inspectorate. We took him at his word last year when he undertook to produce that legislation as a matter of urgency which is similar to the undertaking he has given today on adoption legislation. Will he confirm that a commitment to produce legislation on the social services inspectorate was on the Government's last legislative programme which we had before the summer? However, that has now vanished from the current programme and will he explain why?
I do not understand why such a case is being made about legislation on this area. The undertaking given by the Deputy's party and by me since I took office was to set up the social services inspectorate and ensure it did the work it was required to do. I am doing that.
It was on the Government's legislative programme.
It still is.
It is not. It has vanished.
Into thin air.
We will introduce legislation on the social services inspectorate——
It is not on the Government's legislative programme.
Allow the Minister of State to reply.
It is important to set up the social services inspectorate on an administrative basis and we will put it a legislative base in time. Deputies cannot expect us to produce legislation straight away. We are working on several Bills and I have stated my priorities. It is not unreasonable that if the social services inspectorate is up and running and doing the work it is required to do that we will put it on a legislative base in time.
It is not up and running.
I now call Question No. 9.
On a point of order, the Minister of State constantly announces that the social services inspectorate is up and running, but it is not in place.
That is not a point of order. The Deputy should resume his seat. I have called question No. 9.
On a point of order, I asked about a commitment to legislation which appears to have vanished into thin air.
That is not a point of order.
A commitment has been given and legislation will be introduced in time.
It is not on the Government's legislative programme.
I have called Question No. 9.
