Adoption Bill, 1952—Committee Stage.
Tá orm a chur in iúl don tSeanad go raibh an tréimhse áirithe nócha lá dá dtagartar in Airteagal 23 den Bhunreacht, chun Seanad Éireann do bhreathnú Billí a tionscnadh, nó a meastar a tionscnadh, i nDáil Éireann, caite i gcás an Bhille Uchtála, 1952, ar an 13ú Deireadh Fómhair. Mar gheall ar na cúrsaí áirithe i dtaobh an Bhille seo, ní dóigh liom, agus tá comhairle an Choiste um Nós Imeachta agus Pribhléidí agam chuige sin, gur gá don tSeanad dul thairis sin ach gur ceart dóibh leanúint ar aghaidh le breathnú an Bille sa ghnáth-shlí.
I have to inform the Seanad that the stated period of 90 days for the consideration in Seanad Éireann of Bills initiated or deemed to have been initiated in Dáil Éireann, referred to in Article 23 of the Constitution, expired in relation to the Adoption Bill, 1952, on the 13th October. In view of the circumstances attaching to this Bill, I do not think it necessary, and in this matter I have been so advised by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, that the Seanad should further advert to the matter, but should continue on with the consideration of the Bill in the ordinary way.
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
I received a request from the Joint Committee of Women's Societies and Social Workers asking me to move an amendment to this section so as to secure that half the ordinary members would be women. I did not put down an amendment, partly because I have refrained from putting down amendments to this Bill unless there is consent, and also because there was not time.
I think it would be a mistake if women were not on the committee. I should like an assurance from the Minister in regard to that point. I think that, in the request which was made to me, it was argued that women are the natural protectors of children, and that on matters dealing with a home and knowledge of a foster-mother they would probably be very good judges. They also made the point that women are the best judges of women, though I disagree with that viewpoint.
Some women will be on the board, though I cannot say how many. There is no reason why they should not be on the board. I think we may take it for granted that at least one woman will be on the board. There is no objection in the world to that. I feel some woman should be on the board.
Question agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment 1:
In section 10, page 4, lines 39 and 40, to delete "not less than six months and not more than seven" and substitute "not more than twelve."
Under the Bill an adoption order may not be made, except in the case of an existing adoption, until after the child has attained six months and not after it has attained the age of seven years. I thought that I should amend that to enable the adoption order to be made before the child had attained six months and after it had attained the age of seven, but I have reconsidered the matter and have decided that, with your permission, I will withdraw my amendment.
Before the Senator withdraws, might I be allowed to make some comment? The Joint Committee of Women's Societies and Social Workers asked me to raise this matter also. I am not sure that it can be easily solved, but it is a matter of some importance. As far as I can gather, they accept it as a general principle that the child must be more or less of tender age and they are not disposed to quarrel with the maximum of seven years—nor am I—but they are concerned about children who may be and are believed to be in homes, who would have been adopted but for the fact that there was a delay in passing the Bill or that there was no Adoption Bill. They are particularly anxious that some power should be given to the adoption committee to exceed the seven in exceptional cases during the first few years—they suggest five years but I would be inclined to suggest two or three years—of the operation of the Act.
The effect of that would be that the general principle of adoption would be the adoption of children between six months and seven years and that would be set out as the normal practice for the future; but power would be given to deal with children who would be adopted and could have been adopted and should have been adopted, where it may be rather hard that for the first few years we should restrict them rigidly to the seven years.
In this case, again, I had not time to put down an amendment, nor would I have put one down except where I had reason to believe the Minister would agree. I think there is a somewhat important point there. I do not know if the Minister can see a way to meet it. I am satisfied that the point made by these ladies is a good one, that there may be cases of children between seven and eight years who would have been adopted, and where the children have been in the care of homes, but for the fact that there was no Adoption Bill.
It is true to say that there was a great deal of consideration given to the question of age. As far as the earlier age is concerned, there is nothing to prevent people informally adopting a child—I wanted to make that point if Senator O'Reilly had wished to continue with his amendment. People can take children in for 12 months without legal adoption and then adopt them afterwards. It is generally agreed that seven years is the limit in which a child would be likely to feel himself or herself a member of the family. That was the idea, to try to get them before it would be too late, so that they might feel they were members of the family.
Seeing that there is no amendment being proceeded with, I suggest we should see how the Bill works out first. I have no doubt that some little flaws may be found in it later and we might need to have them rectified. Let us give this Bill a trial as it is. It has been well and carefully considered. It is said that at the age of seven one comes to the use of reason and the child starts to feel himself more a stranger in the family if he is much older than that. I think we should let it go at that and see how it works out. I understand that in England there were amendments and there may be things to clear up here after a year or two when we have seen the Bill working.
I think the Minister would agree that it is very hard to get in amending legislation in a case like this. Once the Bill goes through, it tends to become fairly permanent—at least, that is my experience—and I just wonder whether we could not do something on this section. There has been a great deal of delay, very wise delay, over this Bill, but certain children would have passed the age limit within these four or five months, and it is going to be a little hard on them to find that the axe has fallen just before their qualification date. I think the Minister would agree that it is unlikely there will be any amending legislation at an early date.
It would take some time, I have no doubt.
What I would like, if possible, is to give the committee discretion, for a year after the coming into operation of the Act, to exceed the seven years. I do not think it should be done except at the full discertion of the adoption committee, and I do not think the Minister would be taking any risk by putting in an amendment, which would come up on the Report Stage and which need not necessitate any delay, to provide for discretion for one year or two. I would be satisfied with one, but the ladies think it should be more. The real point that appeals to me is that of the border-line cases during the first year. The Minister's general argument with regard to amendments has already been accepted by me in my attitude to the Bill, but that, unfortunately, does not apply in this case, since no one could think of this Bill being amended within a year or a year and a half. In that case, this is something which we must provide for now or not at all.
I think we should be impressed by the Minister's statement that the younger the child comes into the family and is adopted as such the better for everyone. I think seven years is the right age, that, after seven, there should be no question of adoption at all. It is not fair, otherwise, to the child or to the family. We should be out to encourage such adoption, but if we ask that the age be stretched from seven to eight we will be asking too much.
I am not proposing to stretch the age from seven to eight. In a good number of cases there is reason to believe that, if this Bill had been passed six months ago, children would have been adopted. They were ready to be adopted and all I want is to put something in to cover such abnormal cases. I do not want to change the law. I want to deal with those who were approaching seven when this Bill was brought in and were in homes, and where there was delay because the people preferred to have legal adoption. I am asking the Minister to consider that point.
With respect to Senator Douglas, I think he is asking for an extension from seven to eight. If we make the Bill retrospective in order to bring in some cases—I do not believe there would be many—you will then meet other cases. I suggest we should stick rigidly to the seven years and if there are cases cut out, they have just got to remain so.
The only reply to Senator Colgan is that this is a Bill from which we hope a good deal of good will flow. I would not agree with an extension from seven to eight, but I can well see difficulties arising within the first 12 months. I would not go further than that. This Bill could have been passed six months ago and then certain children could legally have been adopted. Because of its being passed six months later, certain children will not be able to be legally adopted. There will always be hard luck cases. Even if the suggested amendment were brought in by the Minister on the Report Stage, there would still be hard luck cases. Since the introduction of the Bill and due to the fact that it has taken such a long time to reach this stage, there might be a great many children who could legally be adopted, where some people were looking forward to legally adopting them and now find it would be impossible. That is the only point I would like to stress.
I agree with what Senator Douglas and Senator Hearne have said. The consideration of the Bill has taken a long time. There will be families who have looked after children for some time and who would like to adopt them. They already love them and that is their home, but they will be precluded from adopting them.
I agree with Senator Douglas and other Senators. I think we have a difficult amendment to draft. I do not think that anybody but the Minister, in consultation with the parliamentary draftsman, could do this. An interim arrangement is suggested. It is not suggested to raise the age from seven years to eight years. A particular period of time, a year or 18 months, should be given and the board empowered to use their discretion. The only way it could be done would be for the Minister to consider it. The drafting of this, I think, would be a very difficult job. If the Minister is sincere, he could probably get an amendment drafted to do this in respect of cases that are now pending, but not extending it generally. I agree with Senator Miss Pearse on that.
There is another amendment to Section 19 which I am prepared to accept, but as regards any new adoption legislation, it would take a great deal of consideration. We had a great deal of consultation in connection with this Bill and I think it is better to adhere to what has been done. I can assure Senators that we have given a great deal of consideration to this matter.
I am very glad to know that the Minister is going to accept the amendment to Section 19. Although I raised this matter of Section 8 to be on the safe side, it struck me that if there was to be an amendment it would be by an extension of Section 19; but that is a detail. There is no question of pressing; it is simply a question of considering whether there was a new point of sufficient importance for the Minister to consider. The Minister is not being pressed. It struck me that the matter I raised was something which the Minister might be wise to look into.
I am not trying to rush the Bill. I do not care when we get the Report Stage.
All we want to do is to get the best possible measure.
I do not want to delay the Bill.
The phrase used in Section 19, "and satisfies the board that he has had the child under his care ...", should meet most of the cases that might arise.
It does not. I want to cover the case where they are in the care of a home with intent to be adopted, but that does not come into the section.
I will wait for the Report Stage, and I will consider the matter.
If the Minister does nothing, I will not question him. I will not ask the Minister to hurry it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 10 and 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (3), page 5, line 32, to delete "and"; and, at the end of the sub-section, to insert "the Baptist Union of Ireland and the Brethren, commonly known as the Plymouth Brethren".
In moving the amendment, I wish to make it clear that I am proposing the addition of these two religious denominations for two reasons—because they have requested me to do so, and because they have assured me that they have received the written approval of authorised representatives of the four denominations already mentioned in the section, viz., the Church of Ireland, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church and the Religious Society of Friends.
The Minister made it very clear in the debate on the Second Stage that he could only agree to the addition of other religious denominations to those named in the section if he was satisfied that the consent had been obtained of all those already named. I accepted this position as a reasonable one under the circumstances. I have had conversations with individuals belonging to some other religious denominations, who suggested that the denominations to which they belong should be included in the section. In each case I informed these persons of the Minister's statement, and told them that if they desired their denomination included in the Bill, steps would have to be taken to obtain the consent of the denominations already included in the Bill.
There are some other denominations which I would be glad to see named in the section, but I am not proposing the addition of any others, because I have no evidence that denominations other than the two in the amendment took steps to obtain the necessary consent. I would also like to make it clear that I raised this matter on my own responsibility as a member of this House, following representations which were made to me.
Lest there should be any misunderstanding, I wish to say that I did not act as an intermediary on behalf of any religious denomination, nor did I seek to obtain consent on behalf of any denomination. The Baptist Union of Ireland and the Brethren each approached the denominations named in the Bill, and each obtained the necessary consent. I believe they have also placed that evidence before the Minister. I, therefore, move the amendment.
I should like to say that this should be incorporated in the Bill. I know it has the approval of the religious community to which I belong. It is just unfortunate that we have to draw the line at a certain point. Various bodies may complain they are not included, but they really have no ground for complaint. The Minister has been very patient over this section, and it was discussed in the Press. I think we have reached the point where we should draw the line under this amendment.
Senator Stanford has put his finger on a point about which I was worried. When you name anything or anybody in an Act of Parliament there is always the danger that you will exclude somebody else no matter how you try to bring him within the ambit of the Act. I think there will always be somebody who will say: "Why were we not brought in?"
I am not impressed by Senator Douglas's argument or the point which Senator Stanford made that people should not feel aggrieved unless they had made representations to be included. These people will say that they should have been invited. Once you start naming various religious denominations, you will, with the best intentions in the world, leave somebody out who will ask why they were not included. It is no answer to say that they did not ask to be included. They will say "Why were we not included." The point I want to make is that once you start naming certain religious denominations and leaving out others, you leave yourself open to criticism subsequently when the Bill becomes law.
If Senator Colgan would consult the Constitution of this country he will find that in the section on religious denominations certain denominations are named and others not. I am sure very careful advice was taken in framing that Constitution. I think it gives a sufficient precedent for naming some denominations and not naming others.
I accept that, but I want to warn the Senator that we will be criticised for leaving somebody out.
I have already said that.
We are not used to being criticised, Sir!
I made a carefully prepared statement. I knew there might be criticism.
I should like Senator Colgan also to know that, in some cases of denominations who have not been included, representative people were consulted and were made aware of the position, and they did not see their way to take steps. I hope the Minister agreed with my statement—I think he did—because I was very anxious that it should be absolutely clear, in case there should be any reference to it again.
I am quite satisfied to accept this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Government amendment No. 3:—
In sub-section (1), page 6, lines 4 and 5, to delete "within three months of" and substitute "not earlier than three months before".
This is merely a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 16, 17 and 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In sub-section (1), page 7, lines 14 to 15, to delete the words "before the child attained the age of seven years and".
The purpose of the amendment is to extend the special provisions of the section to all existing adoptions, even in cases where a child has been brought into a home after reaching the age of seven years. There would be a number of hard cases if the section were left as it is, but since the Minister has said he is prepared to accept the amendment, it is not necessary for me to say any more about it.
I am prepared to accept this amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In Section 19 (5), page 7, lines 25 and 26, to delete "twelve months" and substitute "two years."
The amendment is intended to provide that an application for a proper adoption order may be made within a period of two years from the date of the passing of the Act, instead of a period of only 12 months. As the Bill stands, an application in respect of an existing adoption for the making by the board of a proper adoption order would have to be brought within 12 months from the commencement of this Part of the Act. It is the experience of a number of people that parties entitled to rights which must be exercised within a particular period very frequently forget the period, and I feel that 12 months is a little short and that parties should have the right to make an application to the board for an adoption order within two years. I feel that it is a reasonable amendment and the Minister should let us have it.
Might I point out that the amendment would be unduly restrictive unless the Senator proposes to leave in the phrase "or within such further period"? If that is left in, there is no real reason for extending the 12 months to two years. The power to do that in certain cases is still there.
I might ask, then, why the period of 12 months was put in the Bill, if the board have the power. I dislike giving boards power to do things if they think they should do them. We have many cases of courts and boards having authority to extend the time period if that court or board thinks it proper to do so. In making the laws here, we should say what is our view, what is the view of the Legislature, and I suggest that if Senator Quirke is correct in what he says——
There are many sins I have to answer for, but surely I must not answer for Senator Quirke's.
It can hardly be a case of mistaken identity. If what Senator Hearne says is correct, we should not have 12 months in the section at all. It is we here who should determine the period within which things should be done and we should not leave it to boards to allow things to be done within such time as they may think reasonable. Why should we ask them to lay down the law? We are here to do that.
I suggest that this is a reasonable amendment. Most of us have found that people overlook seeking to exercise their rights within a particular time. The period of 12 months is too short and they should be given two years. If they are given two years, they cannot complain that their rights were not properly safeguarded by us, and I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
I am not at all impressed, because the Senator is still leaving discretion to the board. His amendment substitutes two years for 12 months, but it leaves in the phrase "or within such further period as the board in any particular case may for reasonable cause allow." They are still going to decide in three years, so that the whole basis of his argument goes by the board.
The whole basis of my argument might appear to go by the board——
I cannot have second sight.
——but if I am given my two years, I do not mind what the board do after that. We should give people the right to apply for the order without taking into consideration what the board might or might not do for at least two years. After that the board may or may not give the permission—I do not mind, so long as we have given the applicant two years.
Senator O'Reilly has made a weak case. All he is interested in are people who forget and who do not do what they should do, but the very people who forget within 12 months will also forget within two years, and if we are to try to legislate for people who do not do what they should do, we will get nowhere.
I do not think there is any force in that argument. The question is whether a period of 12 months is sufficient or should it be extended. I was inclined to think that the period was sufficient, but I feel that no harm could be done by extending it to two years. The only difference, in effect, will be that persons will have another year in which to send in a request and have it considered by the board as of right. Otherwise, they would first have to request the board to give them permission to make an appeal. It is entirely a matter of machinery and is not of very great importance.
I agree that it is not of very much importance, but I am surprised that the Senator thinks it worth while moving the amendment, because the provision "within such further period as the board may in any particular case consider reasonable" ought to cover it, but if he presses it, I will agree. I think it better to leave it at 12 months and let the board decide in any particular case. It would be all wrong to tie them to a particular period when he says they should have discretion. We cannot foresee all the cases that may arise. A particularly hard luck case may crop up and it would be very foolish not to give the board some discretion with regard to it. I accept the Senator's two years, still leaving in the discretion.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 19, as amended, agreed to.
Section 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21.
I have considered amendment No. 6 and I beg leave to withdraw it. I do not think that it is necessary to take the precaution I had intended to take to see that the parties are served with notice. I think that any corrections that might be made would not be very material.
Amendment No. 6, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 21 agreed to.
Section 22 to 26, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Government amendment No. 7:—
Before Section 28, page 9, to insert a new section as follows:—
For the purposes of—
(a) the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1908, and
(b) the Workmen's Compensation Acts, 1934 and 1948,
an adopted person shall be considered as the child of the adopter or adopters born to him, her or them in lawful wedlock and not to be the child of any other person.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide that an adopted child will be deemed to be a member of the family for the purpose of the Fatal Accidents Acts which confer certain rights to compensation on dependent relatives of persons killed in accidents and for purposes of workmen's compensation.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 27, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 28 to 39, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Government amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (c), page 12, line 22, after "person" to insert "(not being a registered adoption society or a public assistance authority)".
Might I ask on this amendment—I raised the question before when the Minister was presenting the Bill—what people who wish to adopt a child will do to make known their desire? They are prevented under the section, as I read it, from advertising. When I raised the question before, the Minister assured me that he would consider it.
The purpose of the amendment is to enable registered adoption societies and public assistance authorities to advertise. They may find it necessary or desirable to look for persons willing to adopt children and their advertisements may cause people to think of adopting children when they would not think of doing so if the idea were not suggested to them.
I agree that it should be confined to public assistance authorities and adoption societies.
That means, surely, that an individual may go to the registrar of an adoption society and if he tells the society that he would like to adopt a child, they will give him assistance and they will be quite entitled, if they believe him to be a proper person, to advertise.
Yes, or if a public assistance authority wished they could advertise, but not a private person.
The adoption society or public assistance authority may make it known that they have a child for adoption, but I am reversing the position. A person who does not know that these societies have a child and who wishes to adopt a child is, under the section, prevented from advertising that wish.
Our answer to that is that the societies will advertise regularly and presumably the people who want a child will look at the newspapers and see the advertisements.
They will not hide their light under a bushel.
People who are anxious to adopt a child will look to see where they can get a suitable child. That is the belief.
Some people may by sheer accident and with no premeditation become liable to a penalty. If they do not know the section of the Act there is nothing to prevent them from putting advertisements in the public newspapers saying that they wish to adopt a child and if they do they will be liable to a penalty.
I would resist very strongly giving to any person the right to put in advertisements saying that he is going to adopt a child. I do not want to stress the dangers of grave evils arising from such advertisements, but we all know that the possibility of such evils is very great. The Bill—it is set out in Section 40—authorises only responsible bodies, public assistance authorities and adoption societies, to issue these advertisements. These bodies are free to let the individual who is desirous of adopting a child know and that is a far better method than to give the individual the right to publish advertisements.
I am not arguing for anybody's right to do anything of that nature. I am just pointing out that under the section as I read it—I may not be right—if a person by any omission does advertise the fact that he or she wishes to adopt a child, he leaves himself liable to a penalty.
And so do the newspapers.
I am not saying that they should do it. I am only saying that they are liable to a penalty.
If people are found in a public house after hours they are liable to a penalty.
As Senator Douglas has suggested, the newspapers will know very well that by publishing such advertisements they are liable to a penalty and it is most unlikely that they will do so.
The same thing applies to every law; everybody who breaks it runs the risk of being brought into court. It is the same with this; anybody who breaks it will have to be dealt with accordingly. This is the point that will cover the matter raised by Senator O'Donnell: knowing the newspapers as we do, we know that they will not stretch out their necks when they realise they are breaking the law and can be heavily fined if they publish such advertisements.
The best way to make it certain that the newspapers will inform these people is by making the newspapers also liable.
I think we may be quite certain——
——that they will take care of themselves.
The real, practical safeguard which meets Senator O'Donnell's point is that the newspapers will not publish advertisements or allow themselves to be responsible for such advertisements.
I would be very glad to see some of the newspapers coming under the penalty.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 40, as amended, agreed to.
Amendment No. 9, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 41 agreed to.
Amendment No. 10, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 42 agreed to.
First and Second Schedules and Title agreed to.
Bill reported, with amendments.
When is it proposed to take the next stage?
In view of the fact that the Minister has undertaken to give consideration to points made by Senator Douglas, I suggest that the next stage be taken on the next sitting day.
Agreed, and ordered accordingly.
