Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Jun 1982

Vol. 98 No. 6

Adoption System Reforms: Motion.

Mr. O'Mahony

I move:

That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Submission to the Government in relation to Reforms in the Adoption System, made in June 1982 by six voluntary organisations, and requests urgent action from the Government on the principal proposals contained in that submission.

I raise this matter in an entirely nonpartisan way. It is a matter which affects only a minority of the population but it affects them in a most profound way. It behoves all of us who debate the motion today to see whether we can devise a collective will to make progress in this area rather than engage in any form of partisan discussion or debate.

The submission referred to in the motion was prepared by a group representing a number of highly responsible organisations, all of whom have considerable skill in the area of adoption and in the area of child care services generally. The organisations in question are the Federation of Services to Unmarried Parents and their Children, the Central Council of Catholic Adoption Societies, Children First, the Adoptive Parents' Association of Ireland, CARE and Cherish. The submission to the Government was made earlier this month.

The proposals made in this submission are broadly similar in content to those contained in the supplementary report to the final report of the Task Force on Child Care Services published in 1980. As somebody who was involved with the Task Force on Child Care Services in their initial years, I regret that the Task Force as a whole did not find it possible to deal with the question of adoption in their complete report. I understand the difficulties associated with dealing with this question, and I also understand that time was a factor. I do believe that those who wrote the supplementary report were correct when they made the point that adoption is, after all, one part of a range of comprehensive child care services and that the Task Force therefore should have seen it as such and, despite the difficulties, should have dealt with it for that reason.

The motion is before us today not only because reform of our adoption laws and system is long overdue and is recognised as such, but also because the previous Government had prepared and the present Government have committed themselves to the introduction of a new Children's Bill. In this regard I share the view expressed in the introduction to the submission to the Government which states:

We consider that adoption ought not to be something separate from the other child care services, and that to as great an extent as possible appropriate reforms of the Adoption System should be included in the provisions of the promised Children's Bill.

There are two suggestions contained in that quotation from the introduction to the submission to the Government. Firstly, adoption should be seen as part of, or as an option within, a comprehensive range of child care services. Historically, of course, we know adoption was seen as largely a legal procedure based principally on the needs of single mothers and adoptive parents. Traditionally it was seen primarily as a legal device for solving the twin problems of illegitimacy on one hand and infertility on the other.

Today, however, our perception of adoption has changed. It is now seen as a child-centred service, its primary objective being to meet the social and emotional needs of children requiring substitute families. Seen in this way, it is appropriate that responsibility for adoption services should be transferred from the Minister for Justice to the Minister for Health, who will in future have departmental responsibility for a broad range of child care services generally. Traditionally and for as long as adoption was seen primarily as a legal device, it could be argued certainly that adoption was appropriately the responsibility of the Department of Justice. Given our new awareness of the role and functions of adoption, however, its child-centredness and the fact it can be seen as one option in a range of child care services, it is appropriate in my view and in the view of those who made the submission to the Government that responsibility for it should be transferred to the Minister for Health. I am aware that approximately a fortnight ago there was a brief announcement in one daily paper to the effect that responsibility for adoption was being or would be transferred from the Minister for Justice to the Minister for Health. I hope that in the course of the debate the Minister might be in a position to clarify this, because it was not clear to me from that newspaper report what exactly had happened or was intended to happen. In so far as it is the intention of the Government to transfer responsibility for adoption to the Minister for Health I certainly welcome it and see it as a significant step forward. I would certainly welcome clarification from the Minister in regard to what is happening.

The second suggestion in the passage I quoted earlier is that adoption reform should be included in the proposed new Children's Bill. This is profoundly important. If it is the case that adoption should be seen as part of overall child care services and if we are, as I understand it, about to have a new Children's Bill covering almost all, if not all, other aspects of child care administration and law, then I would argue strongly that it is appropriate that adoption reform should be included in the context of that Bill. I believe that the previous Minister for Health had this precisely in mind while preparing the proposed Children's Bill. I would certainly argue strongly that the present Government when they introduce the Bill should see to it that adoption reform will be included. I would therefore ask the Minister if he would give us in the course of the debate some indication as to whether it is the intention of the Government to deal with this matter in the context of the proposed Bill.

In addition to these broad recommendations, the submission to the Government contains a range of specific proposals all of which seem to me to have considerable merit. At the simplest level, there are a number of proposals concerned with the administration of the adoption services in addition to the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Justice to the Department of Health. These are referred to in pages 6 and 7 of the submission and I will refer to them briefly here. It is suggested — and I think all of us would agree, as well as most of the personnel involved in adoption procedures — that it is important in the course of reforming the law that we introduce regulations to ensure the periodic registration of adoption societies. This is a straightforward and essential safeguard and does not pose any threat to anybody, but it would see to it that certain minimum standards of practice were laid down and adhered to. This is not to say that one is criticising what is happening now. I would think it to be an essential safeguard for the adoption system as a whole in the long run.

The submission also refers in this context to the drawing up of comprehensive guidelines and statutory regulations for the operation of adoption societies. The submission states:

...proper functioning cannot be adequately ensured without stringent control on the operation of adoption societies. These regulations would include such matters as the scope of the society's activities; the nature of its resources; effectiveness of organisation; accepted standards of practice for pre-placement assessment; placement arrangement and post-placement supervision.

These suggestions in the context of comprehensive guidelines are sensible and should be acted upon in the form of giving them a greater formulation than they have at the moment.

Thirdly, the submission refers to the need to provide adequate funding for the adoption societies. That is a sensible and self-evident idea which does not need development.

Fourthly, it refers to the need for research into adoption in this country because very little of a comprehensive nature has been done to date. These proposals seem to me to be both simple and sensible. It is inconceivable that anybody in the House would have any objections to acting in the shortest possible period of time.

The submission refers to a number of other matters of significance which I would like to mention briefly. At present there is no statutory provision relating to the length of time which ought to elapse between placement of a child for adoption and the final completion of the adoption order. Traditionally it appears that the average period between placement and completion of the adoption process has been of the order of six months. More recently the minimum period has been extended to ten months, and the average period appears to be of the order of 12 months between placement and adoption. This period, it is suggested in the submission — and I think most people concerned with adoption services and practices would agree — does appear to be too long. It is too long for the natural mother, too long for the adoptive parents, and it seems reasonable to suggest it is too long for the child itself. In this regard I would refer to the comments made on page 8 of the submission, which are as follows:

The natural mother has to face the decision to place her child for adoption, and later must decide whether she wants the adoption to go to completion. Even if she makes the latter decision earlier on, it is effectively still with her until the adoption order is made, because she can revoke the decision at any time until then. This preoccupation may interfere with or postpone other decisions which she should be making for her own future.

Therefore, it seems reasonable to suggest that the average period at present does seem to be too long from the point of view of the natural mother, whose feelings and concerns also have to be taken account of here.

As far as prospective adopters are concerned the submission states:

Prospective adopters feel that they are on trial until the adoption order is made, and know that if they are found wanting or if the natural mother does not give her consent or withdraws a consent given they may lose the child. This may interfere with the bonding between the intended adopters and the child, and with full integration of the child into the family.

That too seems to be a reasonable and sensible point of view.

Thirdly, the submission states:

The child, whatever its age, may suffer as a result of delay in or failure of bonding and integration into the family. If the child is anyway mature, it will also be troubled by doubts about its own future, in addition to having to cope with changes in its life brought about by the placement.

For these reasons I would agree with the suggestion in the submission that the minimum placement period should be reduced by regulation, and it would seem reasonable that the period between placement and the making of the adoption order should be reduced to something of the order of three to six months. That period would provide adequate safeguard while at the same time dealing with the problems to which I referred.

On the question of eligibility of children for adoption, the submissions are again sensible and the ideas are worth acting on. The supplementary report of the Task Force to which I referred earlier said that the present upper age limit of seven should be changed to 21. That is certainly worth thinking about, although it does seem strange that one should be talking about the possibility of adoption up to that age. In certain circumstances it is not as strange as it might seem and we know already that while in practice the upper age limit is seven, that can be waived and is waived in special circumstances. In the context of the proposed legislation the Government should consider raising the age of eligibility for adoption.

On a more contentious issue the submission refers to the impossibility under present legislation of adoption for legitimate children, except in one or two special circumstances. As a general rule legitimate children are not available for adoption at present. This practice of exclusion of legitimate children from adoption arises presumably from the traditional view of adoption to which I referred earlier; that is to say, that it is a legal device linking unmarried mothers with infertile families. If we see adoption as part of an overall child care service and as one option within a range of facilities or solutions available for children who require substitute families, then it makes no sense any longer to consider it wise to preclude legitimate children from the right to adoption. The law therefore should not continue to discriminate in relation to eligibility of children for legal adoption on the basis of the marital status of the child's parents.

In this regard I would like very briefly to quote from the supplementary report of the Task Force on Child Care Services, section 4.7.5 of which states:

We do not think that permitting the legal adoption of children whose parents are married to each other would result in parents placing their children for adoption who would otherwise wish to have to bring them up themselves. The universal devotion of parents to their children is one of the strongest bonds known to the human race. It is as unlikely to be weakened by permitting legal adoption as it is to be strengthened by prohibiting it. Parents do not willingly part with their children permanently unless in the most exceptional circumstances. Such exceptional circumstances do exist, however, and refusing to acknowledge that they do will not prevent them from arising or prevent children going into care as a result of them. Its only result is that some children will stay in care throughout their childhood who could instead be growing up happily in adoptive families.

The authors of the supplementary report go on to recommend that the law should be changed to permit the adoption of children whose parents are legally married to each other. This is important, because we know that there are significant numbers of children who require substitute family care but who cannot have recourse to the option of adoption because their parents are married. I am thinking here of children whose parents show no concern for them and do not wish to care for them, and children who have been as a result taken to care. Under the present system the only option is residential care or long-term fostering or some combination of both. It is wrong to discriminate against these children by preventing them from having the security which adoption can give to them in that situation. It should be dealt with in the context of general reform of child care.

I am aware that the constitutionality of this proposal is in doubt, and that is referred to in the submission before us. But if that is the case we must bear in mind that the Constitution can be changed by way of referendum if we feel strongly about the issue. We talk about other referenda at present which seem to me to be less pressing than this one. There is doubt about whether this is constitutionally inoperable, and before we move to the point of considering a referendum we should have the matter tested in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court are quite capable of making a decision on this if it is put to them. We should do so if we are to provide the prospect of adoption for legitimate children, which child care experts and people dealing with children in residential institutions deem it desirable for them to have.

The constitutional issue which I refer to also affects the law in relation to dispensing with the consent of the parent to the adoption of a child. The Adoption Act, 1951 permits the consent of the parent to be dispensed with (a) if the parent cannot be found or (b) if the parent is incapable, by reason of mental infirmity, of giving consent. The 1974 Adoption Act made the additional provision that in dealing with any matter in relation to adoption the Adoption Board or a court of law shall "regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration". The constitutionality of this provision of the 1974 Act also appears to be in doubt and excessively vague, although it is obviously moving in the right direction in terms of policy.

The submission to the Government referred to in the motion suggests that it may be necessary to clarify and extend the exceptional circumstances in which parental consent to adoption may be compulsorily dispensed with. I agree with the formulation presented in the supplementary report of the Task Force in sections 4.7.14 to 4.7.16. We should move towards some formulation which is more explicit than the one contained in the 1974 Act to something similar to that suggested in the supplementary report of the Task Force, which states:

The consent of a parent (or any other relevant person) which would normally be required for the adoption of a child should be dispensed with if, considering all the factors relevant to the needs of the child and the wishes and circumstances of the parent, the child's long-term welfare requires that he should be legally adopted by another family, and any one of the following grounds is established:

(a) that the parent has not cared for the child herself or does not propose to care for the child herself or to make arrangements for his appropriate care by other persons;

(b) that the child is already being cared for in another family and that his interests require that he should remain in that family;

(c) that the parent is unable because of grave incapacity to provide a home for the child or to give him adequate care, affection and protection, during his childhood.

That kind of formulation, which may seem somewhat extreme, is valid and desirable in the context of dispensing with the consent of the parents. After all, in the business of adoption, bearing in mind developments in our knowledge of child care, it is the welfare of the child which is the paramount consideration. The task of the new legislation is to formulate this view in a more explicit way than was done in the 1974 Act and, if necessary, to have its constitutional validity tested either in a Supreme Court or, if it proves to be unconstitutional, by way of referendum.

With the growing acceptance and reality that larger numbers of women who are not married and who have children decide to keep them, the children who may need adoption are children whose parents are married and who are therefore legitimate but whose parents are often unwilling to take the necessary steps to ensure that the child's future is secure in so far as it can be. We should look closely at the business of dispensing with the consent of parents in certain special circumstances and the formulation which I have outlined from the supplementary report of the Task Force is a worthy one which we could consider putting into legislation.

If we see adoption as part of a child-care system, we should do away with the Adoption Board. We should make important legal decisions in the context of the proposed new family or children's court systems which I hope will emerge in the context of the new Children's Bill. The submission to the Government outlines various options as to the form of court which would be most appropriate to making decisions about adoption. Given that it is part of a child-care system and given that we will build up expertise in the proposed new children's and family courts, I hope that the decision about adoption will be taken there and the need for a separate Adoption Board will no longer be relevant.

I have referred to the main proposals contained in this submission. We in the Labour Party put it before the Seanad because it seems a very sensible approach to the need for reform of the adoption law and administrative system. It has been prepared by highly responsible skilled people and it is the business of this House to listen to what these people are saying and to encourage the Government to make the necessary legislative changes in the context of the proposed new Children's Bill. We are not trying to make this a partisan issue between Government and Opposition.

We are all aware of the economic crises which the country faces. Where finances are scarce the business of Government is to identify things which can be done at virtually little cost. I am not saying the proposals contained in this submission are cost free — they are not — but relatively speaking they do not involve much expenditure. The business of Government in the present economic climate is to seek out and identify things which are good in themselves and do not cost a lot of money. For this reason, together with the reasons set down in the submission, I commend the motion.

Mr. T. Conway

I welcome the Minister of State to the Seanad. I second the motion that Seanad Éireann takes note of the submission to the Government in relation to reforms in the adoption system made by very responsible organisations which include representatives from CARE, Children First, Cherish, the Adoptive Parents' Association of Ireland, Central Council of Catholic Adoption Societies and the Federation of Services to Unmarried Parents and Children. These societies represent the rights of the parent, the rights of the child and the rights of adoptive parents. They are very highly constructive bodies who have put together a great submission to the Government.

We have reached a unique period in the evolution of the State and its population. We have the youngest population in Europe, but we have laws to guard that young population enshrined in a Constitution which is outdated, laws which, in effect, were drafted in a time which has no relevance to the present.

At present, in the adoption system there is a period of from ten to 12 months before the adoption can go through. The mother has the right, for up to six months, to change her mind, but the period between six and 12 months, which is often extended to 18 months, causes great concern to the adopting parents. It is a situation which should not exist, nor should there be such unease at so sensitive a time for the adopting parents. The reason we are given for the extension of the time from six months to, sometimes, a year and a year-and-a-half is that the adoption societies are understaffed and underfinanced. This is a terrible situation in such a sensitive area where children are involved. It should be our first priority to make sure that the societies are efficient, because of the sensitive matters with which they are dealing.

The submission talks about an adoption court, which makes sense, as all family law is, at present, dealt with in ther family court. However, first of all, the adoption societies should be looked into and properly staffed and if there is an adoption court it should meet throughout the country and not be situated in Dublin.

The law, as it stands, says that the child is totally the responsibility of the adopting mother, but I would suggest that in cases where the father expresses a desire to be involved in the decision of adoption, that desire should be taken into consideration and he should be involved in the adoption procedure. The law prohibits parents of mixed marriages, except in extreme circumstances, from adopting children. People who profess no religion are excluded from adopting. This is unconstitutional, because it denies the right of these individuals to play an active role in society.

At present, the legitimate child cannot be adopted. The child can only be fostered. That fostering lasts, in some cases, for the life of the child and at any time the parents can return and demand the child back. This, in effect, denies the right of the child, because the child comes first. The child demands a secure family and surroundings. I have often seen children in foster homes and know them to be psychologically very sensitive indeed and unprepared, at the end of their childhood, to face the realities of life as it exists outside. The law should be made to cater for the legitimate child. These legitimate children are often the result of marriage breakdowns and are herded into institutions. They are left, on one side, with foster parents who have a desire to adopt them and, on the other side, with the threat that the parents might return at any time to repossess them. A child caught up in this situation suffers a great deal of insecurity.

Regulations should be drawn up by the Minister for Health and not by the Minister for Justice, as it is a matter for the Department of Health to register all the adoption societies. The Department of Health should then examine all adoption societies to ensure that they are efficient at carrying out their duties in a responsible manner and being responsible to society and parents. This should be done as a matter of urgency.

I ask the Minister to examine the proposals enshrined in this document for what they represent. They are proposals by a body of people who know the rights of the child, parents and the adopting parents. If the regulations were established by the Minister for Health and if the adoption societies were investigated properly, they would be reasonably efficient and this long period of waiting would be eliminated.

If the idea of an adoption court and the other items were taken into consideration, there would be a better system. As Senator O'Mahony said, there is frequent adoption nowadays and children are pushed into a very delicate situation at a very sensitive period in their lives. The adopting parents find that after waiting six months, they have to wait for a year. I cannot see the reason for this and feel there is no need for it. I know the Minister will take note of the proposals.

Mrs. O'Rourke

First of all, I would like to welcome the Minister to the House. It is the first time in this session that I have had the pleasure of his presence and I would like to make him welcome. I also welcome the motion here before us:

"That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Submission to the Government in relation to Reforms in the Adoption System, made in June 1982 by six voluntary organisations, and requests urgent action from the Government on the principal proposals contained in that submission."

I certainly would welcome the Seanad's taking note of the submission.

I would like to go through the main headings of the submission and perhaps enter a small caveat here and there. Like the previous speaker, I had noticed that the bodies that have made the submission are the recognised authoritative bodies dealing with the problems of parents and children — the Federation of Services to Unmarried Parents and their Children, The Central Council for Catholic Adoption Societies, Children First, Care, Cherish and The Adoptive Parents' Association of Ireland. There can be no doubt of the validity, veracity and authority of these organisations. Therefore, it behoves us on all sides of the House to take note of what they say in what is a very important area.

In the historical sense, adoption has come a long way. Attitudes about every section of society have changed, and these attitudes have permeated into the realms of adoption and of care of unmarried mothers. This has necessarily reflected itself in our attitude towards adoption. I agree with section 1.5. of the submission:

The Central Council of Catholic Adoption Societies

——which is one of the bodies who made this submission——

does not subscribe to the views expressed here as to the Court which should have adoption jurisdiction, preferring that it should be exercised by a single Adoption Court sitting in Dublin....

They continue that, arising out of that, the Family Court would eventually deal with them, but that, as an interim measure, the single Adoption Court would be best. I am of that opinion, too.

I am in agreement with all the regulations for the operation of adoption societies. That they be funded adequately needs no explanation. As Senator O'Mahony said, that is a question of economics but it is one field to which finance should be applied. We are dealing with children and should recognise the priority.

Regarding the need for dispensation with consent, that is an area in which we should proceed cautiously. Perhaps festina lente would be the best motto to adopt here. We are, after all, dealing in a very sensitive area, there is no doubt about that. It is an area in which I have direct experience, and one should be always conscious that here are human beings with very, very human problems.

Shortening of the period of placement is very desirable. Placement puts enormous psychological pressures on people. We can imagine the pressure it would impose on a natural mother who has decided that she will give her child for adoption. I know the pressures it puts on an adoptive parent. The length of time one waits, the agonies one goes through and the cases one hears of, perhaps of a child being taken back, all cause distress. I heartily concur with the length of time being shortened as much as practicable, allowing, of course, for everybody's rights.

The shortened birth certificate is referred to on page 16 of the document. This is one area on which there should be much more emphasis. I did not hear either of the earlier speakers touching on it. The submission says:

The participating Organisations fully concur in the recommendation in the Task Force Report, that "... children who have been legally adopted should, at the age of 18, be entitled to receive information about their background and to receive a copy of their original birth certificate if they so wish", subject, as the Report advises, to widespread information about and discussion of the issues....

The proposal has been made, and we would favour the concept, that either no reference to adoption should appear on the long form of the Birth Certificate of adopted children, or that use of the long form of the Certificate should not be mandatory.

The latter is perhaps the better suggestion, that the use of the long form of the certificate should not be mandatory. It is discriminating, particularly in this day and age, that adopted children have to go through that process at the stage when they need their birth certificates. I have had personal experience of this, and it is demeaning in some way. When we are adopting the principle that all are equal, why should adopted children be treated as not equal?

An appendix says:

Because of changing practice in other countries and changes in attitudes towards adoption and illegitimacy in Ireland, it is a fact that Irish adoption agencies are now prepared to give to adoptive parents, and to adoptive children who are old enough, a greater amount of general information about the background of adoptive children and about their natural parents, than was formerly the case.

In general, that is a principle that appears to be liberal and correct, but it is one that I would take slowly. I regard this submission as excellent in principle. It is a necessary document, in the light of changing circumstances, of our changing feelings and attitudes towards children, parents, families, the natural and the civil laws. However, I would proceed cautiously. The submission says, on pages 17-18:

Agencies should be empowered and directed that, when a child placed by them has geen adopted and has reached, say, 7 years, the agency should take all reasonable steps to satisfy itself that the child has been informed that it is an adopted child, and if the adoptive parents have failed to do this the agency should attempt to have resolved the problems underlying the failure.

Naturally, all adoptive parents tell their children that they are adopted, but they choose their time. That is the point that I wish to make. There is a special bonding relationship between all parents, natural and adoptive. Particularly in the adoptive parent situation, one watches for the right time to give this information, one waits until a special relationship has developed. You cannot stipulate a certain age as the right time to tell a child, because children develop along different lines, they develop mentally and physically at various rates. I do not like the idea that there should be a definite age at which one should tell a child he or she is adopted. There comes a time when one can do it and that will be the right time to do it. Be it at bathtime or bedtime, that father or mother introduces the subject naturally and it becomes a part of that family's life. The child, if told correctly and lovingly, quite likes the idea, and it grows with the child. It should not be statutory and the adoption society should not act as big brother with the adoptive parent, saying "Have you told that child?" The mother, father, or both as a unit, would take the right opportunity to inform the child.

These are the main points I want to make. I welcome this submission. I know that the Government will take particular note of it but enter my own caveat.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment (Mr. Connolly)

This is my first time to be with the newly elected Seanad and I wish it well. I thank the Senators for their good wishes and also want to extend a special welcome to the Members from Northern Ireland, Senators Robb and Mallon. In the past, I have participated in some very good debates in this House and look forward to more. I now wish, in reply, to outline our policy in regard to this matter.

Adoption is a complex and delicate area involving many sensitive issues, and because of this it attracts considerable publicity. There have been many criticisms of our adoption system from persons and groups both directly and indirectly involved in adoption, but despite their expertise in and knowledge of adoption, these persons and groups have been very hesitant to say precisely what changes should be made.

One of the constant demands has been that provision should be made for the adoption of legitimate children. On humanitarian grounds, one must agree that there is a good case for such adoption in the case of abandoned, or possibly severely neglected children. But, as was pointed out by the then Minister for Justice in his speech on the Second Stage of the Bill to amend the Constitution — and I refer to the Dáil Debates of 7 February 1979 (Volume 311 at column 585) —"No criteria of neglect or abandonment could eliminate collusion between natural and adoptive parents to fabricate neglect or abandonment." Adoption is unique, in that it affects the legal status of all parties to it and, unlike other child care services, its effects are permanent and irreversible and, on that account, it cannot be regarded as just another welfare service for children. I have no doubt that Senators will have seen the newspaper references to a statement by the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace to the effect that the proposal that legitimate children (other than orphans) should be capable of being legally adopted raises fundamental social policy questions which need further study.

I do not like to be critical of groups whose sincerity is not in doubt, but I might mention one point which is made in the document which is the subject matter of this motion. I refer to the suggestion that the consent of the natural mother, or of the parents as the case may be, might be dispensed with when, by reason of personal incapacity, the parent or parents cannot make adequate provision for the care of the child. This kind of suggestion raises the issue of what is meant by personal incapacity. What, for instance, about the children of itinerants?

The bodies who prepared the document say that this and other proposed grounds for dispensing with consent should be the subject of further discussion and consideration, with a view to developing more precise definitions. But, with respect, there has been a great deal of public criticism of the existing law over a long period of time. Surely, those who take it upon themselves publicly to criticise the law on specific issues could have been expected to spend a little of that time working out in detail what precisely they want done. In this, as in some other sensitive matters, precise thinking is crucial. Those who criticise some of the existing provisions include public figures who are trained in law and in the social sciences. They must realise that pious aspirations and generalities are just not good enough when it comes to working out what ought to be done. I hope that they realise that what they seem to be saying is that one or two civil servants, who would not claim to be specialists in this area and who have a multiplicity of other duties, plus a parliamentary draftman, should be able to produce easily the kind of solution that they themselves, as experts, have singularly failed to do.

As the Government have decided that responsibility for adoption should be transferred to my colleague, the Minister for Health, it would be wrong for me at this stage to comment on possible changes. I feel I should point out, however, that adoption has not been a neglected subject. This can be seen from the fact that there have been three amending Acts since 1952, two of them in the seventies, as well as an amendment to the Constitution to safeguard adoption orders.

The Minister for Health has undertaken to establish a committee to review the existing legal and administrative adoption arrangements, and all suggestions for change will be considered by this committee. I would hope that the advocates of change will submit fully worked out proposals to that committee.

Mrs. Bolger

Firstly, I welcome the Minister to the House. It must be a change for him to be listening to a debate other than on the environment, and may be a welcome change. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that the Minister for Health cannot be here but, no doubt, the Minister of State who is present will pass on the points that come out of the debate.

I would like to congratulate my Labour colleagues in the House for putting down this notice of motion and the six voluntary bodies who have made this excellent submission to the Government. Nobody will doubt the sincerity of all involved in this submission, and I hope that some progress will be made in this sphere. The Minister says that adoption has not been a neglected topic, and I agree. It has not been a neglected subject in this country, thanks to certain voluntary groups and pressure organisations. Nevertheless, there is still a lot of work to be done in the adoption area. A lot of these recommendations are in the submission. I welcome wholeheartedly the recommendation of this committee that adoption should come under the umbrella of the Minister for Health. It is most appropriate, as the health services are already responsible for family care and child services. These services are a natural follow-up to adoption, and we should be concerned with the welfare of the child from birth to adulthood.

One thing is not spelled out specifically, that health boards need to become more involved as a non-denominational agency. Adoption societies are seen to be biased by their very names. I welcome the recommendation that the operation of adoption be evaluated from time to time. This is very important, and I hope that that will happen. The Minister says that he has undertaken to establish a committee to review the existing legal and administrative adoption arrangements and that all suggestions for change will be considered by that committee. I certainly welcome that and look forward to the setting up of it. I hope the Minister will be able to tell the House how soon it will be set up. That is most important.

One point that has come strongly out of it is the urgent need to abolish the status of illegitimacy. One area of concern is this consent of the single parent, who through stress, pressure or sickness of one sort or another loses her sense of objectivity and is unable to make up her mind. In that instance there should be provision to allow a team decision on the future of the child. Senator O'Rourke said that this is an extremely sensitive area and that we would want to tread very carefully when laying down any specific rules and regulations in this matter. It is something that should be considered by this committee being set up, and some recommendations should come from them.

It is most desirable that provision be made in certain circumstances to adopt legitimate children. Other speakers have advocated this and I do not intend to go into it. It is another extremely complicated and sensitive area and a major one for this committee that the Minister is to set up. But I and many Members of the House feel that there are instances when adoption of legitimate children should be possible.

I welcome this report highlighting the need to speed up the process of adoption. I know many cases where there are interminable delays, suffering and heartache for those who are waiting the final word about adoption. We all know that the earlier a child is adopted, the better. The younger he is when adopted the sooner the parents who are to be responsible for him can arrange for his education. The reason for the inordinate delays that take place is the very in-depth investigations that have to be made on the history of the child and the family background of the home where he will spend his life. This had been referred to by other speakers and we are all agreed that that is one of the big drawbacks in this area. It is very involved and a very responsible job and it cannot be rushed.

I congratulate the adoption societies on the tremendous work they have done over the years. One thing I would stress, and it should always be maintained, is the confidentiality of adoption. It is extremely important and I would not like to see that watered down in any way whatsoever.

I agree with Senator O'Rourke that we should not have any hard and fast rules about seven years of age or any age: we should be a little flexible. We all know, any of us who have children, that they develop at different paces. Each child is different: even in a family of five or six there are no two children the same. Therefore, we cannot lay down rules and regulations for adopted children because each child is a different case. It is up to parents to make the decision of when an adopted child should be informed of his or her status in the family.

I reiterate my welcome for these submissions. I think the Minister may have been a bit harsh on the voluntary organisations involved, but they have started the ball rolling and I am quite sure that they are prepared to go the full round and put their backs into whatever changes are needed. I am quite sure that if they are approached when this committee are set up they will give their all to it because they are extremely concerned people and they are to be encouraged. I hope these submissions will go further very quickly.

Mr. B. Ryan

When I rise to speak here I begin to say I feel I belong to a different world from that of politics. I do not know whether it is age or background or experience or what. We have betrayed our children for 70 years, we have temporised about children's legislation, we have temporised about the problems of children in large families, we have temporised and shipped a generation overseas because we could not provide them with employment, and we make ignoble, pointless, irrelevant gestures towards their welfare and towards the safety of society, and we ship off a tiny minority, who cannot be controlled otherwise, to a prison in the heart of County Cavan, and we call that looking after our children.

What astonished me about the proposals of the voluntary agencies, as somebody who does not know and did not know much about adoption, was that it should be the level of our adoption legislation that the full sum of the proposals of bodies who are intimately concerned would be to suggest that when a parent is clearly incapacitated or cannot make, for instance, a credible case that he or she will be capable of looking after a child, they would suggest that the child should therefore be able to be adopted without consent.

In a society that preaches so loudly, so consistently and so insistently and with something close to unanimity that we are concerned first and foremost about the welfare of our children, born or unborn, I find it astonishing that what I would believe to be spurious, in the sense that I do not believe they are the real reasons legal arguments should be advanced. I accept that there may be constitutional problems, but as we have seen and are seeing, constitutional amendments are not a problem when you think of the political mileage we make out of a good issue. But constitutional amendments should never be an excuse for leaving one, not to mention large numbers, of our children to suffer.

It is a bit much to suggest that it is rather difficult to determine personal incapacity of parents and at the same time quite consistently in the case of travellers, lock up parents and leave children with absolutely nobody to look after them and put them into care. That is quite all right because that is the law of the land. I am aware that there are delicate and sensitive problems involved in these areas, but there are delicate and sensitive problems involved in every area of family law, and the fact that there are delicate and sensitive problems involved is no excuse for the sort of waffle, with all due respect to the Minister, that he treated us to here this afternoon.

I do not like saying those things. The fact that there are sensitive and delicate problems involved does not excuse us from our responsibility to our children. Our responsibility is ultimately, fundamentally and basically to our children before everybody else. The creation of some sort of mythological property rights of parents which somehow minimise or modify the fundamental right of all our children to decent homes and stability is nothing but a load of old waffle. It is the sort of thing which makes this House and the other House of the Oireachtas more and more irrelevant to the sort of idealistic thinking that our young people expect from us.

I seem to be standing up here always talking about our young people, because I am becoming more and more aware of the fact that children and young people generally regard us as a crowd of old wafflers who whenever there is a delicate issue postpone it, proscrastinate and temporarise, hoping that ultimately the courts will solve the difficult problem for us. I found the Minister's speech unhelpful. As one who is identified most with a voluntary organisation, I found offensive his suggestion that somehow the voluntary organisations are culpable because they could not do a job that is properly that of the Legislature, which is to draft legislation. It was offensive to voluntary organisations to expect them to extend their role beyond what they are doing. The Minister should welcome the efforts of poorly funded, overworked, grossly exploited by the State, voluntary organisations when they try on limited resources, and an enormous demand on their members' free time. When they try to assist the process of legislation, to come back with that sort of nonsense is offensive and insulting and is typical of the way politicians of all parties, when they have the opportunity, will pat the backs of voluntary organisations and say "You are great as long as you stay in your own place but when you enter our area, then the crocodile turns on you, the teeth are bared, how dare you suggest that we are not legislating properly". It is our job in the Houses of the Oireachtas to legislate. We should not be pointing a finger at other people. The problems have been identified — indeed even the Minister's inadequate speech identified them.

The difficulty is the drafting of legislation. That is the Government's job and the Legislature's job. This is where it should start. Everything that these bodies have recommended I find to be reasonable. I find it astonishing that it should have to come in the form of a submission, that after years of cogitation such reasonable suggestions, all of which are designed to protect our children from the inadequacies of their elders, are somehow regarded as needing to be qualified, to be pared away, to be tagged by various kinds of caveats, warnings etc.

Maybe I am simplistic, maybe I am naive, but I believe that when a child is at risk, the child matters first. If there is a problem or a doubt the benefit of the doubt should go firmly, squarely and fundamentally to the child. I do not believe I have any exclusive property rights over the one child I have. I sincerely hope that if I am ever judged to be inadequate and unfit to look after that child that in her interest somebody will have the authority to say, "No, you cannot ruin that child's life because of some sort of mythological property right that allows you to own the child as a piece of your property".

Our children are our responsibilities that we have in trust. If we cannot discharge that trust, they are entitled to the best that society can offer them. As far as I am concerned, that report suggested a number of reasonable proposals which ought to be given serious consideration.

I am extremely disappointed with both the quality and the content of the Minister's statement. It is dismissive of the work of a group of committed, knowledgeable people. It is offensive to voluntary organisations, completely misunderstands their role and function and does nothing to advance the fundamental cause that we would all, at least on the surface, claim to be committed to, which is the cause of our children. I repeat that my view is quite simplistic. Our children come first; they come before the rights of parents, the rights of property and constitutional provisions. Anything that has to be changed to ensure that all our children have the right to proper, decent, secure family homes must be done irrespective of any other rights that in the process may have to be qualified or toned down.

It is ultimately as simple as that. Our children have rights over and above anything that the rest of us may claim. Therefore I am very happy to support the motion. I hope that ultimately the final Government response to all these areas will be much more worthwhile and valuable than what we got from the Minister here today.

Mrs. Hannon

I welcome the Minister to the House. There have been many changes in our perception of adoption over the past 30 years. In the past it was looked upon as the legal device, first of all for looking after illegitimacy and on the other hand infertility: it saved the unmarried girl the problem of having to disclose that she had had a baby, and it supplied a readymade child for the infertile couple. Today the emphasis is rightly on the child. Today the emotional and social needs of the child are being considered, particularly the social needs of the child in getting a substitute family.

The most trying and emotional period for all concerned in adoption is the time before the final adoption order is made. It is a time of great anxiety for the natural mother, because despite the fact that she has already consented to the adoption up to the time the final adoption order is made she can change her mind at any time. This places great stress on her. For the adoptive parents it is a time of insecurity — they feel they are on trial. They are afraid to get too fond of that child because they are afraid the mother may change her mind at the last moment and they might lose that baby. Even the child can suffer in these circumstances because it cannot be absorbed completely into the family unit, and if it is a little older it feels not only insecure about its future but also it has to adapt to the changes involved in getting used to a new family.

Everyone in this set up has their rights and all of these must be taken into account. At present we are aware that there is a statutory provision relating to the length of time that must elapse before the final adoption order is made. In the past we were talking in terms of about six months. Now the usual time is ten months. It is far too long. It took 28 months before a child was finally handed over to a friend of mine. I would not like to tell you the problems those parents had during that time. They were terrified that they were going to lose the baby.

The suggested time of three months is not unreasonable. In a large number of cases there is absolutely no problem in assessing the suitability of the applicants. These cases could be dealt with very speedily. In other cases in which problems exist sufficient staff should be made available to ensure that they are dealt with as speedily as possible and that difficult decisions will not be shelved or some excuse made for putting off the decision.

It was suggested in the report that the consent of the natural mother, or the parent as the case might be, would be dispensed with in cases in which, because of personal incapacity the parent or parents cannot make adequate provision for the care of the child. This is an area in regard to which we should tread very lightly as it is a very sensitive area. A lot more thought must go into it.

Another anomaly that exists in the present system is that legitimate children cannot be adopted. This discriminates against legitimate children because it denies such children the right to be absorbed into family units. The report states that any child should be eligible for adoption when it has been established by the courts that the parents are unable or unwilling to carry out their parental responsibility. It may be necessary to have a change in the Constitution to ensure that this will be possible, or it may be necessary to present draft legislation to the High Court.

Something that is very much in the news at the moment is the stigma of illegitimacy. In yesterday's papers we all read that the Irish Commission for Justice and Peace had said there should be changes in the law to have illegitimacy abolished. The Minister for Justice responded to it in a very positive way by declaring that the Government were committed to its abolition. This is very welcome news as it will stop many single girls from taking the abortion trail to England because no longer will their children be faced with a lifetime of social exclusion because of their illegitimacy.

The report stated that at a certain time it should be made known to the child that it has been adopted. I feel this is something the parents must have some control over. They should choose the time when to tell the child and not be told that they must tell the child at a certain time.

I am delighted to see that many changes have been made in the adoption laws over the years. Three amending Acts have been passed since 1952, two of them in the seventies, and an amendment to the Constitution to safeguard adoption orders was made also during that period. The submission supplies answers to most of the problems relating to the present adoption system. It is made by organisations closely involved with the implementation of the system, all recognised as authoritative bodies. For this reason it should be considered as speedily as possible.

Mrs. Barnes.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I would refer to a line in his speech where he said "I do not like to be critical" May I say that I do not like to be critical, but I am going to be? Firstly, as has been said by many Senators before me, the work done by the organisations responsible for this submission has given them a base of experience and a sense of frustration. That is very finely contained in the submission, in so far that they have phrased it sensibly: they have noted the sensitivity of many of the recommendations and the teasing out that would be needed, as well as possible constitutional reform. I think they have done this because of the very human problems and traumas that adoption poses for every person and section involved in it.

I take it amiss that the Minister would use that restraint on their part to criticise them for not suggesting legislation: that is not the role of such voluntary organisations but of a Government. Successive Governments have failed miserably not alone to produce such legislation. Not alone did they temporise but they ignored it. We should be ashamed of the situation we have regarding lack of children's rights, which on the whole are non-existent. In fact, the whole area of adoption that is approached here merely encapsulates our attitude to children. They are property, they are owned, and the first thing we must consider with regard to any change or reform in the law is how will it affect the ownership, the property right and the sensibilities of adults.

We have fine phrases in the Constitution, such as treating the children of this nation equally. I will not go into what has been said already by several Senators. Not alone do we discriminate disgracefully against those children whom we deem illegitimate, but within the adoption laws we make sure that we do not include all the children of the nation by discriminating against legitimate children. In doing so we have failed totally to accept the right of a child to the security and the love that he is entitled to by being born.

I would also take issue with the Minister for saying that he did not see any real defined recommendations coming through. In his introduction Senator O'Mahony gave a very comprehensive review of them and I would like to comment on a few of them, perhaps adding a little that I think could be effected almost immediately without alarming the sensibility of anybody. For instance, the adoption boards could be looked at immediately. Apart from the funding which is sorely lacking, thus leading to a total denial of skilled trained staff in this all-important area, there should be specific statutory criteria by which the people appointed to the adoption boards would be judged and appointed. It goes without saying that the staff of such boards should be professionally trained, versed in the law and very supportive in counselling all the people in this very human situation.

Regarding research, I would like to put forward suggestions in support of the recommendations and of what Senator O'Mahony has said on the need for research which would help everybody involved in drawing up such legislation. The more research we have the better with regard to this. Perhaps an annual report from each of the adoption societies and boards would help us to evaluate and monitor the situation with regard to the rate of adoptions and the difficulties and problems that the adoption societies are encountering. We need far more general information about the whole area of adoption. It is really a closed shop, a mystery to most people, even to couples who would seek to have access to adopting children when they find that they cannot have children of their own. Many people have come to me and they just do not know where to turn. They are suffering from the disappointment of not being able to have children of their own.

The Adoption Board should set up a basic minimum standard and code for all adoption societies. It has been said here again and again, and I reiterate it, that nobody is criticising the adoption societies. However, I think that a certain basic standard and code would help, and I think the societies themselves would welcome it. Above all, for too long the areas regarding child care have been split up, between one Department and another. For years the voluntary organisations, everybody involved in child care, have requested that all child care services be integrated under one Department. I welcome the news that at long last these child care services will be under the umbrella of the Department of Health.

I might ask the Minister if I can assume that he has undertaken to establish a committee? Am I to take it that he has only undertaken this and that the committee has not been established yet in regard to reviewing the existing legal administrative adoption arrangements?

Mr. Connolly

No, it has not been established yet, but it is the intention of the Government and the Minister for Health to do that.

Mrs. Barnes

It is years since we produced task force reports and recommendations, since these various organisations were set up. They have now again sent in their recommendations. It is really appalling. I do not agree with the Senators who said we had a great deal of amending legislation dealing with adoption. We had not. We tinkered with small pieces of it because constitutionally we would be in a very difficult position if we had not done so. We fought a rearguard action and unfortunately all our reforming legislation seems to be based on panic, stumbling from crisis to crisis with no real look at why we need the reforms and why we should have the courage to make changes in accordance with changes in our society. That is what has happened. We have had changes of attitude. We have massive amounts of knowledge of child psychology, and the whole area of the importance of child development, and the implications of the first few years of children's lives. That research has been done. We did not do it here but at least we had been able to borrow it from other countries. We know it exists and we know the evidence is there. Yet within our reforming legislation there has been a total neglect and ignoring of those fundamental facts.

Much has been said, and rightly so, about delays in placement. In some cases there are serious complications for the natural mother who sees it as her right to have her child back, while the adoptive parents declare it is better for the child to remain with them. Therefore, some legal judgment is needed and the case usually goes to the High Court. Everyone in this House, including the Minister, is aware of the very high cost of taking a case to the High Court. Perhaps if he has any influence on the Minister who is about to set up a committee, the Minister of State might ask the Minister to consider whether the legal costs could be undertaken by the State. Legal costs of thousands of pounds to be met either by the natural mother or by the adoptive parents are unreasonable, and this is not a time when mentally and emotionally people feel they can enter into such a commitment.

We must consider very seriously whether the right of the natural mother should be paramount. There have been cases where the father who was prepared to face up to his paternity responsibilities was totally denied that role because the couple were not married. As somebody who has fought valiantly on behalf of women, I certainly feel it is discriminatory that the law as it stands cannot recognise the rights of fathers who are prepared to accept their responsibilities. That is an area we will be looking into.

Senator O'Rourke and other Senators spoke about sensitivity regarding the information which should be given in an adoption situation, and I take the point. One area to which Senator O'Rourke adverted but did not elaborate on will have to be faced up to even though it is an extraordinarily sensitive one. Other countries had to face up to it and its implications. Perhaps research would help us. I refer to the right of an adopted child later on in life to know his or her natural parents' background. This has arisen in other countries. It has been said it is important psychologically for such children to be given that information and there is a gap if they have not got it. This should be explored with all sensitivity having regard to the needs of the child and not our perceived needs or our perceived conditioning. We will achieve the real reforms we need if we adopt this attitude to the recommendations in this document.

Mr. Connolly

I want to clarify a point. The Task Force did not report on adoption. They recommended that a separate committee be set up to consider adoption. The Government have decided to set up that committee. In regard to costs, in many adoption cases in court, the Attorney General carries the costs.

Mr. Harte

I welcome the Minister back again. I had the opportunity and the privilege of doing so on the last occasion, and I hope we will not have to go through the same drill again too soon. However, having said that, I want to comment on the Minister's statement. If someone is using catch phrases, or slogans or dealing in the safety of generalities it is quite right for the Minister to attack them. But, having listened to quite a number of debates on this subject, I do not think that has been the case. It may have been the case outside of this House but certainly not in it. If we go back to the debates when the 1952 Act and the 1972 Act were being amended we will find that there were some constructive debates and some very worthwhile suggestions.

On the question of hastening slowly, I agree this is a difficult and complex area. We have to bear in mind that we can also hasten too slowly. The fact that you amend Acts does not mean you are moving rapidly. It means you have taken some steps. I take issue with the suggestion that three amending Acts indicate that we have made great progress. It means we passed three amending Acts and made some progress and whether that progress is sufficient is a matter for debate.

The system is very complex with all the problems inherent in it, particularly those of the adoptive parents. Once attitudes are taken up, either by the parent or the person who is surrendering a child to a home or to someone else, they are not easily changed. In this very sensitive area it is hard to say positively whether any real progress can be made towards alleviating all the problems highlighted in the submission. When we are thinking about this submission and urging that some action should be taken on it, we should remember that 11 years ago a proposal was made to the then Government on the question of research. If it had been carried out with speed, I am sure it would have solved many of the problems we are now dealing with or made them less acute and we would not be haggling about the rate of progress made. The question is whether enough research was done since 1952. There has been no survey I know of despite proposals to the then Government to have a survey carried out. Modified proposals were made by the Government but not as the result of a survey such as that proposed 11 years ago. Proposals were formulated that the Adoption Board, the Department of Health and the Department of Justice should be restructured. I do not think anything effective was achieved in that respect. I cannot see any real evidence of it.

It is interesting to see the Government taking a decision to transfer responsibility for this matter to the Department of Health. I am delighted about this. This is the area where it belongs, and more progress can be made there. The whole matter can be given a better profile in the Department of Health, but it cannot be dealt with as easily as the other social services under that Department. This report has helped to identify problems and difficulties which families may face in adopting children.

The real question is whether there has been a fully informed review and whether that review will result in a restrictive formulation of proposals. I do not wish to make any judgments in advance. There is always that danger, particularly having regard to the sensitivity of the matter we are dealing with. It is a matter of very grave concern. It has been around for a long time. We have tried to do something. For some reason when we get into sensitive areas of social legislation we seem to be more hesitant than they are in other countries. Other countries seem to be able to make more progress. I know there is a particular problem with regard to the position of the churches and so on. In this day and age we cannot have it said that our legislation in this sensitive area measures up to that in other countries. I will give one instance. The courts cannot rule in favour of somebody adopting outside the jurisdiction. If somebody adopts in Japan, for example, there is no way that the courts can give full authority for that adoption. That area has not been dealt with.

I mentioned research. Research should be ongoing. It should be a permanent feature of the system when we are dealing with sensitive areas. If we claim that we want to keep the performance of the system at a high standard we must assess the situation and be continually on the ball. We must introduce the necessary proposals, not to remedy all the problems but to make them less acute until finally we can get into a much healthier situation.

Mixed marriages present a problem. This is very unfair, and it is another area to which we could give attention. I hope the committee to be set up by the Minister for Health will have a look at this area of concern. On the whole question of exclusions from wills the submission goes as far as it can in the recommendations, but the adopted child does not seem to have any real rights in this area. In fact it is doubtful whether the law is clear enough on the question of whether after the death of an adoptive parent the child has full rights. The child will have an awful job to establish his or her rights to inherit. I do not know of any case history but I believe that to be the situation. I am not a lawyer but my reading of the situation is that it present difficulties.

These are some of the areas which need clarification. Most of the other Senators have dealt with the submissions in a broader sense. Sufficient initiative has been taken by this House in putting down this motion and debating it to urge that there should be no delay in setting up the committee and no unnecessary delay in coming back to this House with an amending Bill to improve the situation. The problems in this area are very painful and difficult and I do not wish to add to them by raising any issues. That would not be right but, at the same time, it is not right to let existing situations stand which might put pressure on parents to allow adoption. There is an element of that. I should like the committee to think about that, apart from the problem of the withdrawal of consent. There is a certain amount of pressure on parents who are about to give their child for adoption and this presents problems too. The time limit on the natural mother for withdrawal of consent is another problem. I am not competent to take a view on whether the High Court should dispense with the mother's right to withdraw consent. I will not enter into that area. There are many good minds around and I hope these people will find their way onto the committees when they are set up. There are many people with degrees in law, the social sciences and so on, who can deal with very delicate and sensitive areas like this.

I should like to thank the Leader of the House for allowing the motion last week. He re-arranged the programme to suit us, to get this motion down, and we in the Labout Party are very grateful for that. It is necessary for this type of motion to come before the House. Here we can get away to a large degree from the emotive politics which might distract us from the real meaning of the motions put down to be discussed. I should like to go on record as thanking the Leader of the House for making this arrangement. He did the same in the previous Seanad. This was good for the Seanad and for the debates. I am grateful to have had this opportunity to speak. I urge the Minister for Health to allow no unnecessary delays in setting up this committee. It is a very sensitive area. Sometimes it is disturbing to hear what adoptive parents had to go through.

We should not have these types of problems. We should see how far we can go towards facilitating not only the adoptive parents — even though I have concentratedon them — but everybody concerned with this delicate question. I wonder whether the Adoption Board are the right body. I am not criticising them. In changing world circumstances, in changing situations throughout Europe and with the updating of the adoption laws in other countries, I wonder would a shift of some powers to the High Court make the situation better.

Mr. Robb

I should like to make one or two short points on the report and the response by the Minister. May I thank the Minister for his kind remarks addressed to both Senator Mallon and myself? In this document there are the essential ingredients for advance in the whole area of adoption in Ireland. It begs the question as to why it has taken so long to get to this point. I have the viewpoint which applies North of the Border as well as South, that we are a male dominated and church orientated society. I feel certain from some of the remarks made here today that the things which have blocked the discussions about these sensitive issues are the same things which block the unlocking of the swings in Northern Ireland on a Sunday afternoon, or finding a tennis court that has not got a padlock on it on a Sunday afternoon. I am not here from the North to condemn you in similar respects but you can use your imagination and guess what I am driving at.

I welcome the proposal that illegitimacy should be done away with. It is very late in the day to be discussing the plight of adoption for a couple who happen to have joined in love from the opposite traditions and have created an intermarriage of the two traditions in Ireland. That, to my mind, is what we should be all striving to achieve. I hope that not only will there be sensitivity but that there will be a great encouragement for such couples to adopt Irish children into their loving care regardless of what religious denomination they were born into. As Senator Ryan has said, the most important thing is that children should be brought up in homes where there is love and care, and where they have an opportunity to find themselves as citizens of this nation.

The Minister has undertaken to establish a committee. When we discuss the problem of drug addiction in Ireland the last person we consider bringing onto the committee is a person who has been or is at present afflicted with drugs. When we discuss the problem of the prisoner and the prison, the last person to be considered in the discussions in all committees and boards is the person most affected by the problem being discussed, namely, the prisoner. In this context we have natural parents, adoptive parents and children who have been adopted. I hope the Minister in composing his committee will consider the possibility of having on it representatives of people who have been adopted, of adoptive parents and the natural parents of children who were taken from them or who gave them into the care of adoption authorities. I should like to commend the report once again. Although the phrase festina lente sounds well, it does not commend itself to this Senator. In Ireland there has been a lot of festina lente. I would prefer the phrase festina celerrime.

Mr. Hourigan

I too should like to welcome the Minister of State to our debate. I should like to compliment those who put forward this motion on adoption. As of now, we do not regard adoption as normal a procedure as we ought to do. Too often we regard adoption as something very different. We must normalise the situation vis-a-vis adoption. I agree with what Senator Robb said on the religious aspect. In no circumstances should religion present a barrier or problem in the whole area of adoption. This should constitute a major part of any examination or study to be carried out.

An important point which was not mentioned in the debate is the question of the age of the adoptive parents.

At present the age of the mother proposing to adopt a child must not be more than 40 years and the age of the father must not be more than 45 years. That is a fairly rigidly applied rule. I am acquainted with some circumstances which are and have been directly affected by this. I would urge very strongly that flexibility should exist in this area. I support the concept that some control mechanism is necessary. At the same time we cannot afford to have a break-off point of, say, 40 years and one day and 45 years and one day. Many children have been reared very successfully by grandparents, uncles, aunts, and so on, who were well over that age, so the question of age should not be a barrier any more than religion. I know many people who would be ideal parents. Taking into account the fact that couples must be married for three years before approaching the adoption process, it is very easy for a person to be excluded on the grounds of age.

The word "illegitimate" should be put aside. It is an unfortunate way of describing children. There must be another way to describe children born out of wedlock. It puts them in a category of their own. While, from a legal point of view, the word "illegitimate" is probably most descriptive, I am sure there is some substitute for it which would be legally effective and less hurtful to all concerned.

There is another matter that we must never forget. That is, that adoption involves three major parties, the adoptive parents, the natural mother and the child itself. It is a very emotive sort of area where one is tinkering with feelings. It must be very carefully monitored because if it is mishandled and procedures are not carried out correctly, it can have lasting adverse effects on the relationship between the adoptive parents and the child and on the natural mother. This whole area requires a very high degree of skill.

I also would support the concept of putting this whole area of adoption under the Department of Health. In that Department the area of adoption would warrant the involvement of the highest degree of expertise available in the whole area of psychology and related matters. This should not be overlooked because it is a highly sensitive area.

Many points have been made already. An important one made by one Senator was the question of informing the child that he or she was adopted. This, again, is a delicate area and has to be handled extremely carefully. I would support that point of view very fully.

The motion that we are discussing this afternoon has been put forward by six very responsible and caring organisations — The Federation of Services to Unmarried Parents and their Children, The Central Council of Catholic Adoption Societies, Children First, Adoptive Parents Association of Ireland, Care and, finally, Cherish. There is no doubt but that they have put forward the problems. Perhaps not all the answers are included in the submission. But a body or committee that is appropriate to go into the greatest depth possible ought to be established. We must approach adoption as a more natural sort of development, take it as something that happens and not look aghast at an adoptive situation.

There is one other important question, the question of inheritance. At the moment, a child born out of wedlock is excluded totally from any inheritance. This needs attention and correction.

The other point is, I also believe that legitimate children, those born within wedlock, should qualify for adoption because there are many very large families where the parents would welcome the opportunity of having their child placed for adoption. Again that is sensitive; the full and total consent of the parents must be available. We must be extremely careful about this suggestion of removing the consent of the mother in an adoptive situation because it is a very traumatic experience for a mother who happens to be unmarried to have a child and that mother is entitled to have a say, up to a point where it becomes illogical that she should have. Every avenue has got to be explored in taking account of that person's feelings.

The only other comment I would like to make is on the question of the age limit of the child to be adopted. At present the age limit is seven years. Again, I do not think that that should be a rigid figure; there should be room for some manoeuvre there.

I fully support this motion. I would like to compliment those persons who brought forward the motion and I would like to thank the Minister for being with us and for his very elucidating and enlightening comments which he circulated to us.

Mr. O'Mahony

I would like to thank those Senators who spoke on the motion. Almost all, if not all, were positive about it. Some had some qualifications to make about the submission and the proposal contained in it. But most people felt on the whole positive and that we should do something in this area.

The exception was the Minister speaking on behalf of the Minister for Justice. I was deeply depressed about that contribution. I thought it reflected a very defensive attitude and I thought it was not really very helpful at all in the context of what we were trying to do. In so far as it reflects the longrun policy of the Department of Justice it does indicate the correctness of the argument made by many people about the imperative need to move the legislation dealing with adoption out of that Department and into a Department which is more concerned with the development of personal social services and child care services generally.

I am still not clear what is intended in relation to the transfer of responsibility for adoption to the Minister for Health. I am sure that will be spelt out in time. But it seems from the comments made by the Minister that it is unlikely that any proposals for reform in relation to adoption will take place in the context of the proposed Children's Bill. That is deeply regrettable. The Minister's comments either mean that or they mean that this proposed Children's Bill will not materialise for a considerable period ahead. That, too, would be regrettable.

As I said in the very beginning, it was not my intention to be in the least partisan about this matter because it is too important and affects too many vulnerable people for any of us to partisan. But I feel strongly that the comments made by the Minister on behalf of the Minister for Justice, who was not able to be with us today, are deeply distressing. On the one hand, it is conceded by the Minister that there are humanitarian reasons why legitimate children should be available for adoption, but he then goes on to say that the reason we cannot do anything about this is because we cannot guarantee eliminating collusion between natural and adoptive parents. That seems incredible. What we are really saying is that we are prepared to continue to condone a situation in which children, because they are children of parents married to each other but who have been abandoned, as is the case frequently, are put into longterm residential care, and their parents have no intention, expectation or wish whatsoever to provide them with a decent life, and they cannot be available for adoption. What is happening here is that, although the principle that the welfare of the child is the first and paramount consideration is enshrined in the 1974 Act, there is no commitment to its implementation and to living up to the principle which that suggests. This matter has been discussed widely enough and often enough among all kinds of people concerned and skilled in the area of adoption, and the matter is now capable of being dealt with because at the end of the day it is the courts which will make the decision about adoption. We cannot put precise criteria into legislation but we can provide the courts with the option of making decisions based on knowledge and based on skilled support from social workers and others.

The Minister's response on the issue of consent or dispensation with consent is also unduly stringent and unhelpful. Introducing the red herring about what we do about the children of itinerants is really to introduce a side issue and to avoid the real question of what do we do about parents who, while abandoning all contribution towards their children's welfare, at the same time attempt in some way to retain a nominal relationship with them, and is deeply regrettable.

It seems that there is a positive will to make progress here, but on the basis of what the Minister has said I am not very hopeful about early progress. I regret that deeply, as most of us do.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Séamus de Brún)

Before the Chair calls on Senator Murphy on the motion for the Adjournment, could the Chair have some indication as to when it is proposing to sit again?

Mr. Smith

I understand that it is proposed to sit at 8 p.m. to take a motion on education.

Acting Chairman

I am advised that it has to be taken now.

Mr. Smith

That would depend on whether the Minister concerned is available. Perhaps we might adjourn for some minutes to check the position.

Acting Chairman

We will wait for a few minutes. Could the Chair have some indication as to when it is proposed to sit again before we go on to the discussion on the motion?

Mr. Smith

I presume it will be next week. I will have the matter checked.