This motion, in my view, merits the attention and support of every Member of this House. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to hear the views of Members of the Seanad in advance of finalising my legislative proposals on this subject.
The report is of exceptional importance and is part of a process which was initiated some years ago. The aim of that process is to unify responsibility for the health and general welfare of children in the Department of Health. This has been universally welcomed as a sensible move and the Department of Health and myself as Minister have now assumed responsibility for all those children's services which can usefully be centralised under one ministerial control.
I received responsibility for adoption services in 1983 from my colleague, the Minister for Justice. It soon became apparent in the Department of Health and to me that, with the experience of 30 years of adoption and over 30,000 adoptions, this was a particularly opportune moment to thoroughly examine the whole adoption process. I established the review committee and asked them to investigate the adoption services and make recommendations for their improvement.
I have already placed on record, and I do so here again, my appreciation of the valuable work of the review committee. They produced a first-class report covering all aspects of the adoption services, making many recommendations and all in excellent time. On receiving the report, I indicated my acceptance of its recommendations in the main. This is not to say that there may not be some changes in emphasis in the implementation of the recommendations. However, taken together, the proposals provide invaluable guidance in the difficult task of drafting new adoption legislation.
I agree with Senators that there must be new adoption legislation. It is unacceptable, for instance, that children, abandoned or neglected by their natural parents, can be denied an upbringing in a family setting through adoption, simply because their natural parents, who have lost all interest in their children, are still alive. The present law, leaving aside a technicality, is that only orphans and illegitimate children can be adopted.
One of the main recommendations of the review committee is that all children should be eligible for adoption. I support that recommendation and I am glad to see that it finds favour with Members of this House who have spoken on this motion. The report points out that this proposal carries with it constitutional implications, and I am seeking advice of the Attorney General on this at present. That process is now almost completed. It has been a very complex consultation.
Another proposal with far-reaching consequences and over which, too, there hangs some Consitutional doubts, is that, in certain exceptional circumstances, consent to placement for adoption could be dispensed with. I do not propose to go into the Constitutional implications of this question because I am seeking detailed advice on the issue. However, I would like to remind the House of the compelling reason for this recommendation. There are, at this moment, children in care whose parents know little and care less about their welfare, but who would be unwilling for their own reasons, to consent to their placement for adoption. This proposal seeks to provide a mechanism, only to be used in the most exceptional of circumstances, whereby these children can be given the chance of a happy family life.
While I am on the subject of consent to adoption, I must mention an important recommendation of the review committee, namely, that consent to adoption should be irrevocable. I strongly support this proposal which would put an end to much heart-searching, indecision and uncertainty. I believe that this would be in everyone's interest.
Senator Robinson has expressed some unease with the review committee's recommendation to give a natural mother, who has not formally consented to adoption, a right to reclaim her child up to three months after placement with the prospective adopters. After this she would have to go through the courts if she wanted the return of her child. Senator Robinson was concerned that, although giving an automatic right to the natural mother, once the initial three months of the placement had passed the "onus", as Senator Robinson referred to it, would transfer to the natural mother and the scales suddenly become weighted in favour of the prospective adopters.
While I accept that the recommendation could possibly be perceived in this way, I would nevertheless hasten to point out that it considerably strengthens the hand of the natural mother in this position. At the moment she does not have any guarantee of the return of her child, irrespective of the circumstances, and must undertake court proceedings in all instances, with the major uncertainty that entails.
The review committee felt that the welfare of the child, which must be the chief consideration, called for recognition of the bonding between child and prospective adoptive parents and stipulation of a point beyond which the child could not be removed without full independent consideration of all the circumstances. I must say that I am inclined to agree with this line of argument but, as I made it clear in the Dáil on the Children (Care and Protection) Bill, I am always ready to consider constructive proposals in this area.
The introduction of an irrevocable consent would demand a very high quality of counselling, especially for natural mothers, by those working in the adoption services. The review committee consider that, quite simply, there are too many adoption agencies to deal with the relatively small number of about 600 children now been presented annually for adoption. The inevitable result is that some of the smaller societies are involved in so few adoption cases that full time, or even adequate part time, professional service can be provided only with difficulty and at a very high cost in financial and voluntary terms.
I am not for one moment questioning the well-meaning work of these societies, but good intentions are not enough. The report found a need for greater professionalism in the adoption services, particularly since it is envisaged the adoption agencies providing in the future a full range of counselling services to natural mothers and adopters. I am quite sure that the implementation of the report's recommendations in this area, many of which do not require statutory change, will bring about a noticeable improvement in the performance of adoption agencies.
I have also taken careful note of Senator Magner's contribution on the difficulty which prospective adopters of a minority religion or no religion can experience in trying to adopt a child.
I now want to turn to the question of the adoption court. The report recommends the formation of a new adoption authority, to be called the Adoption Court, to function as a seperate and distinct part of the High Court. This is a radical proposal. It involves the creation of a special court the jurisdiction of which could be such as to involve not only adoption matters but all issues involving the custody or guardianship of children involved in adoption applications. The review body put forward a well argued case for it and it will receive the serious consideration of the Government.
The report also deals with the difficult question of an adopted person's right to information on his origins. Under present law it is almost impossible for an adopted person to discover the identity of his or her natural parents if he or she should set out to do so. The adoption process itself has been built on a foundation of secrecy and anonymity, with the identity of the natural mother a closely guarded secret. The review committee recomended that a more open system should operate in future. They decided by a majority decision, to recommend that in all future adoptions — here I would stress future adoptions — an adoptee should have the right of access to his original birth certificate on reaching the age of 18 years. They also recommend, again by a majority decision, against making this provision in any way retrospective. That these are the only non-unanimous decisions in the report is an indication of the sensitive nature of this issue. On balance, I am inclined to agree with the majority view of the review committee and I believe that their recommendations are sensible and would be accepted as reasonable by most people.
I have dealt in my reply with some of the main points of this very excellent report. Indeed, I am very glad of the opportunity afforded me to speak on this subject and the serious issues involved and to listen to the detailed views of Members of this House. I would like to assure Members that I have taken on board their views and I look forward to discussing this issue in far greater detail when adoption legislation, based on the report, comes before this House. I want to assure Senators that I will be doing my utmost, in consultation with the Attorney General and the approval of the Government, to bring forward this legislation as a matter of urgency. I look forward to bringing it before the House in due course.