Ms Rhoda MacManus:

The first thing I would like to do on behalf of my organisation is to read something very important into the record. When the organisation was set up in 1998 the first thing we did before we made a submission to the Government on adoption - in that case it was the Hague Convention - we carried out research on adoption matters in the National Archives of Ireland. We found two very important statements which we feel proves that there was a forced adoption policy on behalf of the State. The first quote comes from a speech given by Mr. Paddy Cooney, the then Minister for Justice, at the first Irish Adoption Workers' Conference in 1974. He said, "I think we are all agreed that the consensus opinion in our society is to the effect that adoption is better for the illegitimate baby than to be cared for by its mother". The second quote was by Marie Louise Colbert who was a social worker with the Adoption Board and comes from an article she wrote herself that was published in the Irish Independentin 1976. She said, "This tendency (for mothers to keep their babies) may have progressed too far. Fewer babies are coming onto the adoption market as a result". These two quotes say it all.

Prior to the setting up of our organisation in 1998, one of our committee made a submission to the review committee on adoption services in 1983 which is 33 years ago. The person was a natural mother who asked in the letter which was sent to the then Government, which had invited submissions from members of the public and interest groups, that a yearly letter be sent to every mother whose child had been taken from her by adoption to tell her how her child was faring and if her child was alive or dead. Anguish over a child's safety is the nightmare that mothers must live with. Every day of a mother's life from the time her child is taken from her she will worry that her child is sick or dead. Every time an accident is reported in the newspaper and the child involved is a son or daughter at the right age mothers think that could be their child.

However, mothers have no right in law even now, as envisaged in this Bill, to know whether their child is alive or dead. My organisation has operated a helpline for the past 20 years, so we know the nightmares that mothers must go through. I can cite one case where a mother sought information on her son for many years, on an annual basis, through the adoption agency but she did not have the right to get any information on him. At the same time he was looking for information on her because both of his adoptive parents had died and he was in care. When mother and son found each other they had a happy reunion and he came to live with her but they were resentful of the fact that the State had allowed their separation to continue and that he had to remain in care when she was willing to provide a home for him. The case illustrates the fact that, as has often been said on our side of the fence but also by adoptive people, adoption is a permanent solution for what is often a temporary problem. From the time when the unmarried mothers' allowance and other State supports became available to help mothers keep their children, adoption figures went down.

I shall try to summarise the opening statement that we have compiled. I shall try not to read it all because I know it sounds boring when one does so. This is the fifth submission that we have made to the Government on adoption legislation since the foundation was set up. It greatly disappoints us that this Bill seems to ignore all of the work that we put into previous submissions over the years. The situation illustrates the cyclical nature of governments changing and legislative ideas changing along with them. It also points to the danger of having a generalist Civil Service. Very often particular civil servants will have put a lot of work into legislation on adoption matters but when they move up the chain they generally move sideways. It means they move away from dealing with adoption legislation to dealing with legislation on agriculture, industry and commerce, etc. It also means that everything that they have done gets locked in a filing cabinet and forgotten, which is a structural problem that needs to be improved. We wanted to bring that aspect to the attention of the committee.

There is another issue that we would like to bring to the committee's attention, and it is something that we harp on all of the time. Since 1998, when we made our first submission, we have emphasised at all times that we are hurt and offended by the inaccurate and insulting terms of birth mother and birth father. Both terms diminish our connection with our children to the few hours of their birth and reduces us to the status of breeding machines. When we reunite with our children it is very rare for them to ask us about the details of their birth because they are interested in everything and anything else. Furthermore, now that women can be contracted and paid to give birth to a child with whom they have no genetic connection, the term "birth mother" is plainly legally confusing. We are mothers and fathers and, therefore, have no need for prefixes of any kind.

With regard to the most recent Adoption Act 2010, which was the last legislation that we commented on, we said the following: "It seems to be a hastily drawn-up document which clumsily incorporates all previous adoption legislation together with provision for giving effect to The Hague Convention". Our prediction has come to pass. The Bill under consideration will necessitate a raft of amendments. It does not even attempt to provide a wording for the further amendments which will need to be introduced following the passing of the Children and Family Relationships Act. We strongly urge the Minister to defer the enactment of this adoption Bill until it can be considered and examined by the Oireachtas joint committee alongside the Children and Family Relationships Act. We will welcome making a further presentation to the committee on both in tandem.

The present Bill is mainly constructed from the perspective of the adopted person and an illustration of same can be found in the flow chart that was provided with the wording of the Bill. The chart only shows how an adoptive person can seek information. It does not show how a natural mother can seek information on her child. Therefore, its glaringly obvious from the text of the Bill that our previous submissions were never read.

We have operated a helpline for natural parents for nearly 20 years. Our helpline number was distributed through the information leaflet for the contact preference register that was published by the Adoption Authority of Ireland and distributed to every household in the State. Therefore, we are in a position to vouch for the fact that almost all natural mothers and many fathers wish to have contact with and receive reassurance that their children are alive and happy. It is a great pity that this Bill gives so little credence to that fact. We can only hazard a guess that the reason for this false assumption arises from the State's belief that natural mothers were promised secrecy which is simply not true. An examination of all forms of the adoption consent forms in use by the private adoption agencies, which were registered with the Adoption Board, notes only that the natural mother lost all rights and responsibilities regarding her child. If those private agencies made verbal statements to mothers on secrecy or, more commonly, told her that she had no right to interfere in her child's life, which was what most of us were told, then such verbal statements have no legal standing. Over the years the Adoption Board should have closely monitored the agencies to ensure that they did not step outside the letter of the law, as detailed in the Adoption Act 1952. The Bill continues to deny adopted people their birth certificates. We support their right to have unrestricted access to their birth certificates as a human right alongside all other citizens of the State.

We note that the Bill does not accede to our demand that we noted in our submission of 1999 for parity with our adult children. We believe that we should be able to access our children's adoption certificates at the point where our children access their birth certificates.

A hierarchy of rights can be applied to the practice of forced adoption. At the time of the adoption, the child had no choice, the mother usually had no financial or social supports and had very little choice, while the adopting couple had a free choice.

The contact facilitation provisions in the Bill are woefully inadequate. The amount of space and wording given to it highlights the fact that no consideration is given to the support needed during the contact process, the support of the relationship that would be developing between the adult child and his or her mother, and the counselling both parties would need to make the reunion work. High Court expenses would, it seems, be taken from the overall budget of the Child and Family Agency. If this is the case and if there is recourse to High Court hearings on points of law, the fees to be charged to individuals will have to increase proportionally. We do not agree with the charging of fees.

We concur with Susan Lohan of the Adoption Rights Alliance that the interpretation of the I. O'T judgment has been faulty. We do not agree with the way the State has interpreted it. Under the present interpretation, if an agency or the Adoption Authority of Ireland knows the adopted person does not know he or she is adopted, the person is not contacted and told he or she is adopted and illegally registered. It is a basic civil right that a person should know who his or her real parents are.