Ms Deirdre Pemberton:

I thank the Chairman and the members of the committee for inviting us to present our views on the proposed adoption Bill. The Council of Irish Adoption Agencies was established in 1961 as a forum for adoption practitioners. Membership is open to all accredited bodies and Tusla adoption services. Each agency is represented at the council by practitioners whose work is guided by internationally recognised principles of best practice. The council aims to encourage through research the provision of relevant adoption information and continuous professional development workshops so that all of its members operate to the highest professional standards. In 2009, the council published An Ethical Framework for Adoption in Ireland. In 2012, it published a series of leaflets for adopted people, birth parents and adoptive parents in relation to information and tracing. Both of these documents are available on our website.

The Council of Irish Adoption Agencies welcomes the proposed Bill, which provides for a comprehensive statutory-based information and tracing service to ensure applications for services can be made by adopted adults, birth parents, birth relatives and people who were informally adopted or whose births were registered incorrectly. It is welcome that the Bill will allow adults who were adopted internationally and their birth relatives to apply for information and tracing services. We regard as positive the presumption in favour of sharing information. We are pleased that this Bill acknowledges the right of adopted adults to have access to their birth certificates and family histories.

I wish to mention a number of areas that are of concern to the Council of Irish Adoption Agencies and make some proposals and suggestions with regard to those areas. On head 6, which relates to the future role of accredited bodies, I would like to point out that the Adoption Act 2010 provided for a process of accreditation of agencies, other than the Child and Family Agency, to provide adoption services. Agencies that are providing information and tracing services under section 4(k) of the 2010 Act had to undergo a rigorous process by the adoption authority to determine their suitability to provide such services. The council recognises the value, skills and long experience of these accredited bodies in providing adoption services. We are concerned that the heads of the proposed Bill seem to allow for the Child and Family Agency alone to provide information and tracing services. The Bill is unclear on the role that accredited bodies will have to play in the future, except where it provides that the Child and Family Agency may decide to authorise "persons ... for the purpose of carrying out an adoption information and tracing service on behalf of the Agency". We propose that the term "persons" should be replaced with the term "accredited bodies under the Adoption Act 2010". We believe the role of such bodies should be referenced throughout the Bill.

On head 12, which relates to appropriate funding for services, like other speakers we appreciate that the proposed adoption Bill addresses the issue of funding for services but we are concerned that there has not been an adequate review of what is needed in terms of service provision so that the Bill’s aspirations can be realised. While it is recognised that adopted adults and birth parents need information and access to their family histories, the process of seeking and being involved in this search involves much more that just that. The Council of Irish Adoption Agencies recognises that the process can be a complex one. In addition to accessing existing information, updated information is required. There may need to be a mediation process between all the parties before a reunion takes place. The council recognises that all the individuals involved, often including wider extended families, may need adequate counselling, advice and support. At present, adopted people and birth parents have to wait on long waiting lists to access such services. We are aware that in some agencies, there is a three-year wait to see a social worker. We consider this unacceptable, particularly in the context of aging birth parents and equity of access to services for all parties to an adoption. Therefore, there are significant funding requirements under the proposed legislation.

We are not comfortable with the statutory declaration measures provided for in head 13. We recommend a similar approach to that taken in other jurisdictions, where the applicant is required to participate in a session with a qualified social worker or counsellor to discuss and explore issues of privacy and respect before the birth certificate is released. We also have concerns about equity with regard to how the Bill proposes that these services should be delivered. Under head 13, which relates to the information for the adopted person where an adoption order is made prior to the commencement of the Bill, and under head 15, which relates to the information for birth parents in respect of adopted people over 18 years of age, we are concerned that the Bill allows for different practices in relation to the sharing of information between birth parents and the adopted people. We propose that the Bill should allow for the sharing of non-identifying information to both parties without permission. Our final concern relates to the appeals system provided for in head 13. We believe that the period stipulated is extremely short. We are not sure that many people who really do not want this information to become public information would appeal. Nevertheless, we feel that the timeframe in which somebody who wishes to appeal can do so is too short and we would look for it to be extended. We can expand on this further in response to questions. I thank the joint committee for the opportunity to make this presentation.