Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

While I had already contributed for five minutes before the debate adjourned, I wish to pursue the area on which I had just begun to speak, namely, the issue of transitional arrangements in the context of the new legislation. This is a very important element of the legislation about which there is much confusion. Consequently, I hope the Minister of State will be able to clarify many of the issues that have been raised with me and other Members on this element of the Bill. Before the debate adjourned, I quoted from section 63 of the Bill and the guidelines for the Hague Convention as there appears to be a disparity between the two. I also wish to refer to the Minister of State's remarks this morning on this subject when he stated:

A transitional provision allows for adoption proceedings commenced under the Adoption Act 1991 to proceed as if commenced under this Act. Accordingly, it will not be necessary for applicants to re-apply under the new Act but rather they can continue their applications in compliance with the provisions of the new Act.

I wish to clarify what that means. I believe that a large number,that is, approximately 800 families or individuals, in Ireland are within the adoption process at present. Moreover, I understand approximately 1,200 other applicants are waiting to start the assessment process. As Members are aware, the assessment process can take approximately five years in some cases and it varies from area to area. A point I wish to make strongly is that a timely assessment process is required which is absolutely thorough at the same time. While I acknowledge one cannot sacrifice thoroughness for speediness, a disparity exists between different parts of the country whereby it is quicker in some places than others for a variety of reasons. In addition, other countries that have ratified the Hague Convention have a speedier assessment process even though they carry out such assessments entirely in accordance with the convention and all its rigours. Nevertheless, they are able to do so more rapidly. One reason the process is slow in Ireland is due to a shortage of resources in many areas. Can the Minister of State reassure Members the necessary resources will be provided to enable the bodies concerned such as the Adoption Board and others to be able to implement the legislation when it is signed into law? This will be crucial in respect of its effectiveness for the children and families concerned.

I wish to return to the issue of what exactly section 63 means. My understanding is based on what organisations and individuals have been told by the Minister. Ireland will recognise foreign adoptions only from countries that have signed the Hague Convention or from countries with which it has a bilateral agreement. The Minister of State may be aware that Adam Pertman said here recently that this is not necessary under the Hague Convention. Many other European countries that have ratified the convention allow adoptions from non-Hague countries provided that they adhere to the Hague concepts and requirements regarding child protection. I understand that applies in the UK and France. Is it possible to provide for families that have begun relationships with for example, Ethiopia, which is not in a position to ratify the Hague Convention although it has quite rigorous procedures? Can Ireland have an arrangement with such countries despite their not having ratified the Hague Convention? I have figures for other countries that have ratified the convention but have adopted from Ethiopia, which has not.

This applies also to Vietnam. We need to know the Government's intention because many families chose to adopt from Vietnam because it was recommended but the bilateral agreement ended in May and another one has not been put in place. While the Minister of State waits for the International Social Services report, families do not know where they stand. They entered the process in good faith and now know that there is an issue but they do not know how it will be resolved.

The Minister of State has said that he must wait for the report before indicating the way forward but he needs to give people some idea of the Government's intention for adoptions from Vietnam, Russia and Ethiopia. Will people who applied before the commencement of the Act stay in the process but have to apply to a different country? Or can they continue their relationship with the country for which they applied several years ago? They have gone through a process in which they believed, to apply to a country which at the time was considered to be legitimate. Many people here have adopted children from these countries. There is a real lack of clarity on this.

The Minister of State suggested that Ireland could begin to form a relationship with Brazil, the Philippines, South Korea and Thailand following ratification of the Hague Convention. Is he telling families that they must move from the country with which they have formed a relationship and where they have gone through the process to another country after ratification of the convention? That is extremely difficult for those families and it raises a question about families that have already adopted from those countries. Is there a suggestion that the process by which they adopted is questionable? We have had a legitimate process, in accordance with our laws but now we are in a transitional phase. In all humanity we must provide the children and the families concerned with a process whereby they can complete the relationship that they have formed. I can fully respect and understand the need for the process to be in accordance with international law and with the convention but there must be some way in which people can move from the past to the future. This must be compassionate and understand the process in which they are involved and how far they have proceeded. That is the content of many of the representations that we have all received. It relates mainly to Vietnam, Russia and Ethiopia but there are others. We need a humane and understanding transitional arrangement that will recognise those families and children and ensure a way forward for them.

Many families might have completed the process before this legislation is enacted were it not for the delays that are not caused by rigour but by lack of resources. One couple who contacted me wrote that their journey began on 15 March 2005 and has taken almost five years. They were considered to be a straightforward assessment case and were aged 35 and 37 when they applied. They are now 40 and 42. This will be their first child. They list the stages of the process. The shortest period was the assessment process. They have waited a total of four years and six months in the Irish administrative system whereas the waiting time in most other Hague Convention countries is up to one year. When they have their declaration they can apply to Ethiopia to adopt and the next stage will begin.

They make the point that in that time they have seen a new American President, a new Pope, a Luas line, new motorways and even the arrival of IKEA in Ireland but they have not been able to offer a child a loving and caring home. It has taken four years and six months to go through the process, primarily because of the waiting times for each stage of the process. We must take that into consideration when entering this transition phase.

Is it possible to include a grandfather clause in the Bill to cover a family which has already adopted a child from a particular country and wishes to adopt another child from a similar culture? That becomes an issue in countries that have not ratified the Hague Convention. Timing is also an issue. I received an e-mail stating that in the Wicklow-Dublin region applicants for second assessments must attend a one day course. This, however, is not required in the Cork area, therefore a second assessment there takes far less time than it does in Wicklow or Dublin. If the interim measures are based on the declaration it is likely that people based in Cork and holding a declaration could proceed with their adoption while people in Wicklow, who might have applied earlier, could not as they would not have reached the declaration stage. There is a human logic in a family which has adopted a child from one country wanting to adopt a second child from that culture. It is certainly understandable and should be considered.

The Bill does not appear to include countries that have independent adoption. It covers country-to-country or state-to-state adoption. What are the Minister of State's views on that issue? Mexico has been mentioned in that context because it offers direct, independent adoptions rather than state-to-state adoptions. The other issue that arises with a country like Mexico is whether support groups in this context should be accredited bodies. According to the legislation, an accredited body includes anyone who gives information on adoption. Will the Minister of State clarify whether under the legislation support groups that give information need to be accredited bodies?

Many of the issues I have raised have been brought to my and other Members' attention. These are all real-life situations which directly involve families in Ireland and children in the countries concerned. I realise these issues will have passed when we have gone through the transition phase but for the individual families concerned they remain large. They have invested a huge amount of their lives, hopes and intentions to provide a caring and loving family for a child into this process, in many cases for years. The other more important consideration is that there is a child somewhere in all of this who has the potential to have a caring family to provide him or her with a permanent home.

We need to ensure the process protects the child, is in the child's best interests and the practices are correct. In all the cases I raised, it has been possible to adopt children with such protection under the existing legislation. This must be borne in mind in any consideration of the transitional arrangements.

Issues also arise around the rights of the adopted and the birth parents such as information on their origins, access to birth certificates, information services on tracing and the adoption preference contact register established on a voluntary basis. Over the years problems have emerged with access to information about the child or parent. Much progress has been made in this area in recent years by voluntary organisations which have established registers and information databases. It is important to acknowledge many of them have not received any kind of State funding in this regard. I accept there are measures in the legislation to address these issues but it is important that they are as comprehensive as possible and take into account the representations made by the organisations that have contacted Members.

As vice-chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, I welcome the hearings it intends to give many of these groups about their concerns about the legislation before Committee Stage. I will put forward several amendments on behalf of the Labour Party to address various issues, particularly in the area of transitional arrangements, the introduction of a grandfather clause and whether bilateral arrangements can be concluded with countries that have not yet ratified the Hague Convention. The principles behind the convention must be in place in any country with which inter-country adoption arrangements are made.

I know the Minister's intention is to give the maximum protection to children with this legislation. While I share this intention, we must also be aware of the difficulties families face in the adoption process. Other countries also have difficulties in this regard such as Ethiopia, which I understand is simply not rich enough to ratify the Hague Convention.

The Minister may inform me in his reply that I do not have all the information and I accept he will have more information than Opposition Members. These matters, however, are raised in good faith and on behalf of people who have contacted us. Many people have explained the process and their experience in the particular countries they have gone to for adoption. They tell me of encountering children in orphanages who do not have the care of a loving family. It is important to have an open mind in making arrangements with those countries. I accept, however, that we cannot stand over any process if any question arises of a child being handed over for adoption through coercion or payment of moneys.

It is important that the convention is ratified as Ireland signed up to it some time ago. The core of the legislation is the interest of protecting children. I acknowledge the Minister is aware of some of the issues I raised. He visited Vietnam to speak to the authorities there and has spoken with those in other countries about the transitional arrangements concerning inter-country adoptions. The Government must ensure we do not stand over any practices that are not acceptable. There are issues that are of genuine concern in the transitional phase before we move to the full implementation of the convention.

The appropriate resources and personnel complement must be made available to the Adoption Authority to allow it to fully implement the legislation. The Minister of State suggested the Bill will be signed into law in early 2010. Difficulties for everyone involved in the inter-country adoption process will emerge if the demands of assessment and other measures are not met because resources were not in place.

It must be remembered that this legislation, as well as implementing the convention of inter-country adoptions, also sees updating of the general law on adoption in Ireland. Deputy Shatter raised the issue of birth fathers and new relationships and several other areas in this regard need to be addressed. It is important the legislation is as comprehensive as possible and incorporates these issues. We must also be cognisant of the sad experiences of many of those who were sent off to America for adoption in a shameful way. That is a background of which we all have to be aware and we must ensure the rights of the child are paramount in this legislation.

See this speech in context