Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Green Party)

This debate has been long awaited in this House. It was debated in the Seanad over a considerable period. By that I mean it has been held up for several months. It was dealt with in the early spring and summer. I relish the opportunity to contribute to the debate because like every Member of the House I have been contacted by parents who seek to adopt children from overseas who are being not so much thwarted by the State but by circumstance, which is causing much personal angst.

The legislation, in so far as it deals with international adoptions in particular, is welcome. I agree with the point made by many contributors that it does not address all of the concerns but it goes some way towards it. I wish to consider a number of key areas, one being the issues it does not address, such as domestic adoptions and foster care specifically. In order to work, legislation needs resources to put ancillary supports in place, for example, in the Health Service Executive. Social workers in particular are required. Reference was made to a grandfather clause in the Seanad debates. I also wish to refer to a sunset clause.

The transitional arrangements mentioned by others speakers is a major issue. Deputy Durkan took the opportunity to highlight his concern about the lack of response to some of his parliamentary questions. I appreciate Deputy Durkan tables the most questions in the House but it is good to know he keeps on top of his brief and an eye on every question tabled. I am not as prolific but I tabled a number of questions on the adoption issue and the responses did not provide clarity as to what would be contained in the Bill, something to which I will refer.

The other issue is slightly more controversial. It concerns adoptions for couples who are not married, particularly couples who are homosexual, which has not been referred to in this legislation. It may not be possible constitutionally but I will deal with that issue also.

I understand that since 1991, the latest statistics, there has been approximately 4,000 adoptions here of children from overseas and a much smaller number of adoptions within Ireland. The demand is increasing because many couples are unable to conceive children while others who already have children would like to adopt. The market for Irish-born adoptees has closed. In the past we often exported them, so to speak. My colleague, Senator Dan Boyle, in his contribution in the Seanad stated that if one is trying to find one's parentage, it is much easier to go through the archives in the United Kingdom than to try to do that under Irish law, particularly as it applied to adoptions from agencies and those run by certain religious institutions in particular in that if one was adopted and trying to trace one's birth parents one would have major difficulty doing so. That caused people a great deal of anxiety because children born in Ireland who were sent to the United States, for example, were unable or had major difficulty tracing their lineage. Even if the birth mother is unwilling to have anything to do with the child, the child has a right to find that person and attempt to talk to her. That issue is not addressed fully in this legislation.

The issue of long-term foster care is not addressed in the Bill. I assume it would be the mainstay of any Irish based adoptions if the legislative provision was in place. I am aware that some people who fostered children over a long period have been able to adopt but if it was a specific provision in this Bill, that might happen more often. There are children who need stability in life. Their foster parents have provided that stability and they would like to put that on a sound legal basis. That should be possible.

Another area that is not addressed in the legislation but which was mentioned in the Seanad debate is where a woman has a child with a man, subsequently marries a different man and the husband wants to adopt the child. In many cases the biological father or the sperm donor, as I derogatorily refer to some of them, do not pay their fair share. We see from social welfare cases that they do not pay their fair share and want nothing to do with the child. They should be forced to pay their fair share but if someone is willing to take full responsibility for a child they did not cause to come into this world, that is laudable. That issue must be addressed in more detail in some later legislation because I could not see it being dealt with in this Bill.

On the issue of resources, we know that depending on the area of the country one applies to adopt it can take up to five years for the referral and declaration process to be complete. That is because of the lack of resources within the Health Service Executive area. It is somewhat of a lottery in terms of where one wants to apply to adopt. That is unfair on the parents concerned in those under-resourced administrative areas. I have met parents in my constituency who had to wait up to five years to go through the entire process. Under this Bill, and as far as I am aware it already applies under previous legislation, one must be 21 to be eligible to adopt. There are procedures to go through but during the Celtic tiger era, and as is the case in other affluent societies - we are still affluent even though we are in a recession - people tend to defer marriage and having children until their 30s. They often do not know that they will have difficulties conceiving. They then go through costly and difficult processes, including in vitro fertilisation, and other fertility treatments. Five years could elapse before a couple in their late 20s or early 30s finds they cannot conceive a child through no fault of their own - it is a biological lottery - but they want to provide care to a child. Having spent five to seven years doing that, they are older and it might be another five years before they adopt a child. They are then in their mid to late 30s or early 40s. I am aware there is a cut-off point in terms of the age parents can adopt but the resources must be made available because otherwise it will not be the legislation that acts as a barrier to parents adopting from overseas but our own lack of investment in resources at the appropriate time.

I tabled a question to the Minister for Health and Children to ask if an analysis had been carried out regarding the length of time it took to process overseas adoption requests in different parts of the country due to the uneven spread of social worker resources. I mentioned Dublin in particular where it takes much longer than the two to three year period. The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, who answered the question, said that he had previously expressed concern regarding the length of time it took to process adoption requests. He said he intended to have further discussions with the HSE in that regard with a view to establishing whether improvements can be effected. Whether it is the Second Stage, Committee Stage or Report Stage debate in this House or the Seanad debate, the resources issue will not be addressed in the Bill. It is crucial that the resources requirement goes beyond the HSE asking people to cut back, ensure that a reasonable period applies and spread the pain. Parents bringing up children do valuable work and if they are not rewarded, they must be at least enabled in that work.

I asked the Minister of State a separate question about plans to provide any financial assistance for parents seeking to adopt children internationally and the answer was a clear "No". There are no plans, even though it can cost parents up to €20,000 depending on the country they go to. There are no plans to provide any financial assistance, even in cases where delays have occurred because of the logjam regarding completion of bilateral agreements and our forthcoming ratification of the Hague Agreement.

In that context, I can understand why money would not be provided because we would want to see the bona fides of the couple or individual in question, but additional resources must be targeted if possible to ensure that the assessments can be carried out in a timely manner because it is not fair on couples who have already suffered for a period to make them wait an extra two or three years simply because no one is available to assess them. That is a crucial issue.

There are millions of children worldwide in orphanages and other institutions who are in need of a good home. There is much talk about the budget and whether our commitment to overseas aid or even the per capita arrangement will be met. It is crucial that we do our bit to ensure that children who will live a life of misery in orphanages, despite the best efforts of those working in the orphanages, benefit from being adopted by Irish parents with the financial means to assist them as long as the checks and balances in terms of the cultural heritage and links with parents, where appropriate, are kept in place. In that context we have an obligation to the children of the world and under our UN commitments to make it happen. That is why a measly little bit of targeting for social workers at HSE level can have disproportionate effects down the line.

The grandfather clause was mentioned in the Seanad. There are people who have adopted from Russia and who are getting past the age for adoption but would like to adopt a brother or sister of the child in question. The Minister of State referred to the grandfather clause, suggesting that any amendments tabled on it called for a parallel process of adoption with countries that were unable to ratify the Hague Convention for some reason or where we do not have a bilateral agreement. He is not prepared to accept a parallel system of adoption in the Bill. I take on board what the Minister of State is saying, but it is in the best interests of the child where an adoption has already taken place to be reunited with his or her brother or sister. That goes beyond the drawing of lines of demarcation. If anything can be done to facilitate that, it would be welcome.

There is also what I call a sunset clause, where parents who applied many years ago are approaching the age where they can no longer apply, usually around 40. If they apply in their mid-30s and are still waiting, a sunset clause should be put in place whereby they would be allowed to adopt. Otherwise people are being put through an inhumane and tortuous process. They are getting to know the country, they have made financial commitments and, crucially, they have made emotional commitments as well. It takes emotional courage and responsibility to adopt a child, particularly one from overseas. Someone who takes that step is brave and should be facilitated. There must be a blurring of the lines of demarcation in that instance.

I have tabled questions on a number of countries, such as South Africa which has signed up to the Hague Convention, but has not enshrined it in its children's Act. The law there, however, is similar to the Irish law and I have asked about transitional provisions. The Minister of State said he is currently examining this and other related matters.

Ethiopia is another case where there are only two institutions in the country and it is hard to get a child out of Ethiopia. Issues related to the Hague Convention notwithstanding, Ethiopian law is similar to Irish law. Although there is no bilateral agreement, parents who are nearing the declaration stage with the HSE and who have chosen Ethiopia as a country from which to adopt children, who have invested time and effort into researching the culture and history of the country, should be allowed to continue the process until its completion, even if this means Ethiopia is closed to new applicants. If someone has applied, even recently, and has put down Ethiopia as a country of choice, he or she should be allowed to continue instead of being told he or she must go for the second country. Ethiopia is similar to Irish law but there are technicalities that remain to be worked out. If the Government says "No" to Ethiopia until a proper bilateral agreement is put in place, we must draw the line now and allow no more applications to Ethiopia but those who have already made an application should be allowed to continue.

The Minister of State said he is examining transitional provisions but I have not seen in this Bill the nature of those transitional provisions. There have not been too many references to transitional provisions so I hope we will see them on Committee Stage.

For many people, the main country is Vietnam. The reports the Minister of Stage mentioned were comprehensive - the MOLISA report and the International Social Services report. There are problems within the Vietnamese system as a result. We know a lot of heartache is being experienced by parents seeking to adopt from Vietnam but I welcome what the Minister of State said in the Seanad, that at a human level he could not fail to sympathise with people in those situations and that he is committed to establishing bilateral arrangements with Vietnam and Russia. The Minister of State has been clear in trying to ensure that the Hague Convention's adoption provides an assurance that appropriate procedures are being followed and that the same standard we would apply to adopting a child within Ireland would apply internationally. I can only agree with that.

The Minister also said that he has been criticised regarding the handling of the situation in Vietnam and that the easy option would be to accede to the pressure being generated from all sides, but that in conscience he could not contemplate advising the Government to enter into bilateral agreements that do not provide for the minimum standards to protect children who are to be adopted by Irish families. I hope that report is issued soon and that we can deal with these issues.

The issue of same sex couples has arisen. Married couples are mentioned in this legislation and the Minister of Stage alluded in the Seanad to the fact that he could not allow for same sex couples unless there was a constitutional provision. The Civil Partnership Bill allows for couples but heterosexual couples who are not married have the same issue with adopting as homosexual couples. Personally, I feel that if a couple wants to take on the responsibility of adopting a child, the least they should do is formalise it legally through marriage. It does not have to take place in a church; it could be a State marriage. I wholeheartedly support a State marriage for homosexuals as well. It is the only way we can formally legalise adoptions.

I have been sent a book, as every other Member has, about a girl who lived with a pervert homosexual of a father who subjected her to God knows what sort of abuse over the years. We all know of the sick puppies who are heterosexual and married who have abused their children over the years in this country. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with how a person brings up children. The sooner we pass the Civil Partnership Bill, and have a reasoned debate on marriage in the eyes of the State, separate from the eyes of a god, the more mature we will be as a society. Many same sex couples would make great adoptive parents, often better than many of the parents who have spawned children without any thought about bringing them into the world.

Issues of fostering and adoption in Ireland must be addressed in this Bill. The related resources must be put in place to support it, with social workers employed at HSE level. Will we see transitional arrangements for the grandfather and sunset clauses on Committee Stage? They are crucial and causing a great deal of worry. We must also address the issue of adoption for same sex couples, unmarried couples and single parents.

See this speech in context