Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

This Bill is hugely significant, particularly for all those involved in the adoption process. It is important for the children who are, and who will be, adopted, adoptive parents, prospective adoptive parents and birth parents. It is also important for all those involved in administering the process and who make decisions that have huge implications for many and that, in some instances, have life and death consequences. My views on the legislation are informed by the many adoptive parents with whom I have had discussions and, in particular, by the International Adoption Association Ireland and its senior officers. I also have a personal interest in that I am the happy father of eight wonderful children and I feel strongly for those who want to establish families through the adoption process.

The legislation must be child-centred and it must be protective of the welfare of children on all occasions and in all circumstances. There is unanimity in the House on that but, in adopting this approach, full consideration must be given to the rights of adoptive parents and those who wish to adopt. The welfare of adopted children is inextricably bound to their relationship with adoptive parents and there must not be a conflict between the rights, duties and responsibilities of adoptive parents and placing children at the centre of our approach in adoption legislation. In many instances, there is a coincidence of interest to ensure adoptive arrangements are established and maintained to lead to the loving family relationship that is so important to the adoptive parents and crucial for the development of the children.

I am delighted the Bill is before the House and while I am trying to participate in the debate on a non-political basis, I am glad the Government has got around to introducing the Bill. Reference has been made to countries that have not ratified the Hague convention but Ireland has not ratified it yet. We signed up to the convention during the last Fine Gael-led Government in 1996 and, therefore, when we start pointing fingers abroad, it should be borne in mind it has taken us 13 years to get around to the process of ratification. It is high time the Bill was introduced as an essential part of the ratification process.

The Hague convention provides for a safer system of inter-country adoption and it helps to guard against the abduction, sale and trafficking of young children. It aims to ensure inter-country adoption is in the best interest of the child and to ensure legally binding standards apply to such adoptions, these standards are appropriately supervised, and communication and co-operation channels are established between the authorities within the countries of origin and the receiving states. There is total support for that approach. However, contrary to the perception of many, the convention does not preclude adoption from non-convention or non-bilateral agreement countries. Instead, member states are obliged to ensure adoptions are carried out in accordance with the requirements of the convention. It also permits non-member states of the broader Hague Conference on Private International Law to participate in it ensuring broader acceptance and recognition of standards is possible. One could look to Thailand as an example. Such inclusion is a clear recognition that the best interests of children transcend purely legal structures.

The convention is an important basis on which we should operate but it does not constrict us and bind us, provided the State focuses on convention's standards and ensures they are observed in every instance in so far as possible. That should be borne in mind when we implement the legislation. That is especially important when we consider where children are adopted from. The vast majority of inter-country adoptions globally are conducted from non-Hague convention countries and it is important that the Government has an approach in place to deal with that.

The convention provides both mechanisms and the aspiration to work together with less developed countries to improve child protection and related services, yet it has taken Ireland, an allegedly well developed country, although some would question that in the current circumstances, 13 years since signing up to the convention to get around to ratification. I have had the opportunity to visit many other counties in the course of my duties. They are well behind us in development terms, yet we should be there to help them to raise their standards rather than condemning them to exclusion from the process. The convention clearly recognises that progress is part and parcel of the development and maintenance of such systems and that the process of building the systems is continuous and imperative to helping children today as well as protecting children tomorrow. The Government should adopt this partnership approach because, through it, we can ultimately ensure more countries are brought into the convention process.

Inter-country adoption is a valid and important form of alternative care for children who do not have a chance of a permanent home with their birth family or within their community or state of origin. The Minister of State agrees and I accept his approach is well meaning. I would perhaps be critical of some of his actions but I accept his heart is in the right place and I am glad he seems to share this approach. It would be wrong to give an impression either from the Ministry or the House that we oppose inter-country adoption. We are trying to ensure such adoption is carried forward to the highest standard. A number of people have raised this issue with me and I favour inter-country adoption. I understand the attitude of the Minister of State and the Government is similar.

The bilateral adoption agreement with Vietnam ended earlier this year and there are threats to adoptions from Russia and Ethiopia. Our responsibility for waiting times, about which I am aggrieved, is another issue to which I will refer later. I am anxious a system is put in place to ensure the highest standards for inter-country adoptions. The consequences of such adoptions are enormously positive for the children, which is clear from a study conducted by the children's research centre in Trinity College Dublin. Its findings are in line with many studies around the world into the outcomes for adopted children. The centre summarised its findings by saying the children recover. In many instances, they recover from deprivation, poverty, abandonment, bad health, maltreatment and neglect. They recover from bad health, maltreatment, neglect and other difficulties. Adoption offers the opportunity for that recovery. That is the finding of all independent studies of which I am aware. The best place for a child is in a safe, permanent and loving home. It is my understanding that children can recover. Ireland's experience of inter-country adoption is that they do recover.

We will have some discussion about adoption from Vietnam in the coming months. The bilateral agreement has been suspended and we have seen the recent ISS report. It is important that we read the report carefully without focusing on those aspects of it which could be written up sensationally. The report hints at closing adoptions from Vietnam until that country ratifies the Hague Convention. However, that is not one of its main recommendations. The report raises the question that some children being adopted may not have been abandoned. That is an issue about which we must be concerned. It relies on the contents of several other reports in this regard. I understand the authors of the report visited two provinces from which adoptions are conducted but I believe neither of these are provinces from which Irish children have been adopted.

Let us take the report in the round, look at the good and the bad and see it as a challenge as to how its findings should best be dealt with. According to the report, poverty is a critical and key driver in the abandonment and relinquishment of children. There are also issues regarding single mothers and there are financial and discriminatory issues. Many of the issues touched on in the report could have applied to Ireland a generation ago, when there was considerable adoption outward from here. Let us have sympathy and understanding for a country which is at a different stage of development.

The report calls on receiving countries, including Ireland, and the Hague Convention Bureau to participate in providing technical assistance and supporting and working with Vietnam to build the type of child protection systems we all recognise are necessary. Let us commit ourselves to doing what we can to help that country go forward. There are already indications of progress from Vietnam. There has been an awareness there of the existence of this problem for some time. An international body has been allowed to assess the Vietnamese situation, contrary to our own assessment of the activities of the HSE. That outside body has already begun to deal with issues as they emerge. It appears Vietnam will sign the convention in January and will ratify it much more quickly than we did. Vietnam intends to ratify the Hague Convention in the latter half of next year or early the following year. Let us encourage Vietnam in that regard and let us not, in any circumstances, engage in condemnatory activity.

There is a great number of children in institutions in Vietnam and that number will grow. The percentage of such children is small in relation to the total population of 87 million but large in numerical terms. Some of those children would be better off in homes in Ireland. How can we encourage that? I have no ready answer but I hope the Minister of State is open to discussion on that matter. It has been suggested that the ISS report finds against bilateral agreements with regard to their compatibility with the Hague Convention. However, the main concern in this regard refers to the failure of Vietnam to ratify the Hague Convention. We all know how long it takes to do that. The report strongly suggests that any bilateral agreement should include a clause allowing automatic termination once the convention enters into force in Vietnam. That is very sensible. At the same time it implies that there is scope for a bilateral agreement in the meantime. Let us not take the report as being totally exclusionary of bilateral agreements. Let us look at what is in the best interests of the children and of achieving a resolution which would accommodate the situation in which children find themselves and the parents who wish to provide loving homes for them in this country.

Many such parents have shown their bona fides, having completed a robust assessment and endured years of waiting for due process in Ireland before ever applying to adopt in Vietnam or any other country. We talk about problems in Vietnam and other countries, but people who live in glass-houses should not throw stones. The waiting time for adoption assessment in Ireland is scandalous. The Minister of State assumes the HSE will have a central role in future adoption assessment. I am not anti-HSE. I attended a swine flu vaccination clinic in South Brown Street, Dublin yesterday. Five hundred people were vaccinated in a single day, the clinic was well managed and organised and the staff coped wonderfully.

However, the record of the HSE on adoption is scandalous. I hear stories of applicants having a good rapport with social workers but the management of the assessment process is scandalous. I have been highlighting this issue for years. It is not getting any better. Before we examine the assessment process, let us assess the HSE and ask if it should have any role in assessing adoptive parents. It has failed utterly. I do not accept that any State body should be automatically given such a role. Let it first prove itself. Let us also seek and encourage alternative bodies. The HSE should not have a monopoly in this area. The Minister has heard the horror stories. How can people be left in limbo year after year without any explanation? It is unacceptable. It is in our power to end this monopoly and perhaps remove the HSE from the adoption process entirely. We should encourage other bodies to become involved in the assessment process. I will push this issue until I see it improved. It is not a question of improving the HSE or giving it more money and more social workers. It has failed utterly and does not deserve to be involved. Let us look for alternatives.

There must be a proper transition process to the new regime. We cannot condemn those who have spent five or six years in the wilderness of a HSE assessment. Last week, I spoke to a couple who have been waiting for six years and seven months and have still not completed their assessment for a Russian adoption. We cannot condemn such people to further unnecessary delays. Let us commit ourselves to doing what is necessary to create a proper transition process, particularly for those who have endured long years of waiting. I urge the Minister of State to be as flexible as necessary in reaching out to those people and making sure the implementation of the Bill will give them a fair chance to complete the adoption process at the earliest possible date.

There is goodwill on all sides of the House towards this legislation and towards the Minister of State. Members on both sides of this House want to see a proper and good system. We are not saying there is a simple solution; we know there are problems. Let us try to mobilise the resources of this House in a way where we can all work together to solve the complex issues and try to ensure we have a proper adoption system working effectively, efficiently and quickly in order that the children who need to be adopted as quickly as possible and the adoptive parents who have been waiting for so long to get through the trials and tribulations of the assessment process are allowed to establish those loving family relationships for which they have yearned for so long.

See this speech in context