Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

Having listened to the Minister of State's speech, it is interesting to consider the history of adoptions. The first legislation in this area dates from 1952. Beforehand, adoptions were carried out on an informal basis. In the past, we sent some children abroad to be adopted in other countries. In recent years, there is no doubt the adoption of children from abroad has become the norm because no Irish children have been available for adoption here. Any Irish children available for adoption have tended to be adopted within the extended family.

I regret the fact that we must look abroad and at some stage in the future we should examine the situation. It is extraordinary that the UK and other countries not far removed from us seem to be able to have children available for adoption within their own system. I hope sincerely that we move in this direction in future, even if it means we should loosen our system or change the Constitution, because there are a great number of loving families and homes which could give children a better quality of life. Such families could look after children a good deal better. I accept the general principle of the Bill that everything must be child-centred. If a change to the Constitution or legislation is required to allow broader adoptions within the country, we should facilitate this, although this is not part of the current legislation.

I accept the aim of the legislation is to support and protect the children for whom adoption services are devised and provided. The core of the legislation is the ratification of the Hague Convention in Ireland. As outlined, the policy and legislation should be child-centred and the interests of the child must be paramount. I accept that but, as previous speakers indicated, the people by whom one is usually approached are those who have been waiting to adopt children for some time. These individuals are concerned about the delays to which the system gives rise.

The Bill makes provision for the State to enter into discussions with states which are not party to the Hague Convention for the making of bilateral arrangements in respect of inter-country adoptions. The states with which such arrangements are entered into must have in place the rules, regulations, system and structure which obtain under the Hague Convention or similar. It is accepted that what we are doing is child-centred and implements best practice. If, however, so many rules and regulations are applied to ensure that each file is 100% correct, will couples who want to adopt children be encouraged to do so? Are we going to focus on what is right in all cases rather than considering what is required by a child or the loving couple who wish to adopt him or her?

There comes a point when it is not possible to dot all the i's or cross all the t's. Sometimes it is necessary to consider the long-term good of the child by evaluating whether it would be better to allow him or her to remain in an orphanage, continue to live in squalor or whatever or to see to it that he or she is adopted by a loving couple. Even when this matter is considered from a child-centred point of view, the final decision on adoption must contemplate the nature of a child's upbringing rather than in ensuring that it is possible to stand over every item of documentation in his or her file.

I accept that I may be coming at this from the point of view of couples who are seeking to adopt children in order to bring joy to themselves, but also to provide those children with a good upbringing in a welcoming society. I hope, therefore, that all the new rules and regulations will assist people who are seeking to adopt. I hope they will not be used in the future to prevent people adopting. I accept that it is necessary to be careful, particularly in instances where children are being adopted from countries or cultures with which we are not overly familiar. However, there is a level beyond which one should not go in this regard.

There are those who are concerned that in future bilateral agreements will only be possible with states which have adopted or ratified the Hague Convention or which have in place standards equivalent to those laid down in that convention. Will there be any countries from which people will be able to adopt children in the future or will the system be so regulated that it will not facilitate those who want to adopt?

Some of those who have been waiting to adopt children from Vietnam have become extremely annoyed and we have all seen the e-mails, sent over a number of months, in which these people have lashed out in all directions, including at the Minister of State, which, I am sure, he did not deserve. An issue arises with regard to whether these people have been kept informed. Another aspect is that while we all like to deliver good news, we are often reluctant to deliver bad news. My heart goes out to couples who might have been involved in the adoption system for five years and who, prior to that, might have been trying to have babies, undergoing fertility tests and treatments, etc. Regardless of whether the news is good or bad, we should communicate with these people. Silent sympathy is not enough. We owe it to these couples to inform them of the situation, outline our concerns, indicate that we are working in the best interests of the children involved and try to bring them along with us. Some of the people to whom I refer are rather distraught. While a number of the e-mails may have gone over the top to some degree, one can understand from where their authors are coming on this matter.

The assessment process has been extraordinarily slow. In many instances, people have complained that they have been involved with this process for five years. As already indicated, these individuals may have previously tried to have babies, undergone fertility tests, etc. Those who have obtained declarations of suitability, immigration clearance certificates and so forth do not now know whether they will be able to proceed with adoptions. In such circumstances, one is prompted to wonder about the HSE's adoption process and the number of individual and group consultations that take place.

The highest number of complaints received relate to the wait in respect of the first assessment. In that context, one must wonder whether it is necessary for the HSE's adoption process to be so lengthy. Adopting a child, particularly one from outside the country, is a major step but one must ask whether it is necessary to oblige people to wait five years to adopt. It only takes nine months to have a baby. Is it right that people are being obliged to wait five years in order to adopt? These individuals are obliged to watch others who have not been suitably prepared bring children into the world. In many instances, the latter do not have a clue with regard to rearing children and their offspring probably have no hope from the outset.

As the Minister of State is aware, there is great unhappiness with the delays relating to the HSE's adoption process. The relevant transition measures, which will have to be specified prior to enactment, will be the foundation on which this legislation will stand. It is fine to introduce a document that outlines what will be best practice into the future. However, it is important that we assist those couples who have been involved with the process for a number of years to finalise their adoptions.

It is a case of where one draws the line. The Minister of State may say that those who have obtained the necessary documentation and who are within two or three months of adopting may proceed. However, it should be extended much more liberally than that. It is my opinion that those who have been involved with the process for many years should be encouraged to and assisted in completing that process before the new measures come into place. Often, it is waiting for the first assessment which seems to annoy people most of all. For me, the fundamental issue is that transitional measures should be very well thought out and planned and should cater for people in the process.

The question everybody is asking is where they stand. Perhaps they have spent three, four or five years on this, have received their declaration and are within two months of getting a referral, but are now wondering where they stand. It is the answers to these questions that people want. We have to be fairly liberal and bring these on board. The Minister of State quoted two recent reports but it is extraordinary that other countries, and I do not mean banana republic countries but countries such as France, Denmark, Canada and Italy, do not seem to have difficulties with their bilateral arrangements with Vietnam. One begins to wonder whether we are being a bit too careful. The US has withdrawn but I have been told that its system was a bit iffy. The French had a link with Vietnam in the 1950s and one would not normally associate the other countries I named as being loose and free with regulations. If they are happy with their bilateral agreements and their adoption procedures with those countries at present, why are we getting too fussy? Perhaps those are the wrong words.

We must consider the long-term future of the child, and consider the child being in an orphanage, community or wherever. Would it not be better in a loving home in Ireland? Often over the years I felt there was an attitude at a high level in the Department or in the HSE, long before the Minister of State or his officials were there, which was not exactly friendly to the adoption process. Some people see adoption as something that happened decades ago. Perhaps concerns were raised in a few cases, but there were also thousands of cases of babies being placed in loving homes here and elsewhere. I am not sure whether there is an anti-adoption bias somewhere at the high levels of the Department of Health and Children or in the HSE.

Our system with Vietnam was regarded as very good. Other countries have different cultures and values. We should not judge everything by our standards. If other western democracies are happy with the procedure and process, I do not know why we have been reluctant and allowed the bilateral arrangement with Vietnam to go into abeyance.

It is extraordinary how the issue raised over the HSE and assessment was allowed to happen. Professional groups such as social workers will always cry that they want more social workers. I wonder whether this is what it is really all about. Some of these professional groups, no matter how many positions one gives them, will drag out the work and create extra interviews and layers of bureaucracy to slow down the end product. There is huge unhappiness with what we have allowed to happen and some believe that it is contrary to the Hague Convention.

The convention has many very good aspects and lays down rules for a speedy and efficient assessment process. While we want to ratify the Hague Convention, some of the carry on at the HSE has not adhered to its best principles. The assessment process has been nothing short of a disgrace. Article 35 of the convention states: "The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall act expeditiously in the process of adoption." However, the Bill dilutes this aim and incorporates the phrase "as soon as practicable" in section 37. A constituent has suggested to me that this seems to impose a less onerous standard on the State or the HSE than is contained in the Hague Convention. If that is correct, it seems strange that, in introducing what we are stating is best practice, we are picking the bits that are best practice to suit ourselves and in our process, and where the HSE is making a mess of the assessments, we are watering down best practice as stated in the Hague Convention because it suits inefficiency in the HSE. I am told this by a constituent and if it is correct, then somebody has something to answer. We cannot be selective about implementing best practice; it is either best practice or it is not. Perhaps this runs into my feeling that a view is held in the HSE or the Department which is not friendly to adoption.

In an attempt to reduce waiting lists, the Government has agreed to introduce independent assessment agencies. That is fine, but we are also told that applicants will have to apply to the HSE in the first instance. However, the Bill suggests that after these independent assessment agencies have done their business, an applicant will have to return to the HSE. It seems to create another waiting list and gives the HSE a double monopoly on the process.

While the Bill is good and the Hague Convention is best practice, the fundamental matter is that of our transition arrangements and how we regard the loving couples here who have been in the system or process for a number of years. We cannot abandon them or let a couple of them in and then state after they have been on the waiting list for five years that new rules or regulations apply and that they must start again with another country, if there is another country.

We should examine our system. It is extraordinary that the UK still has children for adoption in its system. We will have to consider changing the Constitution to allow us have children for adoption. At present, we allow many children who are born into dysfunctional families or poverty to stay in that system forever. Many people in what I regard as the overall industry might care for dysfunctional children from the time they are babies until they end up in prison. Instead of having sticking plaster solutions, we would be far better off considering the ultimate solution and encouraging adoption. While it is not part of this Bill, I hope that sooner or later we have a constitutional amendment to allow more children to be adopted here at home. We would then have less need to go to other countries.

See this speech in context