James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael)

As my good friend, Deputy Creed, has said, they are very long in Cork but they are even longer in Dublin.

I regret that the Minister cannot be with us, although I know another report is being issued now. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, for being here and I know he has an interest in child welfare. It can take anything from three to four and a half years to gain a complete assessment and declaration, which is outrageous. There is absolutely no need for the process to take this long.

I remember dealing with this issue 15 years ago on the Eastern Health Board. We were promised more social workers and although some were appointed, it was nowhere near the necessary amount. Given that we have such a problem with social workers and their availability, why are we not allowed use private psychologists? There should be an approved list from the HSE of psychologists who can charge for the service. There is an issue of fairness and private versus public services but if people are prepared to pay for the service, it would at least shorten the time waiting for those who cannot pay and who are not on the list to be assessed. If we are not prepared to employ the social workers required to complete this work, we should be prepared to look at other alternatives. The safety of children is very important and we want assessments to be carried out by properly trained, independent, accredited individuals. This is possible if the procedure is properly regulated through the HSE. I am aware some people have managed to get their assessments done more quickly and I understand Church of Ireland assessments can be carried out within six months. Why is there such disparity and where are transparency and fairness to be seen? It is bad enough that prospective parents must wait from three to four and a half years to get their declaration, but they then have to go on a waiting list for inter-country adoptions, which can take from another three months to a year.

I know we can have difficulties and issues with foreign countries, but these issues are beyond our control. Surely to God, however, we can control what happens within our borders and show compassion to the 10% of couples who are infertile, but who are generous enough of spirit to want to adopt a child and bring him or her up as their own and to afford him or her the best opportunities in life. There is no doubt in my mind that the best place for a child to be brought up is in a family, except when unfortunate conditions interfere with the well-being of that family, as happens from time to time. The best place for a child to be reared is in a family home.

The Bill does not address the waiting time for adoption. In this regard, the wording of the Bill on processing adoptions has been changed from "expeditiously" to "as soon as is practicable". This seems a watering down of any sense of urgency. We must remember that people who put themselves forward as adoptive parents have already exhausted all the fertility options and have been through significant trauma. To put them through another three to five years of trauma waiting for an assessment seems grossly unfair and unnecessary. I accept the UN report published this week expresses some concerns about the procedures in some countries, but that should not stand in the way of us streamlining and improving the efficiency of our adoption system.

The Bill does not seem to address the area of sole applicants, an area that should be covered. There is an issue also with regard to the figures that have been provided. It seems that in the Dublin region alone no new inter-country adoption requests were reported from September 2008 to June 2009. Based on previous figures, we would have expected at least 80 first-time applicants per quarter, or from 220 to 240 applications over the period. What is the explanation for this? The lack of transparency in this regard undermines the bona fides of the Bill. I would like an explanation as to why no requests were reported and the Minister should ensure the House is given this explanation.

Another major issue is the lack of a grandfather clause that would allow applicants who have adopted from a country that is not signed up to the Hague Convention or a bilateral agreement to adopt again from the same country. This provision could include a time limit, but it should be included in the Bill. Otherwise, we could have a situation where a sibling of a child already adopted cannot be adopted. Surely it is always better to keep siblings together where possible. I urge the Minister to address this area.

A few weeks ago, Deputy Kenny raised the issue that the provisions of the Bill will mean that anyone with a declaration in hand and commencement for an adoption from a bilateral country or one that is not signed up to the Hague Convention may be disenfranchised, despite having been in the process for four or five years. This is grossly unfair. The Taoiseach indicated the Government would look at this and I hope the Minister will do more than that and address the anomaly. We need an interim measure period to apply so that those already in the process will not have to go through the whole process again.

We also need to address the matter of our interpretation of the Hague Convention. The interpretation in the Bill means we cannot adopt from countries that are not signed up to the Hague Convention. However, other member states of the European Union that are signed up to the convention still allow arrangements for inter-country adoption not party to the convention. Our interpretation is unfair to prospective adoptive parents here and to the children of those countries not party to the convention. It is unfair they cannot avail of our help or the opportunities adoption in this country would present for them. It is extraordinary that people who have gone through the assessment process - we have already outlined how hard, long and onerous that process is - must go through the assessment again if they wish to adopt a second child, although it does not take as long the second time. Unless there is some extraordinary concern, a second assessment should be an exception rather than the rule. I hope this issue will be addressed.

The bottom line is that we do not have enough social workers, do not avail of private psychologists and are ignoring the needs of our people who want to share their lives with children in need from other countries. While I fully accept the Minister's bona fides and his concerns around activity in some countries, this is no excuse for not addressing the issues that cause such hardship, stress and angst to our citizens.

See this speech in context