Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 14, to delete lines 8 and 9.

The purpose of this amendment is to remove references to adoption committees from the Bill. There are consequent amendments that apply essentially to Chapter 1 of Part 4, which deals with adoption committees formed by the HSE. The principal amendments of these propose to delete, in their entirety, sections 35 and 36, which deal with adoption committees.

Bearing in mind the Minister of State's opening comments, I appreciate he may find it somewhat irritating that we are revisiting territory that we dealt with on Committee Stage. We are revisiting it because we had a Committee Stage on which Members of the Opposition parties teased out what they saw as defects or problems in the legislation. Normally on Committee Stage, the Minister, if he has not reflected before that Stage on amendments proposed, has time to hear the reasoning for particular amendments from those who proposed them. He has time for reflection between Committee and Report Stages on whether he will take on board those amendments.

The reality is he has taken on board very little of what was said by Opposition Members, who are from the Government's perspective, not just on this Bill but on other pieces of legislation, regarded apparently as redundant as legislators. We fill a space and go through a process, but this is supposed to be a legislative process. This is not about catching out the Minister of State or trying to politically embarrass him; it is about making our contribution to improve legislation. The font of wisdom when it comes to legislation is not all vested on the Government side of the House or within individual Departments. If such wisdom existed that was so perfect in its understanding, much of the legislation this House enacts would never have to be enacted because it would have been thought of decades ago. We have an imperfect legislative process. All of us are imperfect in our judgments and we do our best. Not all the legislation that comes before us is necessarily in the best form.

We are revisiting this issue again today and it is time consuming. The Minister of State might find it frustrating, but it is a damn sight more frustrating from this side of the House because there is a terrible temptation for Opposition Members not to take the time it takes to sit down for the hours necessary to draft amendments of this nature for them simply to be dismissed by Government. I can recall at time in the House in the 1980s and 1990s, and indeed up to 2002, when amendments to legislation tabled from the Opposition side were taken very seriously. I made a substantial contribution to the framing of child care legislation from the Opposition side because amendments were taken on board, but we are in a different ball game now where Ministers defend and reject amendments for whatever reasons and, generally, amendments are not taken in the spirit they are intended.

I make no excuse for revisiting this issue in public because, although Committee Stage is in theory in public, no one in the media has the remotest interest in attending Committee Stages of Bills or reporting them and the public have no idea what is going on. Part of what we are doing in this Parliament is informing the public as to what is going on.

This legislation for the first time gives a statutory role to adoption committees run by the HSE. Such committees have been in place functioning on a non-statutory basis for some time. They function on the basis that a social worker carries out an assessment, prepares a draft assessment report and makes draft recommendations as to people's suitability or not to complete an intercountry adoption. The report and the recommendations then go to an adoption committee. Such committees have been formed piecemeal around the country, composed of whoever the local HSE managers think they should stick on them. Some of them have well qualified people and some of them have people who have no qualifications or reason to be involved in adoption committees in the first place. They sit in secret and they do not issue public reports.

I do not know, and I do not think the Minister does, how many instances there have been of an adoption committee rejecting a recommendation of suitability from a social worker or reversing a recommendation that someone is unsuitable because the professionalism rests in the social workers carrying out the assessments. I am, therefore, still mystified as to why these committees exist in the first place and, second, why we are now giving them a statutory role. Third, I do not understand why experienced social workers cannot be trusted to carry out assessment reports under the supervision of a senior social worker who manages that section of the HSE within local areas and then to submit their reports to the adoption authority, which can hold whatever hearings are necessary. I do not see the purpose of these adoption committees and, even more so, I do not believe they should be sitting in secret with persons appointed to them at the broad discretion of whoever it is within the HSE who happens to manage this issue in a local area. I do not understand this.

The committees produce no reports and, presumably, they are a cost to the HSE. I presume people are paid expenses for their time sitting on them - they are not all volunteers. Couples or individuals who have gone through the trauma of an adoption assessment process may then find themselves coming before a committee, which is a group of individuals who will either confirm the social work recommendation or second-guess it from a position of no expertise. Many prospective adopters find this uncomfortable. I have had reported to me one instance of someone on an adoption committee asking prospective adopters in whose favour a recommendation be made by a social worker whether they would have a dog in the house with the child they might adopt. They did not know whether the person asking the question was in favour of or against the dog, whether they were to get rid of the dog or what damn relevance the dog had in the first place.

I do not see the function of these committees and I am opposed to them. My amendments propose that we get rid of them. My view is that the structure we should have is that properly qualified, fully trained social workers carry out an assessment process and whatever information is required for adopters to understand what can be a difficult and complex process and the difficulties they may encounter in effecting an adoption abroad be made available to them in order that they are fully and properly processed. An assessment report should then be prepared in draft and given to the adopters for commentary to correct any factual inaccuracies, as happens in practice at the moment, and then, ultimately the recommendations should be made and the report furnished to the adoption authority. There is no reason for these committees and I am resolutely opposed to them. I will press this amendment in the context of what the Minister of State proposes.

The provision in the Bill regarding these committees is quite extraordinary. It allows the HSE to establish one or more of them. How many will we have? Will we have one representative of each of the 32 local health offices or will we have regional ones? Will we have one for Munster, Leinster, Ulster and Connacht? I do not know what we will have. How many will there be? Who within the HSE determines how many we have? Will Professor Drumm, the chief executive officer, make the decision or will it be made locally by child care managers? Who will decide how many we will have and what areas they will apply to? If the Minister of State is serious about this, these provisions should be in the Bill.

What qualifications will the people who are appointed have? The Bill states they must have "special knowledge and experience relating to the purpose of the committee"? What does that mean? They can be employees of the HSE and, therefore, we may have another group of social workers sitting on a committee, although I doubt that will be the case. Could it be the local guard, teacher or priest? If it is the local priest, what influence might he have over the others on the committee? If it is a person of experience, should one of the persons appointed be an adopter who has been through the process and who has an insight into, and understanding of, the worries and concerns of adopters?

There is no specification in this proposal. My principal amendment is to delete this provision from the Bill in its entirety. On the assumption that the Minister of State will stick to the approach he took on Committee Stage, I tabled further amendments. I do not see the purpose of the committees because they are being asked to second-guess what the adoption authority might decide. They are a HSE creation, which the Minister of State has put into the legislation and which has not been incorporated into previous Adoption Acts.

It is one of the few reforms in what is, essentially, a consolidating measure, outside dealing with the Hague Convention issues.

My second amendment states that, if we are stuck with these, the legislation should delineate how many people should be on a committee. At the moment one could have a committee of 500 if one really wanted to. Is there an option regarding the committees to be formed? Will a committee comprise three, five, seven, 10 or 25 people? That is not clarified. The amendment I propose is that subsection (4) be included in the Bill to read as follows: "The membership of an adoption committee shall not exceed 5 persons."

The amendment to subsection (5) proposes each adoption committee shall comprise at least one member who is a senior social worker, a child psychologist, a child psychiatrist and a person who has adopted a child at least three years before their appointment to an adoption committee. I do not believe that is an unreasonable proposal. If we are going to set up such committees, it should not necessarily be a committee comprising a few golfing friends of the local child care manager whom he or she believes are interested in adoption and should be put on the committee. This is not the right way to deal with the sensitive issue of adoption. It is completely unnecessary that these committees were brought into existence in the first place and it is entirely unnecessary that they are to be retained in this Bill. However, if they are to be retained, let us at least determine how many people should be on a committee and set out minimum qualifications. Let us at least ensure that one out of the five is someone with experience at first hand of adopting a child.

See this speech in context