Dáil debates

Wednesday, 2 June 2010

Adoption Bill 2009 [Seanad]: Report Stage (Resumed)

 

6:00 pm

Photo of Barry AndrewsBarry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

The Deputy is absolutely correct. We want to introduce legislation to allow people to obtain the most information possible while respecting the limits set down by the Supreme Court in this area. I have met representatives of many groups, including the groups to which Deputy Burton referred. They are looking for very basic information. It does not even need to be identifying information. It is information such as the relationship the mother had with the father, how long the relationship continued and where he went. It is basic information that gives a family history to allow someone to flesh out some questions. It does not need to be identifying information. This kind of basic information is what is sought as a minimum. Very few people want to knock on the door of somebody who does not wish to be met. I have never really come across that inclination. I am determined to respect that in legislation. Work has been done on it before in respect of the 2003 Bill as far as I know.

The amendments before us at the moment relate to post-adoption services. Much later we are supposed to deal with the tracing elements, including amendment No. 77 and others. I want to address my comments to the amendments before us which relate to post-adoption services, which is quite different. Post-adoption services are listed in Article 8.9 of the Hague Convention as being one of the matters the central authority has a duty to provide for. Section 9 of the Bill confirms that the Hague Convention has the force of law in the State. The central authority, the adoption authority, will have the function to ensure the promotion of post-adoption services.

At the moment the HSE has a service level agreement with Barnardos on the provision of post-adoption services. As I said in Committee, the general services available to any child here are available to adopted people in the same way. Just as children with Asperger's syndrome or autism should not get ahead in the queue because of categorisation, in this case the access to services should be based on need. We could have another debate about availability of services for children who need speech and language therapies who have attachment difficulties and have all sorts of other problems. However, to favour one group over another would defeat the general principle that the best interest of the child should govern that issue.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.