Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)

The laws surrounding adoption, both domestic and intercountry, were for many years a tangled web. The Adoption Act 2009 rectified some of the issues at the heart of what was, legislatively speaking, a complex mess. Section 19 of that Act stated that in any matter, application or proceedings before the Adoption Authority or in any court, the welfare of the child must be regarded as the first and paramount consideration. This has the effect of placing the child at the centre of the adoption process, with the objective being to place him or her with a suitable family rather than providing a family with a child.

This sentiment was echoed in the agreed wording of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. We proposed that the child's best interests be the foremost consideration in all matters concerning their custody, guardianship and welfare, which would necessarily include adoption. Sinn Féin would like to have seen this proposed provision go further to ensure the best interests of children were the primary concern in all matters concerning them.

Section 9 of the Act gave effect to the State's participation in the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoptions. Some commentators argue that the convention is in need of reform. At its heart is the stipulation that all adoptions, regardless of their type, are recognised by the operation of the law in all states that are party to the convention. There are distinctions between differing types of adoption - whether they are "full" or "simple" and so on - that give rise to very technical legal distinctions regarding the rights of adoptive parents and biological parents.

Section 145 of the Act sets out the rules regulating the payments and donations permitted as part of the adoption process. Accredited bodies may accept what are described as "reasonable" costs and expenses related to their functions and reasonable fees for their professional services, while gifts of money may only be accepted with the express approval of the Adoption Authority. This provision is at the heart of many intercountry adoption processes. The Special Commission on the Hague Convention has on numerous occasions remarked that there must be transparency in regard to costs and payments made. This is especially important when we are dealing with countries in which the average wage is far below that in Ireland. Given that there is much room for exploitation, it is absolutely essential that all parties adhere to the letter of the Hague convention, including Article 4 which states that a child may only be adopted if he or she is adoptable. In other words, the adoption must be in the child's best interests and the necessary consents must have been obtained from the biological parent or parents.

We are all aware of the concerns regarding the adoption process in Vietnam. The Government must pay close attention to future agreements with other countries to prevent a situation similar to that which arose when our agreement with Vietnam collapsed, affecting 200 Irish couples who were in the process of adopting children there. I am sure the Minister and other Members were, like me, lobbied by couples in our respective constituencies who were greatly affected by that situation. Many hopes were dashed and great hurt and pain ensued.

While those still seeking to adopt will face significant delays under the revised agreement, these delays, though inconvenient, must be accepted given that the processes involved are in the best interests of the children concerned. I acknowledge and respect those who wish to give children a loving home in Ireland. That is highly commendable. However, we must also be sensitive to the factors that lead parents in less well-off countries to place their children for adoption. Moreover, we must also acknowledge that it may well be the case that adoption would not be in the best interests of particular children or the best option for their future.

One is reminded of the situation here where parents who find themselves without the financial means to raise their children may voluntarily place them in the care system in the hope of giving them what they view as a "better life." In such cases the State will provide a foster parent with a significant payment towards the cost of raising the child or children. Surely it would be better for the State to acknowledge that this may not be in the best interests of the child and that it would be better to introduce a social welfare structure which supports families and does not force them into such a situation. Perhaps we should ask ourselves whether international aid has a role to play here. I suspect that many parents in developing countries who place their children for adoption would not do so had they the financial means to raise their families themselves. I do not share the view that a Western home is automatically and inherently better for the child in an intercountry adoption. I suspect that is far from universally the case.

This brings me to the shady motivation - there is no other way to describe them - behind some adoption organisations overseas. Time and again we have seen how, in the wake of natural disasters or in conflict zones - Haiti comes to mind in this regard - baby businesses masquerading as adoption organisations will swoop in and say, "Let us take these children to be adopted and give them a better home." Surely it would be better for the children to remain with their parents and for the international community to help in rebuilding their societies.

These are highly emotive, sensitive and sometimes controversial issues. Even the most basic understanding of globalisation and debt demonstrates that extreme poverty in some countries is what facilitates and allows the unbridled wealth of others to accumulate. We as legislators have a responsibility to be cognisant of all of these factors when examining this area.

This State ceased adopting from Vietnam in 2009 after choosing, as the United States had done the previous year, not to renew its bilateral agreement, following the discovery of cases of baby farming and baby trafficking. I hope the Government will keep a close eye on these matters to ensure, first and foremost, that the rights of children are upheld and that we are sensitive to the experiences of those who are or were unwittingly duped into participating in the commodification of non-Western children. For many years, poor children in Ireland were taken from their parents because others felt they "knew best" and that there was a better class of parent elsewhere. There was a stratum of overseers in Irish society which held that view. It is not a mind set that should be applied or transferred from our past experience to any other jurisdiction today.

Further to this, I am mindful of the advice provided by the Ombudsman for Children, Ms Emily Logan, on the Adoption Act 2009. I urge the Minister to take on board and implement her outstanding recommendations, especially that consideration be given to requiring that bilateral agreements with states not party to the Hague Convention be reviewed periodically. I am disappointed the State did not see fit to see to address the adoption rights of same-sex couples in the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2011. It is an outstanding issue that has been raised time and again. I can only describe this as a deliberate omission, which is a source of much sadness and disappointment for many gay and lesbian couples. People who wish to provide loving homes for children should not be barred from doing so because of their gender or sexuality. In 2012, I would have expected the Government to have seen fit to address this issue.

I again congratulate the Minister on her efforts in resolving the Vietnamese agreement. I urge her to continue to ensure that children are front and centre in all these issues and I wish her every success in her continued efforts in this regard. The interests of the child must be at the heart of all decisions made, not alone here but globally.

See this speech in context