Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)

This is a very important discussion on an issue which has, in many ways, been dogged by scandal because of practices followed in various countries. It is also an issue encompassing many conflicting rights. The discussion in an Irish context has been very much focused on the welfare and rights of prospective adoptive parents. I recognise those who find themselves in this situation often face a rigorous ordeal and endure stress in very emotive circumstances, jumping through bureaucratic hoops and expending vast quantities of money to fulfil their a desire to have a child they can call their own and for whom they can provide a suitable upbringing. This is a worthy objective and I understand absolutely matters from their viewpoint. In this sense, the frustration and lobbying are clear.

That said, there are other rights which must be given equal weight; in fact, I argue they are greater. They are the rights of the natural parents, in particular the mother, and those of the children at the centre of the debate. We must step back and look at the issue in this context. Looking at the countries from which children have been adopted in the past, almost all of them have been shut amid scandal.

The majority of the media have been negligent in reporting on these situations, looking at them solely from the point of view of the desperation of Irish parents who want to adopt, rather than at the other issues revealed. It is interesting that the media focused so much on the 19 or 20 couples who desperately wanted to adopt from Vietnam and the difficulties they faced but scandalously ignored the up to 55,000 adults adopted in Ireland, many of them illegally. They desperately need to access records, obtain information on their natural parents and move on with their lives in a comprehensive manner.

In a certain sense, there are double standards in this regard because in the past Ireland was a huge exporter of children, much to our shame. The hidden scandal behind these stories has not yet been touched on. We possess certain knowledge, but there needs to be a greater unearthing of information. Now, there is a similar situation in other countries where it has been revealed that, in many instances, people in poor and difficult socio-economic circumstances have been preyed upon.

In Ireland when we did not provide support for women to keep their children, there were record levels of adoptions. It was only when State subsistence payments for lone parents came into being that the numbers of adopted children fell. Ideally most women and parents want to rear the children to whom they give birth in a loving home, but many were denied this opportunity and had to turn to adoption. This is the choice being faced by many people in other countries, of which we must be extremely mindful, as well as of the rights of the children at the centre. We must be to the forefront in advancing scenarios where children can remain with their natural parents, of if they are to be adopted, in their own country. This is an important context in which to place the issue.

Vietnam is the country being discussed with regard to the rights of adoptive parents. However, we must ask why Barry Andrews decided not to renew the bilateral agreement with it in 2009. Despite acknowledging the difficulties for the parents involved, he was right to do this. Vietnam is continuously ranked as one of the most popular countries of origin for intercountry adoptions. At least 10,000 children have been adopted from there in the past decade. Prior to the bilateral agreement lapsing, Irish people had adopted more than 600 children from Vietnam between 2002 and 2008, three times the number adopted from Canada and significantly more than the number adopted from countries such as Sweden, Switzerland and Denmark. Russia was the only country from which Irish people had adopted more children during that period. This was against the backdrop of reports from UNICEF and the US State Department on cases which had been described as baby buying, baby farming, fraud, corruption and so-called humanitarian aid intervening to develop a market in babies. There were studies from the US State Department describing what was in place as a network of adoption agency representatives, orphanage directors, hospital administrators and police and government officials, all of whom had profited financially by coercing and defrauding the natural parents of children who had been paid for.

These were the serious scenarios behind the scenes and while it is the case that Vietnam has established a central adoption authority and is required to sign the Hague Convention on inter-country adoptions, which is welcome, given what we know from UNICEF about the adoption practices that continued in that country during the bilateral agreement phase, how certain can we be that adoption procedures there are now acceptable because what went on was far from acceptable? Will the Minister indicate if there will be monitoring of the position in Vietnam? This is crucial because previous reports cited concerns that there was virtually no active promotion of domestic adoptions to allow children to remain in their country of birth and outlined many other scenarios which are too upsetting to read.

In that context, we must address cases such as those that occurred in other countries. The Minister referred to Mexico. The total number of adoptions from Mexico by Irish people was 92, a substantial number of children. We are also aware that a Mexican lawyer by the name of Lopez is being sought by the police. It has been stated he has arranged 60 adoptions from Mexico for Irish couples, yet the Adoption Authority of Ireland is on record as stating all adoptions of Mexican children by Irish couples are safe. Both scenarios cannot be correct. How can the authority state they are safe if the Mexican authorities are seeking an individual whom it has been stated has arranged two thirds of the adoptions referred to? We must, therefore, do more in that regard. Mexico is not safe. We must, therefore, stand back from the process and the Minister should call the Adoption Authority of Ireland to account for the conflicting statements being made.

Ethiopia has also been in the spotlight. I would be reticent about dealing with that country. There are United States' reports on corruption, fraud and so on fuelling foreign adoptions. The numbers of children available for adoption from Ethiopia have greatly increased in the past ten years. In that context, we cannot be sure the practices being followed inside the country are safe because the reality is, as our own history demonstrates, that when supports are provided for parents, the numbers of children available for adoption fall. There are fewer children available for adoption from those countries covered by the Hague Convention. This causes problems for prospective adoptive parents but protects the rights of children which must be at the heart of the process.

The Minister has serious questions to ask of the Adoption Authority of Ireland about its role in some of these cases and its assessment of some of the criteria to be met. We must also be mindful of, not just acknowledge, our history and try to do much more for the 55,000 adults adopted here who have been let down by the systems in place.

See this speech in context