Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 1 is in the name of Deputy Jan O'Sullivan and it arises out of Committee proceedings.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 13, line 14, to delete "SIGNED" and substitute "DONE".

This amendment proposes using the word, "done" instead of "signed". We have debated this point on Committee Stage. The convention uses the term, "Done at The Hague" on page 116 of the Bill. I reiterate that the convention is done and is then open for signature and it can be signed by any state at any time. Strictly speaking, it is not accurate to state that the convention was signed on 29 May 1993. The point is it is open for signature then but it is not signed at that point.

The Minister said that the common practice is to use the term, "signed" rather than "done" but my eminent legal adviser tells me that the term, "done at" is used in, among other legislation, the Aviation (Preclearance) Act 2008, the Harbours (Amendment) Act 2009, the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009 and the Criminal Justice (Mutual Assistance) Act 2008, the Chemicals Act 2008.

This is not the most important amendment on this Stage considering the scope of the Bill but at the same time it is important to be accurate. I invite the Minister of State to reply.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As Deputy O'Sullivan says it has been raised in the Seanad and on Committee Stage. I am aware of the eminence of her legal adviser, however, my legal adviser is not short of eminence either. The Attorney General has said it is the practice in Irish parliamentary drafting to use the word, "signed" rather than "done". I am afraid I will not accept the amendment.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not delay the House any further. I have read a list of legislation in which the practice is not to use the word, "signed" but to use the word "done". There is no point in pushing the amendment but at the same time it seems to me more appropriate to use the word, "done". I think I have argued the case well, in so far as the word, "done" is the one that is used in the Bill on page 116, relating to the Hague Convention. I will not press the amendment.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 2 is in the name of Deputy Alan Shatter and arises out of Committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 9, 18, 32, 33, 75 and 76, are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 13, after line 37, to insert the following:

"(3) Nothing contained in this Act shall prevent any person or married couple who applied to the HSE to be assessed for an intercountry adoption prior to the 1st January 2009 and subsequently obtain a declaration of suitability to adopt from effecting such adoption and having such adoption recognised under the law applicable prior to the coming into operation of this Act.".

I will make reference to the amendments I am proposing in this regard. I am proposing that in page 13, after line 37, to insert the following new subsection (3) "Nothing contained in this Act shall prevent any person or married couple who applied to the HSE to be assessed for an intercountry adoption prior to 1 January 2009 and subsequently obtain a declaration of suitability to adopt from effecting such adoption and having such adoption recognised under the law applicable prior to the coming into operation of this Act."

My other amendment arises later on in the legislation, on page 25 of the Bill. I propose that the following additional subsection should be included and I quote:

A person or couple who prior to the commencement of this Part, completed an inter-country adoption effected outside the State may not, notwithstanding this Act, effect another such adoption within five years of the former adoption from the same state, having first obtained a declaration of suitability in accordance with this Act, and such adoption may be recognised as if effected under the law applicable prior to the coming into operation of this Act.

We are all aware that a substantial number of people are currently in the process of being assessed as to their suitability for adoption, primarily by the HSE, although other adoption agencies could carry out such assessments. We know that the time-frame for carrying out assessments varies throughout the country. In the context of a couple or an individual who wishes to adopt outside this State by seeking an inter-country adoption, if they live in Dublin, for example, and if they have applied to the HSE to be assessed, the current likelihood is that it will take between three to four years before they complete the process and the matter comes before the Adoption Board. The Minister is on record as saying - I think he agrees with me - something that I have been saying for over a decade, that the length of time it takes for assessments to be completed is entirely unacceptable.

In other parts of the country where the social work services are under less pressure, or where local health officers may work more efficiently in some places than in others, an applicant may find that their assessment for an inter-country adoption will be completed within about 18 months. That is a reasonable period to go through an assessment process whereby a person is first required to attend some initiating courses so they fully understand the complexities of what is involved in inter-country adoptions. An assessment is then carried out as to their suitability.

There must be some reasonable time-frame to facilitate the relevant agencies, be it the HSE or an adoption society, in carrying out the assessment process. There must also be time for people to reflect and, in addition, one must have regard to the fact that the HSE has other functions concerning children. I think 18 months is the maximum reasonable period that people should have to wait to have an assessment completed and a report furnished to the Adoption Board after they have applied to the HSE to be assessed.

This proposal is to address the concerns that many prospective adopters have, who are currently caught in the system. While the Minister of State might know, I do not have the exact numbers of those currently awaiting the completion of an assessment by the HSE. I would expect there are many hundreds of couples and individuals across the country who are in that position. They started the process on the understanding that if they complete it successfully and get a declaration of suitability, the rules that would apply to the recognition of any adoption effected by them in a foreign state would be the law as contained in the Adoption Act 1991 and some subsequent amendments made to that Act. That was, and has been since 1991, the bedrock legal foundation for the recognition in this State of inter-country adoptions and for the registration by our Adoption Board of such adoptions once they have been effected in a manner that facilitates their recognition under that Act.

It is bad law to enact legislation that changes people's legitimate expectations and undermines their understanding of the end-game in the journey they started. In the context of children, I personally do not like the use of the term "end-game", which I have just employed. What I really mean is that a couple may have commenced the process in 2007 or 2008, for example, and made application to the HSE to be assessed. They then went through the course that was required by the HSE, and it was explained to them what the law was with regard to the recognition of foreign adoptions in this State. They may currently be awaiting the completion of that assessment and if there is a declaration of suitability from the Adoption Board, I think it is reasonable that when they seek to effect an inter-country adoption, they should not find that the legal provisions applicable to the recognition of that have changed in mid-stream.

This proposal is designed to ensure that continuity is maintained with regard to those who commenced that process prior to the publication of this Bill. We know that there is a substantial number of people who have made representations to Members of this House and who are currently caught in the circumstances I have described. They are greatly concerned as to the difficulties that might arise with regard to their completing an adoption following the enactment of this Bill, if their declaration of suitability is not obtained before the Bill comes into force. That is the crucial date. This amendment is designed to resolve that difficulty.

The Minister of State has prescribed special arrangements or rules for those who, at the time the Bill has commenced, already have their declaration of suitability. It will be extraordinarily arbitrary as to which set of rules applies to such people, however. When we embarked on the journey of debating this Bill, I think the Minister could have expected that we would have completed the legislative process more quickly than we have done. It is not unreasonable that it has taken an amount of time to give an opportunity to Opposition Members and those outside the House to consider the Bill's provisions, make representations, have hearings at the Committee on Health and Children, and reflect on changes that need to be made.

Some changes have been made to the Bill as it has gone through that process. It is arbitrary, however, in the sense that this process could be completed today, although that is unlikely. It could be that Report Stage will be continued next week or the week after. Nevertheless, by the time this Bill commences, a number of couples who commenced the process of seeking to be assessed in 2007 or 2008, for example, will - depending on where they reside - have declarations of suitability, while others will not. Those who do have declarations of suitability will be in a different legal position with regard to the recognition of their inter-country adoption than those who do not yet have such declarations.

A couple in Waterford or Cork may have applied to the HSE on 1 June 2008, and by the time this Bill is enacted they will have declarations of suitability. Meanwhile, other couples who applied to the HSE in Dublin on the same date, will not be remotely near completing the process of having a report submitted to the Adoption Board. That is arbitrary, unfair and could give rise to constitutional difficulties. It puts couples - all of whom started from the same perspective, and were given the same legal advice with regard to how they can effect an inter-country adoption that will be recognised in this State - in entirely different positions based on the arbitrary nature of what date we complete the passage of the Bill, when the Minister makes the necessary commencement order, and the luck of where they started the process.

It will also create difficulties for the Adoption Board. I know we addressed this issue on Committee Stage but this is the first occasion on which we have been able to deal with it in detail in this House. The Adoption Board will be put in the unenviable position, after the Bill has been enacted by this House, where there will be a brief period during which it may make some further declarations of suitability to adopt abroad in respect of couples, prior to the Bill's commencement. Pressure will be put and great anxiety will be caused to prospective adopters and pressure will be put on individual Health Service Executive social workers, and the adoption committees that we will discuss later, to first, submit reports to the Adoption Board, make recommendations as to suitability and to get those recommendations and reports in to the Adoption Board with speed immediately this Bill is passed. There will then be pressure on the Adoption Board by individuals who know appropriate recommendations have been made to the board to hold hearings to make declarations.

I do not believe that is an appropriate process. In circumstances where the recommendation from the Health Service Executive is that a couple or an individual is suitable to adopt, the Adoption Board may be able with some speed to hold a hearing and issue a declaration of suitability but there have been a small number of couples or individuals in respect of whom the Health Service Executive has recommended against making declarations of suitability in their favour and which have resulted in hearings in the Adoption Board of some difficulty involving social workers and adopters and they may not be able to be held with speed. One may have a situation where simply depending on the nature of the recommendation made, one falls within the old law as it applies under the 1991 Act or the new law with regard to how one can go about effecting an adoption abroad that is recognised and the Adoption Board registers.

Essentially, the first amendment that I read into the record is about trying to escape from that trap and that difficulty. It is about setting out a circumstance which is clear, does not result in undue pressure being put on the Adoption Board or the new adoption authority to make declarations, allows for the completion of the process of assessment within the timescale required, albeit as I say in some parts of the country the timescales are unreasonable, without the date of commencement of the Bill being a crucial date in determining whether foreign adoption will be recognised based on the criteria set down in the 1991 Act or the criteria set down in this Act.

The second amendment I have tabled is to address an issue in respect of which we have also received representations. A number of couples have adopted in various countries across the world, having been properly assessed as suitable and had their first adoptions recognised, and they wish to adopt again in the same country so that they will have a brother or sister for their already adopted child of a similar background to the first child they adopted. They have concerns that provisions in this Bill would act as an obstacle to their doing that. The aim of the second amendment I have tabled is to remove that obstacle and to try and ensure that occurs, but not in the context of the removal of acceptable standards to ensure that where there is such a second adoption the very strict criteria applied in existing law continues to apply to the recognition of that adoption and also without ensuring that they first obtain under the provisions of this legislation a declaration of suitability, which is very important.

Although it is difficult to anticipate that there would be many cases where a couple or individual who has successfully previously got a declaration of suitability and adopted a child would at a later stage be deemed unsuitable to adopt a second child, of course circumstances could arise if it turned out that they did not properly care for the first child they adopted, so no one can assume that because one received one declaration of suitability that one would automatically get a second declaration. Central to the way we deal with adoption must be the protection of the welfare of the child. It is of course appropriate that there would be a further assessment, albeit the second assessment for a couple who has gone through an inter-country adoption should not require that they repeat all of the steps that they have previously been required to undertake for the first assessment to the extent of going back to do courses prescribed by the Health Service Executive to explain to them the complexities of inter-country adoption.

One of the concerns I have in the context of couples and individuals who have successfully been deemed suitable to adopt, effected a foreign adoption and when they want a second adoption that on occasion it seems to me that the Health Service Executive treats them as if they never adopted previously, as if the whole thing is an entirely new experience for them. There is a need to get a handle on what is happening in that context. I am aware that when couples seek to effect a second adoption they are put at the back of the queue and very little real regard is had to the fact that perhaps a year or 18 months earlier they successfully adopted, having got a declaration of suitability and that much of the process that should apply to the initial assessment has ceased to be relevant to the second assessment.

What should be primarily relevant to the second assessment is events that have occurred since the first adoption and obviously an assessment of how well the child in their care from the first adoption is doing, whether they are appropriate people who can cope with a second adoption and if it would be in the best interests of a child - that is the crucial issue - and that a second child would be placed in their care for adoption purposes and whose adoption we should recognise. They should be the central issues in a second adoption. A second adoption should not require attending at courses and repeating much of what was already undertaken first time around.

The second proposed amendment is to deal with that issue. We received representations on it from people who adopted in a variety of countries - some of the countries that come to mind are Ethiopia, Vietnam, Mexico and Russia. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, will report to us on the matter, as it was his view in regard to Mexico that the legislation presents no difficulty to people effecting a second adoption in Mexico. As we were completing Committee Stage the Minister of State told those of us who attended the Select Committee on Health and Children that he was meeting with parents who had adopted in Mexico to explain the situation to them because to fairly present what he had to say, he thought they were unduly concerned and that there was not a real problem in that area. Perhaps when replying the Minister of State will explain to us the outcome of that meeting and whether he did so satisfy them and his view as to the necessity or otherwise of this amendment.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Four of the grouped amendments are in my name, namely, amendments Nos. 9, 18, 33 and 76. Essentially, all of the amendments are about people who are caught in the transition from the old regime to the new regime. They present real, human problems for the prospective adoptive parents concerned and indeed the prospective children who may be adopted in the process. Of course the welfare of the child is paramount in all of this, but a number of situations arise in the amendments. I acknowledge the fact that the Minister of State in amendment No. 75 has addressed some of the concerns by identifying the date of declaration as the date from which a person can adopt under the old system, but there are many other issues, some of which have been raised by Deputy Shatter.

He particularly makes the point that people's applications are dealt with unevenly across different parts of the country. If I have applied for adoption in my part of the country I may well be at declaration stage now, whereas Deputy Shatter, Deputy Ó Caoláin or the Minister, who may have applied in another part of the country, might not yet be at the declaration stage. It is clear that it is uneven.

I have a number of other concerns about the transition period, some of which I am trying to address in amendment No. 18. Deputy Shatter mentioned that some parents who have adopted in Mexico have met the Minister of State. I understand the parents have a couple of outstanding issues in that regard. I wish to raise some of their questions with the Minister of State. Their main contention is that Mexico has signed the convention, but has a different system. It does not use a central applications system. The parents feel that difficulties are arising because we are asking the Mexican authorities to comply with the manner in which Ireland has interpreted the convention, rather than allowing them to interpret it in their own way.

I would like to ask the Minister of State a specific question, which applies in general. It has been put to me by the parents' group. The Adoption Board informed the group that the adoption declarations currently covered by the transitional arrangements may fall under the Bill when they are due for renewal. This is contrary to the belief held by the wider adoption community. I ask the Minister of State to clarify whether the arrangements will fall when their date of renewal comes up. That is a specific question.

I would also like to ask specifically about the 20 applications that were being processed in Vietnam when this issue arose. I understand the Minister of State had discussions on this matter when he went to Vietnam. There was a suggestion that the Vietnamese authorities, as a gesture of goodwill, would agree to process the 20 cases. It seems that the board and the Minister of State are satisfied that there are no legal impediments to allowing these adoptions to proceed. I would like an update on these specific cases because there seems to be some doubt about them.

Amendment No. 33, in my name, and amendment No. 32, in Deputy Shatter's name, address the so-called grandfather clause. Having listened to the Minister of State, I changed the relevant period of time from ten years, as proposed in my original amendment, to five years. Those affected by this measure have already gone through the process and were deemed suitable the first time round. There is a genuine case to be considered when a family that has already adopted a child wishes to provide a home to another child from a similar cultural background. I ask the Minister of State to consider that.

I do not want to labour all the points I am making. They relate to people who entered the process in good faith, under the regime that applied at the time, but are now caught up in this transitional period. We need to show compassion for and understanding of these families, with the proviso that the best interests of the child are always paramount. I do not suggest that anything unsafe should be done in regard to these children. While I welcome the amendment the Minister of State has tabled, I ask him to consider the points being made from the Opposition benches in response to the real human situations in which families find themselves.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support amendment No. 2, in the name of Deputy Shatter. There is a clear need not to place prospective adoptive parents in a limbo situation, or worse, as a result of this Bill. In other words, we should not prevent them from proceeding with valid adoptions that are already partly in train. This is a long and drawn-out process for prospective adoptive parents. It is right that many safeguards have to be put in place. The rights and safety of the child must be paramount in all considerations. That is why I repeat that I welcome this legislation. The State's ratification of, and full compliance with, the Hague Convention must also be welcomed. It has to be recognised that there is a transition from the current legislative and regulatory regime to the new regime envisaged under this Bill. Deputy Shatter's amendment is not only reasonable, it is essential in the circumstances. It seeks to allow people who applied to be assessed prior to 1 January 2009 - the year in which this Bill was published - to obtain a declaration of suitability to adopt under the law as it was prior to the enactment of this Bill.

As I said on Second Stage, many of the principal concerns about this Bill relate to the period of transition from the old system to the new system under this legislation. There is a legitimate concern about what will happen to applicants who are already in the system. I have made personal representations on behalf of a small number of applicants, from my own constituency and elsewhere, who have contacted my office. They are concerned about whether they will be allowed to complete their adoptions under the old system, as new applicants commence under the new dispensation. I ask the Minister of State to provide full clarification so that everybody fully understands exactly what is intended in that regard.

Some prospective adoptive parents have made representations to me. I would like to refer to an e-mail I received from one such couple. They told me they believe the Minister of State has stated previously that he will consider providing for a three-month period after the enactment of this legislation in which prospective adoptive parents who receive declarations can continue to adopt from non-Hague countries. I ask the Minister of State to clarify that for us. If it is the case that the Hague Convention provides for a three-month settling-in period before adoptions can commence, would it not make sense for people to be allowed to continue to operate under the old regime throughout such a period? When I examined the various amendments in preparation for today's Report Stage debate, I could not find any tabled by the Minister of State that would give effect to the couple's understanding of the suggestion - if not commitment - which was considered by the Minister of State some time ago. I ask him to provide the clarification I seek.

This Bill is very welcome. There is no question that the regime we hope to introduce should be in place. However, it would be wrong to detract in any way from the good that will be achieved. We have to ensure that prospective adoptive parents, who are processing their respective applications and seeking declarations of suitability, etc., in the hope or expectation of the successful adoption of a child from a non-Hague country, are fully catered for. The measures outlined in this amendment, which I strongly urge the Minister of State to accept, would achieve that.

I join in the appeal of my colleagues in strongly urging the Minister of State to accept this amendment.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have spent 40 minutes on this first grouping of amendments. I know amendment No. 2 is important and central to the legislation but considering there are almost 30 groupings and extrapolating from the time already spent-----

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are seven amendments in this first group.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are 30 amendment groupings and over 70 amendments. The danger is that we will be here for a terribly long time. Members will probably speak for even longer now that I have mentioned this. In the real world, if we are going to absorb so much of the time available to me in the Dáil as the Minister of State with special responsibility for children and youth affairs, the danger will be that the other issues that the Members opposite are rightly frustrated about and the legislation I am meant to produce will be pushed back bit by bit.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister of State suggesting we should not contribute at all?

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have taken 40 minutes on a matter which we dealt with fully on all Stages in the Seanad and on Second and Committee Stages in the Dáil. If Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin were honest with himself, he would see there has been a considerable amount of repetition this morning. I accept some new points have been raised which I will address. However, there have already been long discussions on the issues addressed by these amendments for which there will be inevitable consequences.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In fairness to Members there is no time limit on their first contribution on Report Stage. I accept there has been some repetition and we all ought to expedite this legislation as quickly as we can.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am entitled to make a point.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, the Minister of State is entitled to make his point. However, in fairness to Members there is no limit on their contributions.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the Order of Business this morning Members were genuinely frustrated about important developments in child protection law and legislation associated with the referendum on children's rights. I share this frustration and that is why I made this point about time.

The first principle of the legislation is to move to a regime governed by the Hague Convention, namely, that Ireland would adopt from countries with which it has a bilateral agreement or are compliant with the convention. This is because we wish to ensure the best interests of children are at the centre and are given paramount consideration in the adoption process. The Hague Convention sets down a series of standards and criteria to which compliant countries must adhere.

However, I acknowledge significant delays have occurred in the completion of assessments from the Health Service Executive, HSE, and declarations from the Adoption Board. This matter has been raised on all Stages in both the Seanad and Dáil.

In response to this, after discussions with the Adoption Board and the Hague Convention, I have tabled an amendment that will allow any individual with a declaration at the establishment day of this legislation to proceed to completion, even if the application is with a non-Hague Convention or non-bilateral country. I have compromised to that extent from which quite a number of people will benefit.

I accept some will be disappointed because they will have not reached a declaration. However, the policy, as set out in the Hague Convention, is clear in this respect. Although Ireland signed the convention, it has not yet ratified it. The legislation to transpose the convention has been around for 13 years. There can be no doubt of the legislative direction. I accept Deputy Jan O'Sullivan's point that it would be inhumane to ignore the fact that so many have had to ensure an unfairly prolonged application process. In consultation with the Hague Convention, we have introduced this amendment to take cognisance of this.

On specific country issues, I met with the Mexican groups on foot of representations from Deputies. It occurred to me at that meeting that every sending country has a different adoption system and mechanism. Mexico is Hague-compliant but the unusual part of its process is that the referral occurs before the birth of the child. On paper it would be in breach of the Hague Convention's principle of subsidiarity. I am satisfied that the court process that follows thereafter provides for the protection of the best interests of the child. I have met individuals who have been disappointed in this process when the natural mother has changed her mind following the birth of her child. All the disappointment associated with that underlies the robustness of this, with which the Adoption Board does not see a difficulty. Inevitably, for any application to be entered into the register of foreign adoptions, the board would have to assess each application on its merits.

Regarding the 20 applicants for Vietnam, this was a gesture by the Vietnamese authorities on the basis that we were proceeding to a bilateral agreement with them. Events, however, interceded last summer with various international reports which caused us to postpone that bilateral relationship until such time as both countries are Hague-compliant. Nevertheless, in attempting to proceed with the 20 applications, we wrote to the Vietnamese authorities to seek their views on whether they would be inclined to continue to accept these applications. We have also prepared a mechanism that would allow these applications to continue. This has been submitted to the Attorney General. I accept this process is frustrating for the couples involved, many of whom I have met regularly. However, this remains the position that we still intend to complete.

My amendment to section 63 will address the issue of grandfather clauses. It effectively will be a suspension of the first principle of the legislation for a prolonged period. The transitional arrangement my amendment will introduce will delay the application of the legislation for a bit longer while Deputy Jan O'Sullivan proposed five years. I believe we have struck the right balance between the anxiety and difficulty for prospective adoptive parents and the first principle of the legislation to ensure all adoptions are Hague-compliant or are governed by a bilateral agreement.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State has not addressed the problem and his amendment is more technical than substantive. I understood on Committee Stage we were at a point where it was agreed that where there were declarations of suitability in place, a foreign adoption would be recognised in the circumstances in which we currently recognise foreign adoptions under the 1991 Act. He has not addressed the arbitrariness of this as a transitional measure in the context of the unsatisfactory nature of the assessment process, the different timeframes that are there. He has not addressed the issue that I raised, frankly. In the circumstances, it would be my intention to press this amendment.

Will the Minister of State clarify whether Vietnam has agreed to facilitate the processing to conclusion of adoptions for the 20 couples who already had their declarations of suitability and were in the adoption process? The Minister of State remarked euphemistically that a mechanism has been found which the Attorney General is looking at to facilitate this process. Can the Minister of State tell the House what that mechanism is? That is not an unreasonable request.

The Minister of State referred to his amendment as resolving the problem of what has been referred to in brief as the grandfather clause but it does not resolve that difficulty at all because there are people who may have completed adoptions in foreign countries at the moment who do not yet have a declaration of suitability and will not have one when this Bill commences. Unfortunately, the Minister of State's amendment does not address their concerns.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand I have only two minutes to speak so I will not repeat what has been said. The Minister of State has heard my views on these issues so I will seek clarification on the Vietnamese situation rather than repeat the questions put by Deputy Shatter. What sort of timeframe does the Minister of State expect during which the Attorney General will consider the mechanism? Are the Vietnamese authorities aware of the proposals coming from our side? Is there likely to be a fairly quick decision in respect of this matter?

I refer to the question of declarations covered by the transitional arrangements which may possibly fall when they are due for renewal. I am unsure whether the Minister of State can clarify this on the floor of the House but, if not, perhaps he could clarify it at a later stage. The group specifically stated:

The Adoption Board also informed the IMSG, the Irish-Mexican Group, that adoption declarations currently covered by the transitional arrangements may fall under the new Adoption Bill when they are due for renewal. This is contrary to the belief held by the wider adoption community that current declarations will be covered by the transitional arrangements even after they have been renewed.

The Minister of State may be unable to clarify the matter now but I would welcome if he could clarify it at some stage. Since we will vote on Deputy Shatter's amendment first, I maintain it is very reasonable and I urge the Minister of State to accept it and to accept the points we are making under this amendment grouping.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I refer to the Vietnam issue. I have no wish to go into specifics and I have stated as much to representatives of the group. I have sought the view of the Attorney General and his office. We have been through this for so long and we have built up people's expectations. I have sought the advice of the Attorney General in a letter sent some ten days or two weeks ago. The matter involves the Department of Foreign Affairs and my office. A great deal of thought has gone into the matter with advice from the Adoption Board and the Hague Convention to try to effect a satisfactory situation. We are on notice of inadequacies in the Vietnamese adoptions processes. We have tried to effect even greater safeguards in terms of obtaining consents and in respect of financial contributions. These issues have been raised legitimately by international child protection experts in respect of Vietnam. Vietnam co-operated fully with the inquiries made by UNICEF and ISS, International Social Services, on its behalf an accepted those findings. This is what we are at. The gesture was made on the understanding that we were proceeding to a bilateral agreement and in the absence of that agreement the difficulty arose.

Deputy Jan O'Sullivan raised the issue of declarations and whether they would continue. Under section 41, these declarations will run from the establishment day, that is, up to two years and up to a further 12 months at the discretion of the authority. My information is that there is no change to this and that the concerns expressed are unfounded. I do not accept the proposed amendments. I believe we have struck the right balance in terms of the concerns genuinely expressed by prospective adoptive parents in respect of the length of time associated with the application process, in trying to ensure we have a robust system and the least possible dilution of the original intention of the Bill.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not happy. In the transitional period there will be individuals who are unfairly caught up in a change of law that they could not possibly have envisaged and whose assessment and application for the declaration of suitability has been unduly delayed by a grossly inefficient system, in which there is no uniformity of approach throughout the country and no timelines for anything to be completed by the HSE.

Anyone who goes through the adoption process finds it very stressful. They find the assessment procedure stressful as well. Even if such people believe things are going well, they find it stressful awaiting the report and not knowing what the recommendation necessarily will be. It is unfair to them to add an extra layer of stress. If people are assessed and deemed suitable by the Adoption Board and if we properly apply the provisions of the 1991 Act, as amended, there is no reason why they should not be allowed to complete adoptions abroad which we recognise. The specifications in respect of that legislation ensure particular standards are maintained.

The problem with regard to Vietnam was the bilateral agreement with a monitoring committee that failed to monitor and report. The Government went asleep on it for five years and did nothing and then it suddenly discovered from international reports that there could be a problem. That is the reality of what has happened there. The Government has gone down the road of negotiating-----

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Shatter is aware that we made many visits to Vietnam and monitored the situation very closely. It is completely inaccurate represent that on the floor of the House.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is absolutely accurate because the bilateral agreement in respect of Vietnam made express provision for the monitoring group. When I sought inquiries as to what reports it had published, none were published. When I sought to obtain information as to what internal documentation was available, none was furnished.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As much monitoring was done as could be expected of a domestic Government.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State and his Department were going down the road of negotiating a bilateral agreement with Vietnam when they pulled out of it. That happened because it started the negotiations too late and then it pulled out because of international draft reports that came to the attention of the Minister of State. There is no point in travelling that route other than to state that people were caught in difficulties because of what was, frankly, a failure of this State - not only of Vietnam with regard to standards - to monitoring the working of the bilateral agreement. The issue of finance derived directly from the bilateral agreement which, wrongly, made arrangements to ensure particular payments were made which were not supposed to be linked to adoption but which, inevitably, would get caught up in it.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is why we are bringing forward this Bill and the sooner we get the Bill completed, the sooner we will have the standards to which the Deputy has referred.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In fairness, I did not interrupt the Minister of State. That was why difficulties arose with regard to Vietnam which could have been pre-empted at an earlier stage. The original bilateral agreement should never have contained provision for the making of financial payments for any purposes in Vietnam which could be linked to anything remotely connected to adoption. That was a failure of Government and a failure of judgment by the relevant Minister of State. It was not the current Minister of State, to be fair to him. It was a failure of judgment by his predecessor and the senior Minister in that Department at the time when the bilateral arrangement was concluded.

I refer to the 20 individuals. I am very conscious that hope has been held out to them that, at least they would be able to complete their adoptions. This has been going on for one year. In fairness to them it is important that finality is brought to the matter. I wish the Minister of State well in this regard and I hope he is successful in finding a mechanism that facilitates their completing the adoptions in circumstances in which we can be satisfied that the adoptions are sound and the factors and standards that must be adhered to are adhered to. It is extraordinary how long this process is taking. I ask the Minister of State to inform Members of the House, or at least the party spokespeople, in four weeks' time as to where matters stand between him and the Attorney General. The House will go into recess shortly and if there has been no developments by then, those individuals will be in contact with Deputies wanting to know what has happened.

At times during this process, there has been undue secrecy as to what is going on. People have been told not to talk about it in public or not to rock the boat. They are not sure whether progress of any description is being made. It is new information to me today that the Minister of State, within the last two weeks, has written to the Attorney General. I hope that produces a fruitful outcome.

It is of huge importance to this State that we are parties to the Hague Convention, that we apply it as soon as we can and that we apply proper standards to ensure the best interest of every child is protected in the adoption process. Our original legislation sought to ensure that the standards we apply domestically in adoption were applied in foreign states to those adoptions we were going to recognise. I do not see a difficulty in allowing for a transitional provision, such as the one I propose in amendment No. 2. We must recognise the human circumstances, difficulties and concerns of those who are trying to process their suitability applications to a conclusion.

The cut-off the Minister of State is proposing is arbitrary. If the social worker who is assessing one is on maternity leave or takes ill, one might not get one's declaration of suitability. People's destinies and hopes to have a family cannot be dependent on events as arbitrary as this. My amendment avoids that type of situation being a problem, as well as the circumstances surrounding what seem to be structural delays within the HSE in processing applications in different parts of the country. I am pressing the amendment.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 56 to 58, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 57 is related and alternative to amendment No. 56. Amendment No. 59 is related and alternative to amendment No. 58. Amendments Nos. 3 and 57 to 59, inclusive, are to be discussed together.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 57 is in my name and I wish to address the issues involved. It seeks to insert "or to an accredited committee or body on behalf of the executive". The Bill makes provision for accredited agencies under Part 13. If accredited agencies carry out assessments, these still have to go through the HSE process and subsequently go to the Adoption Board, which makes the final decision. I am suggesting that this is an unnecessary number of steps. I do not see what the role of the HSE is in this regard. We already know that HSE social workers are under enormous pressure. The Minister has said that more will be appointed this year, but I believe that will be for other purposes within the HSE.

I take the Minister for State's point about not unnecessarily extending the debate, but we know that there is a very long waiting time in many parts of the country before people are assessed. It seems that this is adding an extra layer of bureaucracy for no good reason. Obviously, we want to ensure that the process is thorough, but I agree with Deputy Shatter that the people who ultimately have responsibility in that regard are the social workers, the professionals. This responsibility is within the caveat that it goes to the accredited body or the HSE and then it goes before the Adoption Board. Essentially, I do not believe we need this extra layer in the case of accredited agencies who may carry out assessments, as I understand it, under the Bill. That is the purpose of my amendment.

I support Deputy Shatter's points about these bodies being set up by the HSE which appear to be very vaguely defined and constructed. Again, I wonder what is their purpose. I take his point that if they exist at all, they should at least be manned by people who have the appropriate expertise.

All these amendments are designed to improve the process as regards the assessment of families without in any way endangering the process in terms of its thoroughness, rigour and the task of ensuring we comply with the process as we should.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was waiting to hear the full extent of Deputy Shatter's arguments in relation to his proposal. Perhaps the Minister of State's reply will better inform my judgment on this, but maybe there is an unnecessary further tier of bureaucracy.

If it is, indeed, unnecessary, it is something which will have to be reflected in the legislation by the withdrawal of the relevant sections. I am interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say in terms of arguing for the inclusion of such committees. If it is the case that his argument is sustainable, I wonder whether, in the light of Deputy Shatter's amendment No.59, it might not be possible to consider representation from the adopted and those engaged in direct support in terms of children's rights across the country.

The options Deputy Shatter outlined include a senior social worker, a child psychologist, a child psychiatrist and a person who has adopted a child. I wonder, if it is to be more than five and there are only four, whether, in the event that these committees are to be maintained within the legislation and the Minister of State believes they have a worthwhile function, it might be a good idea to consider representation on such committees from those who have been through the process not as adoptive parents, but rather as adoptees and representatives of one or any number of the NGOs that are doing Trojan work in the whole area of children's rights and the protection of children.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have given out about the time aspect, but I have no problem revisiting everything. I understand why we are here on Report Stage. It is just that the prolonged timeframe will have a serious impact on how long this legislation is going to take. It is worth putting that in the public domain.

I am sure Deputy Shatter has heard stories to the effect that an applicant couple may not have hit it off with a social worker. This happens all the time. It is hard to give statistics, but I hear anecdotally all the time about applicants who are in terror of a social worker they did not form a bond with, or they might believe that he or she is unnecessarily oppressive in the manner in which they are being examined through the process of assessment.

The adoption committee, therefore, gives an opportunity for an applicant perhaps to ventilate issues that were unsatisfactory in the assessment by the social worker. I can see why people, on paper, might see this as a further unnecessary layer of bureaucracy, but one cannot ignore the fact that in the normal course of human engagement these types of issues can arise, and they have been brought to my attention. I firmly believe that the adoption committees are a good way to ensure that people who are suitably qualified have an opportunity to assist the authority in the work it is supposed to do.

Also, I want to challenge the perception that I am not open to considering amendments. On Committee Stage, I tabled an amendment to ensure that persons appointed by the HSE have relevant knowledge and experience as set out in the section, as it is now, on foot of representations made by Deputies and Senators, in particular Deputy Shatter.

The people appointed to these committees have specific knowledge and experience of the work they are expected to do, that is, to assist the authority with regard to its obligations under the Child Care Act and also to make recommendations to the authority about eligibility and suitability. There are ten or 11 adoption committees in the country and the personnel on those committees are child care managers - the type of person the Deputy has described in his alternative wording. However, I do not think it is necessary to be so restrictive or go into that level of detail.

There is a requirement to have that knowledge and experience; it is now, for the first time, a statutory requirement, which constitutes a safeguard to ensure these people are qualified. In addition, the adoption committee affords an opportunity for dealing with a situation that often occurs - I have heard this anecdotally, but it is almost impossible to elicit the information in any other way - in which social workers do not get on with an applicant, or there is some grievance on the part of the applicant. It is for those reasons that I will not accept the amendments.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have had the same experience as the Minister described of learning not just anecdotally but first-hand of cases where prospective adopters have not got on with social workers. On some occasions they had valid grounds for complaint, while in others they did not. I have never yet had the experience that the adoption committee has been of remote help in these circumstances, because it has tended usually to regard as something of a nuisance adopters who say they do not get on with the social worker. If one does not get on with one's social worker and there is some personality clash, that is a matter to be dealt with internally by the HSE or the adoption agency and to appointment a different social worker to deal with an individual or a couple. It should never get to the point where one gets to the end process with a report that one is unhappy with because of a relationship difficulty with a social worker. We do not need committees to monitor that, and we certainly do not need 11 of them. What consistency of approach, if they have a function, could you have between 11 different committees? The fact there are so many is questionable. We have one Adoption Board and now we will have one adoption authority. Why do we need 11 committees?

I take in good faith the Minister of State's explanation, genuinely, that he sees this as a moderating force where there is a problem with a social worker, but if there is a problem in relationships there should be a different mechanism to deal with that. I have had first-hand experience of dealing with people who have had genuine problems going through the adoption process because of personality clashes with social workers. I have never heard one example of an adoption committee satisfactorily resolving that issue. Where the issue is usually resolved is at a hearing in front of the Adoption Board, which reaches its own conclusion, having heard all the parties, about whether someone is suitable.

I genuinely do not believe adoption committees have a role in this and I intend to put the amendment to a vote. I appreciate that Deputy Ó Caoláin may want to contribute, but I am happy to put the amendment on the basis I have presented it.

Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wonder if the Minister will address the points in my amendment. He has addressed Deputy Shatter's amendment, which I appreciate, but the point I am making in my amendment is somewhat different: if an accredited agency is carrying out an assessment, it should not have to go back to the HSE and then the Adoption Board, which it must do anyway under section 40.

To return to the previous point, a committee of different people is not necessarily the appropriate mechanism for dealing with difficulties with social workers. The appointment of an alternative social worker would seem a more practical way of addressing any personality issues. I agree this does happen; I have heard of such cases myself. It is just a question of finding the most effective mechanism for dealing with it. It might be more practical for somebody senior to consider the situation and perhaps decide to assign a different social worker. I cannot see that the problem would necessarily be resolved by having such a committee deal with it.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have listened to both sets of views expressed. I too have experience of adoption issues and the difficulties that can present. The picture painted by the Minister about some of the relationships, or the absence of a relationship of any merit, between proposed adoptive parents and their social workers is a valid one. Yes, it happens. However, I do not know that this translates to a need for adoption committees. I do not think it will be a panacea for that difficulty, nor has it been in the past. The idea that a committee is needed to solve relationship difficulties that may arise in the course of an assessment process is not correct. The issue should be dealt with in a much more direct way. When a difficulty presents, there must be an appeals process directly within the system, through which the couple concerned - the proposed adoptive parents - have an opportunity, not to seek comfort from others who would offer them sympathy or whatever it might be, but to resolve the relationship issues. A committee is not needed for this.

In the event that the Bill proceeds without these amendments, what is the current position? Will the Minister of State take note of what I have suggested about amendment No. 59, in Deputy Shatter's name, in terms of the make-up of these committees? Is it currently the case in the 11 committees to which the Minister refers, or is it expected to be the case in the future arising from this legislation, that people who have been through the adoptive process as adopted children have, in their adult lives, an opportunity to make a direct contribution? I am of the view that these people in particular have a valuable contribution to make.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This debate is to adjourn at 1.30 p.m. Deputy Shatter said he wishes to put amendment No. 3 to a vote. Is that correct?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Michael Kennedy (Dublin North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask his indulgence in endeavouring to have the division before 1.30 p.m.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If applicants have a grievance with a social worker, how can they raise it? Whom could it be raised with? Could they raise it with the child care manager? People are nervous about doing that. If they come to an adoption committee that has been set up for the first time in statute, it will give them greater comfort and provides safeguards which do not apply when a matter must be raised with a child care manager. One must phone an office and say "I am not happy with my social worker and I want a new one". Based on my experience, this is not a satisfactory solution. We have a much better safeguard now if such difficulties arise: an adoption committee with a set of skills, including, possibly, that of a psychologist, and knowledge beyond that of a social worker. If the entire decision is left to a social worker who could be wet behind the ears - there is no guarantee that one's social worker will be experienced - that is the recommendation that then goes to the Adoption Authority. Is that a satisfactory situation? I do not believe so.

To deal directly with Deputy O'Sullivan's point about an accredited committee, the HSE continues to carry sole responsibility under the Child Care Act for the protection of children and therefore it would not be possible to circumvent entirely the HSE at the end of the accreditation process, even though it is being carried out by a body other than the HSE. It needs to come back to the HSE because it is its responsibility to decide whether a positive recommendation or otherwise should be given. That function cannot be given to an accredited agency.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Would the Minister be good enough to reply to my point about the future role in these committees of people who have been through the adoptive experience?

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is nothing to preclude an adopted person from being included in that because he or she would clearly have knowledge and experience as defined in the section.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No social worker who is, as the Minister describes it, wet behind the ears should be carrying out adoption assessments in the first place.

Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That was the Deputy's description.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, it was, and it is a problem. No such social worker should be carrying out adoption assessments. Second, there should always be a senior social worker or a child care manager in charge if there are personality difficulties. Those are the people to go to and that should be made known. Anybody going through an assessment process should be told that if a difficulty arises, they can talk to such and such a person and they will not be prejudiced by having that conversation.

The reality is - and I say this categorically from my experience going back over a number of years - these committees never act as moderators to resolve difficulties in respect of individual social workers. They only come into operation when the assessment report is complete and there is a draft recommendation. In my view, these committees were formed by the Health Service Executive as cover in case something went wrong. The HSE does not want responsibility for anything, it wants to be able to say that if somebody was recommended as suitable, it was not the responsibility of the HSE's social worker and that it was this adoption committee of outsiders who copperfastened it. We do not need these committees; they have no role and no function. I am sure the Minister of State means this in good faith, but I have absolutely no doubt that this particular provision, if the Minister of State goes into the history of the drafting of the legislation, is a result of lobbying by the Health Service Executive.

The other odd aspect of these committees is that they apparently live in perpetuity. According to the Minister's amendment the committee is appointed and has no particular life span; it could go on for ten, 15 or 20 years with the same group of people. There are no provisions as to what one does to sack someone who behaves inappropriately on a committee. There is no provision as to whether every five or six years, say, the membership should change. Nor are there provisions to ensure gender equality of some description on the committee. The Minister of State stated that he tabled the brief amendment to which he referred as a consequence of the amendments I tabled, but it is not adequate. This is an ill conceived, ill thought out part of the legislation. Its provisions are based on the influence the Health Service Executive has exercised over the drafting of the legislation. Not only do these committees serve no purpose but there is express provision for the making of payments for travel and subsistence. We have 11 people travelling around the place incurring unnecessary expense for the taxpayer and not advancing one whit the protection of the welfare of children. I wish the Minister of State had taken on board the amendment we are proposing.

The Minister of State said in reply to Deputy O'Sullivan that where there is an outside accredited agency carrying out assessments, it must, because of provisions in the Child Care Act, come back to one of the committees. The accredited body or its social worker cannot make a direct recommendation and report to the adoption authority. That is hogwash. Under the current system independent adoption societies can carry out assessments which go directly to the Adoption Board; they are not being second guessed by adoption committees. These committees only apply within the life line of the HSE. This provision is absolute nonsense. If it were legally valid, every adoption completed as a result of a report as to suitability, be it a domestic or foreign adoption, with the assistance of an adoption society as opposed to the HSE would presumably have questionable legal validity, as might the adoptions that have followed the creation of the HSE. If that is the advice the Minister of State has been given it is complete nonsense.

The formula depends essentially on what is prescribed in the legislation. If we were to be stuck with this, the accredited body should of course be able to carry out its assessment and make a direct recommendation to the adoption authority. The Child Care Act is not a constitution; it does not have some overriding impact on the adoption legislation. That can stand on its own. I do not accept these provisions and I will press the amendment.