Frances Fitzgerald (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister and the publication of the Adoption Bill 2009. Our current adoption law is outdated and has allowed confusion, insecurity and inconsistency to develop within the adoption system. I welcome the new legislation but it is difficult to praise the Government for introducing it when it is so long overdue. This Bill incorporates into Irish law the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoptions 1993. Sixteen years have passed since Ireland ratified the convention; it has taken that long to produce this legislation and there has been much confusion in the meantime.

Adoption is an issue that evokes very strong feelings for everybody. It raises issues such as the rights of the child, the rights of natural parents and matters regarding who can adopt and at what age. We have had very emotive debates on adoption. There have been dramatic changes in adoption in this country. Previously there were only domestic adoptions, and there were thousands of them. It was salutary to hear the Minister mention the 2,000 Irish children who were adopted by Americans. That situation has changed dramatically and we have moved from domestic adoption to intercountry adoption. That raises a set of new challenges, which this legislation goes part of the way in addressing.

I welcome much in the Bill. I will not speak about the technical details outlined by the Minister, which I welcome, but will refer to issues such as recognition of the rights of the father and greater consultation and work with the mother regarding the identity of the father, making absolutely clear the consequences of the father not being known and how that might lead to the adoption order being challenged. That is very important. I welcome the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration. That is really important. I also welcome the fact that more work is being done with the mother to help her understand the consequences of the decision she is making and that there will be written statements outlining those consequences.

The establishment of the new adoption authority is very important. Most important, however, is the implementation of the Hague Convention and its higher standards. We have seen from international examples that there can be outrageous standards in this area. In poor countries one can see adoption being abused. There is no doubt about that. Everybody has seen instances of it. On the other hand, one can see intercountry adoptions giving great joy to families, working extremely well and being totally to the advantage of a child who would otherwise be in an institution. In the middle of all of that complex social scenario the Minister is trying to bring in legislation that looks after all of those issues and sets a standard, and that is really important. This Bill does that. It seeks to bring in international standards to the arena, and I welcome that.

However, in some ways this Bill is also a missed opportunity. In the short time available I want to highlight a range of issues and ask the Minister of State and his Department to consider them.

I also want to make a request that this legislation go before a joint committee to which we would invite some of the key players to get their reaction and to hear what they have to say about it, what improvements they might make, what they like about it and how they think it could be strengthened. It would be worth doing that. I accept there has been lengthy consultation in this area, but it would be worth the Joint Committee on Health and Children spending a day or two getting the reaction of the different groups and availing of their expertise, and then move on with the legislation. I ask the Minister of State to consider that.

There is a number of points I want to make on some of the problem areas in adoption which need to be addressed. In 2006 the inadequacies of our adoption procedures were exposed by the Baby A case. In this case the natural mother of Baby A placed her for adoption but subsequently withdrew her consent before the agreement was finalised. The baby remained with the adoptive parents for an entire year before the case was resolved. If the formal procedures for adoption had not been so lengthy and arduous then the adoption agreement would have been finalised and Baby A's natural parents would not have been legally entitled to initiate proceedings. At the same time, if social services had been resourced properly and dealt with the case immediately the child would have been handed back to the natural mother before Baby A could have been at risk of any substantial or further damage. In his judgment, Mr. Justice Hardiman noted that the delay in the adoption authorities responding to demands for Baby A's mother to desist from proceeding with the adoption process as — Ms Justice McGuinness may have said this as well — one of the most disturbing aspects of the case. That is salutary and we need to note it.

I ask the Minister of State to clarify why the Bill has not attempted to streamline or simplify the adoption process somewhat further. The length of time taken in various legal proceedings, for example, if there is a change of mind, is considerable. We could safeguard everyone's rights but that area of the effects of the lengthy legal time and procedure needs to be looked at further. The time involved at present may be too long and lead to considerable uncertainty for the child. That is a matter at which the Minister of State could look. I suppose the case I quoted illustrates some of the weaknesses in the system — the waiting lists for assessments and other formal adoption procedures, and the lack of vital support for post-adoption services for children and the family, which is an issue we must address.

All adoption procedures should be framed on the basis of protecting and ensuring the rights of the child. Section 24(2) of the Bill provides for children over the age of seven to be heard on an adoption order. However, I want to raise with the Minister of State the issue of why he has not opted for a guardian ad litem provision and hear his response. I worked as a guardian ad litem when I was a social worker employed in England where the adoption law allows for guardian ad litem. It is a good provision for children because it means there is an independent person involved in the assessment but looking at it purely through the lens of the child, whatever age he or she may be. There is the social worker and people working for the natural parents, there are people working for the would-be adopters but then there is this person whose responsibility is to look at the matter purely from the point of view of the child and submit a report to the court. In my experience it worked well and added immeasurably to the entire procedure. It is something we ought to consider putting in place. It is in place in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister would indicate if the Government would be open to considering such a provision.

The other group of children I want to mention are those who are in long-term foster care. I think I am correct in stating that under this legislation these children are still not offered a second chance. This is an issue which affects hundreds of children in Ireland and it is one which we should address. There are many children who have no contact with their birth parents and yet they are not eligible for adoption, and I think that is really wrong. Obviously, many long-term foster parents would like to adopt as well. That is an issue that needs to be addressed as well and I would like the Minister of State to update the House on his plans in this area.

A number of organisations have been in touch with us. As this is such a complex Bill many of the agencies state that they would like more time to consider the provisions. That is why I suggested they should come into the committee so we can get their responses to the legislation.

A point which they made strongly, however, is that they would like to see adequate support built into the Bill for pre and post-adoption services to support the adopted child. There is need to provide for this in the Bill. There have been a number of studies done on it. Most recently, one by Trinity College Dublin, entitled "A Study of intercountry Adoption Outcomes in Ireland 2007", verified the need for post-placement support in intercountry adoptions. It is clear that this is needed and we should build in statutory provision for it.

Another area omitted — I am focusing on some of the issues where the Bill could be strengthened rather than on the good provisions which I acknowledge are in it — is the question of putting the tracing services on a statutory basis. The lack of a legislative framework for tracing services and information services is extremely disappointing and it may be in breach of Article 22 of the European Convention on the Adoption of Children. Why not put this on a statutory basis, if the Attorney General is confident that Ireland is in compliance with the European Convention on the Adoption of Children? We ought to look at that area because it is problematic. Barnardos, as the Minister of State will be aware, has been providing this service on a voluntary basis for a long time and it has given great support to individuals who have wanted to trace their origins or who want at least to talk about it or get counselling. That is an essential service that people need. It is an area that could be strengthened and on which the Minister of State might report back, either to committee or the House, on the Government's views.

There are many practical issues in the Bill. The Government is developing a new adoption authority. Perhaps the Minister of State would give us more details on how An Bord Uchtála will be disbanded. Will there be an automatic transfer of power to the adoption authority? From what he stated today, it looks like there will.

The HSE, under the Bill, will have the power to establish adoption committees to advise and assist the new adoption authority. Given the state of resources within the HSE, I am concerned that one could encounter a real roadblock there in these cases and I want to ask the Minister of State again about the resource issue in the context of the HSE. How will the HSE be able to handle this new responsibility? Given the HSE's significant problems, that we have discussed in this House, in even dealing with the most urgent cases of abuse, the HSE is not able to allocate resources even to the most urgent cases. There are many closed cases on the shelves that have not even had a social worker assigned to them and I have concerns about the resource implications of giving the HSE this job to do. I wonder whether the HSE is the right place to go with it. I do not know where else one can go but I am not sure whether the HSE, given this power, will be able to live up to the remit the Minister of State is giving it.

The issue of the Hague Convention and the international powers is most important.