Dan Boyle (Green Party)

In common with many people in this county, my family background includes people close to me who are adopted and others who have become adoptive parents. This has allowed me to understand the experience of adoption in this country.

There has been much legislation on this issue from the 1960s, this Bill being the most recent, despite its long delay in terms of years in reaching the Statute Books. However, the Bill is welcome in that it incorporates the Hague Convention and attempts to regularise the situation in terms of inter-country adoption. Like other speakers, I welcome the Bill and its content. I will concentrate on areas I hope the Minister of State will consider in the course of the Bill's passage through Committee and Report Stages in this House.

I agree with other speakers that it is unlikely we will regularise the situation in regard to the treatment of married couples, same sex couples and single people. The true disconnect in terms of many family units in this country is that there exists same sex couples with children, both of whom are not permitted to have a legal parental relationship with those children. I do not believe it is possible to deal in this Bill or the forthcoming civil partnership Bill with that issue. However, there must be a statement of intent that it is the next area of reform in the adoption area.

I agree with Senator Bacik on the need to look at the ability of long-term foster carers to adopt. While this appeared to be an element of Government policy, it is not addressed in the legislation before us. The Minister of State, when responding, might indicate what are the barriers against insertion of such a section in this Bill. While a large number of people may not be affected by this, it affects some who want to regularise what are in effect family relationships, though they cannot exist in any legal format owing to a lack of proper adoption legislation to assist them.

The Bill could and should also deal with the area of reform with regard to the Civil Registration Bill, which is a matter for the Department of Social and Family Affairs and one on which I commented when a Bill went through the other House a number of years ago. I continue to believe it is regrettable that we have an attitude in this country with regard to adopted people seeking information about who they are and what they are part of.

The registration of adopted people and their certificate of adoption, as opposed to their birth certificate, lists all adopted people as being born in Dublin, whether they are born there. This is meant to prevent questions about the number and type of births in particular areas if such information was provided. It is highly anomalous that our neighbouring jurisdiction has more liberal laws. The effect of such laws is that Irish people who were adopted in London through Irish agencies based in the UK find it far easier to get birth information about themselves than Irish adopted people who were born in this country. So long as this remains an anomaly, the position of adopted people will be less than it should be as they cannot claim to be full citizens without having such information about themselves.

Not only is this required of adopted people, it is required for those by whom they are adopted — their new adoptive family and those with whom they live. The loss of possibly vital family background medical information, which is never available, is an issue adoption legislation can and should address.

With regard to the inter-country adoptions, other speakers pointed out the difficulty Ireland has with a number of countries. The Minister of State has gone on record with regard to the countries with which we are strengthening the relationship in terms of bilateral agreements. I offer support to the Law Reform Commission's call for a grandfather clause for adopted families where there is more than one child. Where it is possible that a second child can be adopted through the same avenue as the first, this can offer cultural support and greater family cohesion. Barriers are put in the way of people who have already proved themselves in the adoption process as good parents and who are able to offer a stable family background for whomever is adopted. The same obstacles should not recur to a greater extent when considering the idea of a second adoption for such families.

While I have highlighted several areas in which the Bill may be deficient, in overall terms it is a huge advance in adoption legislation. However, it is an area where, since the first Adoption Bill in the earlier years of the State — there are at least a dozen such Bills — we have always moved far too slowly, concerned, I believe, about social niceties rather than the needs of adopted people. While this Bill advances those needs in a significant way, we will still leave too many of those needs unmet unless we are prepared to consider finalising this Bill on Committee Stage and Report Stage to make it the best it can possibly be.