Phil Prendergast (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. While I welcome the Bill in its intention, I am worried about its limitations. I am concerned that these limitations could lead to yet further delays in getting the very necessary provisions contained in the Bill passed.

In dealing with this matter, I am keen not to be partisan, but the Government does not have a good record on child protection and has dragged its heels on this issue. In approaching the Bill, therefore, we have a quandary. Do we seek amendments to extend its scope, which could delay its passage even further, or do we support it because it addresses some of the issues concerning the whole area of adoption? Simply because it consolidates all the existing law on adoption does not mean it addresses all the matters of concern in this area, a point raised by other contributors to this debate. If we give the Bill support, are we kicking off a whole new cycle of legal judgments, leading to more uncertainty and perhaps more legislation down the line? We must be vigilant as legislators to get it right and to do so in a spirit of co-operation.

We heard impassioned speeches from all sides of the House last week in support of children's welfare, so it behoves us to take a strong interest in the Bill. This type of legislation is always difficult because it needs to be sensitive to the needs of so many people. The child's interests, of course, are paramount but many other parties must also be accounted for, such as siblings, the natural and adoptive parents and extended families. If the Bill is to progress more or less as it stands, we must keep the other issues on the agenda. The Labour Party leader in the Seanad, Senator Alex White, will certainly do this and I have no doubt others will also.

I am aware there has been considerable delay in ratifying the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption so I welcome the fact that the Bill has finally been brought forward to address this anomaly. What is the position where people are currently trying to adopt children from, for example, Vietnam? This is causing great concern to those who are in the process of trying to adopt a Vietnamese child. I realise this question is specific but, without going into the details, it is one that needs to be answered.

The legal situation in regard to the adoption of foreign children by Irish couples is inadequate, as the Tristan Dowse case so clearly illustrated, and the issues are very complex. The Law Reform Commission, which produced a report on the matter, is categorical. It stated that although it is generally assumed that foreign adoptions may be recognised under existing law, the circumstances in which recognition may be afforded have never been clearly defined either in case law or by statute. Since there are probably a number of people living in this country, children and adults, who have been adopted abroad, it is a matter of concern that their status under Irish law remains uncertain.

It is to be hoped the Bill will clear up the uncertainty in this respect but it only directly legislates for inter-country adoptions where the child's country of origin has ratified the Hague Convention. However, an estimated 10% of adopted foreign children in this country are from countries that have not signed up to the convention. This means bilateral agreements are needed with those countries if adoptions from these states are to continue. The Minister of State with special responsibility for children said that Ireland has already made diplomatic contact with the Vietnamese on the issue, but Russia and Ethiopia also account for many adoptions and discussions are needed with these countries also. The Bill provides for bilateral deals, which is a worthy provision, but swift action must follow.

The Bill also provides for the establishment of the adoption authority of Ireland to succeed the Adoption Board. I very much hope it has the powers and resources in practice to act on the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. By the time it succeeds the Adoption Board, the guidelines for verifying the authenticity of foreign adoption documentation should be established and the independent legal advice it will need should be made available as recommended.

I also strongly support the commission's suggestion that a designated High Court judge be appointed to deal with all adoption cases. This approach has worked well in other courts, such as the Commercial Court, and the commission recommendation that section 6 of the Child Care Act 1991 be amended to provide statutory post-adoption services for both domestic and inter-country adoptions should be acted upon. This is also contained in the Hague Convention.

It is important to remember that the process of adoption entails a strong degree of trust between the agency facilitating the adoption and the adopting parents. Therefore, it makes sense that agencies accredited under the convention are allowed to provide post-adoption services if this is what the adoptive parents want. This would not prevent the parents using the health board that processed the adoption if they so wish.

There is much to discuss on Committee Stage and I urge all sides of the House to work together on this important legislation. I thank Senators for their contributions and I hope some of the specifics I raised will be addressed.