Maria Corrigan (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I welcome the Bill, particularly ratification of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. In recent years, we have seen a lot of change in Ireland. We have gone from being a country from which people adopted children to a country whose people travel to other countries to adopt. Part of this reflects the change in the number of children who are available for adoption within Ireland and, consequently, changing attitudes to single parenthood. However, since the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, is present I take the opportunity to raise concerns regarding the number of foster children who remain in long-term care, who have no opportunity for adoption and of whom this Bill does not take account. The Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children has heard submissions from several organisations suggesting there are hundreds of such children in long-term foster care who would benefit from access to adoption. However, because of the current legislation these children are not in a position to access it. Will the Minister of State take account of this point? I realise it may be necessary to hold a constitutional referendum. I will revert to this matter at a later stage.

The ratification of the Hague Convention has the potential to be a very powerful, positive force in inter-country adoption, ensuring best practice is in the interests of children's safety, and encourages the countries which have not formalised their processes yet to do so. I welcome the core principle that inter-country adoption should be child-centred, that is to say, the child's interests should be paramount at all stages of the process. This is very welcome. I especially welcome the establishment of a system of co-operation among the contracting states to safeguard children's best interests and to prevent the abduction, sale or trafficking of children.

I refer to the issue of unaccompanied non-national children who have gone missing from Health Service Executive care. It is estimated there is in excess of 300 such children. While it is believed some of these have left the care of the HSE of their own volition to join family members already here, some indicated upon entering the country they were unaccompanied. Having secured entry to the country and HSE care, some have left that care. There are significant concerns to the effect that several of these children have been the victims of trafficking. Will the Minister of State indicate what steps have been taken to find these children, to establish their safety and to establish how they came to be in the country in the first place? At a time when we are introducing legislation to ratify the Hague Convention, it is especially important to examine the practices and occurrences in the country and question whether we have unwittingly become the recipients of children who have been trafficked or sold.

I raise another issue regarding such children. There are instances whereby they are in the care of the HSE and supposed family members make contact, appear and seek reunification. Will the Minister of State review the procedures for reunification? My understanding is that, at present, reunification only necessitates the provision of a similar story to the HSE from the child and the supposed parent. Given the scientific advances available, it would be of greater benefit if DNA testing or a blood test were used. I am concerned that such children could be the victims of trafficking. They could have been told the story to relay upon arrival and the supposed parent could provide a similar story to the HSE. On the basis of two such similar stories a child could be dispatched into the care of an adult previously unknown to the HSE. I urge the Minister of State to take this point on board.

I especially welcome Part 3, which sets out the right of the father of the child to give notice to the authority of his wish to be consulted on the proposed placement of the child for adoption, or on an application for an adoption order to be made in respect of the child, and outlines the preplacement consultation procedure required. This is a very welcome recognition of the rights of fathers. I also welcome the provision to give consideration to the views and wishes of children more than seven years of age concerning prospective adoptions, which is in adherence with the practices we seek to adopt in the best interests of the child.

Several concerns exist among adoptive parents regarding future inter-country adoptions, especially those involving Vietnam and Russia. I do not wish to repeat the comments of my colleagues, save to say that I have been approached by several families who have adopted children from these countries who wish to adopt siblings for a son or daughter and who are concerned this may not be possible in future in light of the legislation. I realise the Minister of State has sought bilateral agreements and has encouraged relevant countries to ratify the Hague Convention and demonstrate they are in adherence or compliance with best practice regarding child safety. Will the Minister of State explain the position regarding the signing of bilateral agreements with such countries?

I wish to raise concerns regarding Part 7, which makes provision for the High Court to allow the authority to grant an adoption order in favour of applicants if it is satisfied the child's parents, whether married, have, for physical or moral reasons, failed in their duty towards the child for a continuous period of not less than 12 months and such failure is likely to continue without interruption until the child is 18 years old. The Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children has heard several submissions from several organisations and senior counsel in this regard. These have indicated there is a considerable difficulty in establishing the standard for this requirement and how to meet it. Those who have made submissions believe the difficulty is such that in many cases it will not be possible to establish the standard. We believe the standard should be provided for the authority. I am unsure if this will be available in practice under the legislation. Will the Minister of State provide the House with the practical plans to establish clear, concrete criteria showing how this standard could be met?