Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I am glad of the opportunity to address the House on this section as I flagged this issue on Second Stage. I believe that section 32 adds nothing to, and indeed is in conflict with the Bill. It seems to be in conflict with our international obligations to regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration. This section is, effectively, a relic of our past. It relates to a time, as the Minister of State will be well aware, when historically adoptions were run by religious bodies, the churches and their societies. Prior to the Adoption Act 1952 an ad hoc arrangement operated, with the different religious bodies controlling orphanages and deciding who gave children up for adoption. Geoffrey Shannon's excellent book on child law, Children and the Law, 2001, gives a brief account of it in terms of the churches involvement in the placement of children for adoption with, again, always the consideration that they be placed with adoptive parents of the same religion as the birth parents. I believe I am permitted to quote once I attribute the source. There is one line in Geoffrey Shannon's book which it is useful to quote as we debate this issue. He talks about the churches fearing that adoption would be used as a vehicle for changing the child's religion and it was therefore necessary to assuage such concerns in the 1952 Act.

We have moved on from that. The Minister of State responded on Second Stage that the provisions have changed from the original provisions of the 1952 Act. That is right — I checked it — but of course the current provision in section 4 of the Adoption Act 1974 is really what section 32 would propose to restate, namely, that prospective adoptive parents, birth parents and child must all be of the same religion, unless the birth parents, knowing in advance the religious persuasion of the adoptive parents, have waived this requirement. Married couples of mixed faith can adopt provided birth parents consent to the placing of the child with them.

Restating the current position with section 32 can no longer be justified in Ireland 2009, a country of increasing pluralism and diversity in religion. Even to speak of "mixed marriages" betrays a mindset that is living in a distant past, when religious organisations and the churches had immense power in Ireland. I believe they still have too much power, but clearly nothing like they did. A provision that reiterates the current law from 1974 and previously in 1952, to the effect that an adoption shall not be made unless the child's parents and the prospective adoptive parents are of the same religion, is to restate a presumption in section 32. The Minister of State is right in saying that this presumption may be rebutted and that the condition may be waived where everybody consents to this, but why is it inserted in the legislation? Why is religion seen to be a pre-eminent issue where, for example, we do not have ethnicity, nationality or geographical area? Presumably for many birth mothers nowadays the issue of where the child is to be placed, geographically, in a city, town or village, for example, is of much greater concern than the issue of religion or lack of religion because of course the prospective adopters may not have any religious persuasion. They may be atheists or agnostic. Why should religion be pre-eminent in this manner?

In Britain, as the Minister of State will be aware, there have been a great many issues relating to ethnicity and children being adopted by parents of similar ethnicity to the birth parents. There is a great deal of sensitivity around that subject in Britain. That is equally so around religion and I am not saying it should not be a factor, it should, but just one of the factors, with ethnicity, nationality and geographic area in terms of whether prospective adopters are urban or rural dwellers and so on. There are a number of factors which the adoption authority must take into account. In restating the pre-eminent position of religion in section 32, we are creating a provision that is directly in conflict with our stated and very welcome consideration in section 19 that the welfare of the child should be first and paramount. Why should anything else have the status of a presumption when an adoption order is being considered.

That is a relic of the past and we no longer need to include this section. Clearly, religion can be something which adoption bodies will look at as one of the many factors to be taken into account in deciding whether an adoption order is in the best interests of a child. I feel very strongly that this is something we should look at again in 2009 as it is no longer appropriate. I know the history and have tried to give a brief outline in that regard. However, I do not believe that history justifies the continuance of this provision in the Bill or that it is in the interests of the child.