Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)

To deal with the first point, in the previous day's debate, Members had a discussion on the standards this Bill is trying to introduce and the danger of diluting such standards by allowing less rigorous criteria for certain categories of people simpliciter, without being obliged to go through the same eligibility and suitability procedures as everyone else. This is not good practice and would change significantly the overall Bill and the overall policy contained therein. The best interests of the child are best served by ensuring that anyone who sets out to adopt a child, regardless of him or her being a relative or being assessed separately as a natural parent, should be obliged to go through the same process of eligibility and suitability as everyone else. It is also good practice to ascertain how both proposed adoptive parents get on with each other, to view that process and to assess how that dynamic works.

I have serious reservations about amendment No. 24 which states, "if a failure by one only of the married couple to comply with this section would not seriously threaten the welfare of the child". I cannot accept this and it is far removed from what this legislation seeks to achieve. As for amendment No. 23, one must avoid, as Senator Bacik put it, diluting the basic principle, which is that each applicant for adoption must go through the same rigorous process as everyone else to serve the best interests of children. One cannot on the one hand state it is a first and paramount consideration while on the other hand, permit all sorts of parallel mechanisms that would allow people to go through this process in a different way.

As for the comments on the religious, ethnic and cultural background, this raises an issue. Senator Mary White stated that she supports Senator Bacik in this regard. Section 34(b) sets out a list of criteria to which regard will be had when making an assessment of a person's eligibility for adoption. It goes through a list of considerations as to whether a prospective adoptive parent is able to support the child's welfare, which encompasses many different matters that Members have discussed earlier, such as the health, social, educational and other interventions for the child. Moreover, it would value their identity as well as their ethnic, religious and cultural background. This issue is separate to that which was being dealt with in section 32, which pertained to informed consent.

One could argue there is a dichotomy in the language employed because religion is referred to exclusively in one section, in respect of the establishment of consent. This is an area in which many problems have arisen in the past in respect of High Court cases disputing consent. This contrasts with the area under discussion at present, which pertains to the suitability of a parent to accept the ethnic background of a child. To use Senator Alex White's phrase, the language jars a little. In any case, however, I am satisfied that it is legitimate to investigate such criteria in the assessment process. While they are not deal breakers, they are criteria to which one must have regard. While there is no amendment before Members in this regard, it is the right way to go.