Alex White (Labour)

I wish to respond briefly. I understand the points made by the Minister of State in respect of both amendments. With regard to amendment No. 23, he correctly states that he is opposed to any dilution of the basic principles and I have no difficulty with that. When I make that point, I do not suggest that it will be followed by a "but", to the effect that I wish to dilute any of the principles. At the same time, a question arises in this regard in the case of a proposed adoption by a natural parent or a relative of the child, which is of a somewhat different character. Consideration should certainly be given to whether the criteria ought to be precisely the same.

While I understand the Minister of State's position in regard to amendment No. 24, his response was slightly dismissive in that he seemed to suggest there was almost a lack of concern for the welfare of the child in the amendment. The welfare of the child is always of paramount importance. That is the test. It is not a question of setting aside the welfare of the child. Rather, the amendment proposes that where one of these criteria cannot be met by both persons, this will not necessarily be fatal to the adoption application so long as a conclusion is reached that to proceed would not seriously threaten the welfare of the child. It is wrong to characterise this as an attempt in any way to undermine the fundamental objective in all of this, namely, the welfare of the child.

I do not propose to press either amendment. I may come back to amendment No. 23 on Report Stage, and I reserve my position in regard to amendment No. 24.