David Norris (Independent)

I apologise to the House for my lateness. I had a long-standing appointment to meet the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy Martin Cullen, on two very serious issues. Senator Ivana Bacik kindly moved my amendment in my absence and there was a useful and interesting discussion on it.

I hope the Minister of State can make some movement on this issue. The amendment proposes that where an adoption has been rendered void by the state in which it is to take place, the High Court should review the status of the adoption order under the law of this State and not of any other. The High Court should then give a direction implementing the welfare of the child.

Specific arguments regarding the amendment have been made. I would like to look at the wider context in which the amendment is set. A significantly large number of people have invested emotionally in this area, embarked on the process but not actually achieved the adoption. They are, naturally, very anxious. They are at different stages along the road to adoption and they feel very passionately. One understands that. However, we are dealing with the welfare of the child. If I had to choose - and it would be a judgment of Solomon - between the welfare of a child and the emotional needs of a parent, I would have to choose the welfare of the child. It is for that reason we must listen carefully to what the Minister of State has said.

This matter has already been raised with regard to the Minister of State's disclosure of material to The Irish Times. I read the two articles and I remember them reasonably well. I recall they were both written by Carol Coulter. In reading one, I deduced that the Minister of State had been contacted by the writer of the article and had responded in a manner not unlike that in which he responded to this House. I did not see a huge amount of information which was not either placed on the record of the House or could not be drawn by inference from what the Minister of State said. All went back to the welfare of the child.

Similar unease has been displayed by two other friendly jurisdictions. I referred to this matter in the past week but I cannot quite remember where I did so. It may have been in this House. Both these jurisdictions, Sweden and the United States, are well disposed to the interests of children. We are not alone in having these difficulties.

When we debated the Bill on Wednesday last, I asked the Minister of State if the difficulties were at this end or principally at the Vietnamese end. In these circumstances, the Minister of State must be a diplomat as well as a legislator. He would probably not regard it as wise to make a blistering attack on the Vietnamese system while attempting to negotiate an agreement. The lethargy on the Vietnamese side, if such it be, is not something the Minister of State can control immediately or effectively, beyond using his diplomatic skills.

I understood from the debate on that day that a team from the Department had visited Vietnam three times in recent months. I had the impression the Minister of State had been on one of those visits. Apparently, this is not the case but I ask the Minister of State to clarify this point. If he has not visited Vietnam, now may be the time to go. He may agree that in the Orient the question of status can be quite important, irrelevant though it ought to be. The Civil Service is dealing with this matter all the time but a visit by someone of the status of the Minister of State might help to unblock a logjam.

The matters raised in the newspaper articles, especially the use of fees, have been adverted to by my colleagues. I do not accuse any Irish people of this, but the article makes an implicit suggestion that there is some degree of unfairness to natural parents who have what they would regard as considerable sums of money dangled in front of them by orphanages. That is a real and striking human condition. As the welfare of the child is paramount, should we not consider those circumstances? Would it not be a humane thing to support such families, see if they wish to stay together and discover why they are giving up children? People no longer give up children in this environment. What is so different about Vietnam?