Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Reilly. I echo all that has been reflected in today's contributions. There is a great deal of understanding of Senator Power's position. It cannot have been an easy journey for her in terms of drafting the Bill. I am sure she constantly relied on and received great co-operation from Senators van Turnhout and Healy Eames in drafting the Bill.

Notwithstanding what Senator Henry said, I will drift into another area. Listening to the contributions and reading through parts of the Bill, I was struck by the fact that it is a celebration of life. It is a celebration of Senator Power's life in the sense that her mother chose to give birth. In contemporary Ireland there are so many pressures on mothers to take a different route. I know it is a horrible thought, but let us suppose her mother had chosen to take that other route. This is not a judgment. As Pope Francis said, who am I to judge the circumstances in which an expectant mother finds herself and the choices she might wish to make. Sadly, it is happening every day of the week, not in this country but next door. I could not help but think that it is a wonderful, joyous thing that this Bill is about life and the celebration of life. In a sense, it is attempting to square a circle, to fill in a missing gap for adopted children who wish to know their identity and background.

It must be a very painful experience when one becomes aware as a child that one is adopted. As Senator Walsh said, the warmth and Christian attitude of the parents who chose to adopt and the love they gave is evident. It is obvious that Senator Power is a very well-rounded person and sees this as an opportunity for her to reach out and help other adopted children who perhaps are not as blessed as she is in terms of her identity. I raised questions in previous discussions on the subject of timing and parents’ rights, but all of that is swept away in the context of what the Bill attempts to do and the reality of what faces an adopted person. That is on one side of the equation.

I fully support all that has been proposed in the Bill. I see it in the same way as Senator van Turnhout, as a basic human right. One should know one’s background and what is on one’s birth certificate. One could ask why it has taken so long for any Government to introduce such legislation in light of our neighbour’s experience. I recall being in this House when a former colleague, Senator Catherine McGuinness, raised the issue on a number of occasions. It was a very emotional thing for her to do, namely, to put on the record that she was an adopted child and look for some change and improvement at the time. That did not happen.

There is a great onus on the Minister, Deputy Reilly, to see the Bill through this time and to be the Minister responsible for that. He does not lack a sense of purpose. When he gets the bit between his teeth on an issue, he is like a dog with a bone, as he proved with his position on smoking, labelling and the legislation on sunbeds. He is to be commended on those issues which form part of his legacy. Good luck to him in that regard.

I am also interested in the other side of the equation, namely, the response of the natural mother. I note those who drafted the Bill were very sensitive in this area. If the natural mother decides not to become involved, there is nothing one can do about it. No law in the land will do anything about it. Is it not a cruel vista to imagine that an adopted child who wishes to know about his or her medical history cannot find out because the natural mother decides she does not want to revisit what might have been a very painful period in her life? I do not say that is a flaw in the legislation but encouragement must be provided in order that even if a natural mother does not want to make contact with an adopted child, at least she would be in a position to provide relevant information that could then be passed on through the adoption agency. There must be an independent stand-alone agency to deal with such matters and to process them in a sensitive manner. What I outlined are not flaws, as such, but they are difficulties that present, and even with the passage of the legislation they would still be faced by adoptive children, but at least the main thrust of the Bill, if implemented, would go a long way towards addressing a long-standing sore.

Many speakers have referred to Philomena Lee. There is no question but the film influenced me. It is a powerful testament of a history of which we should be at least questioning if not ashamed. It is difficult to imagine how such a thing could have happened in a so-called Christian country among people who profess Christianity and who presented themselves as better Christians than the rest of us. I do not understand how people did such horrible things to women who found themselves in the same situation as Philomena, whose children were effectively sold, and the situation was compounded by not allowing them to know what had happened to the children. I accept we are talking about the past rather than the future, but it was a cruel thing and for that reason if no other, the Bill is not only worthy of support but, morally and in every other way, must be supported.