Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, line 15, after “State” to insert “and placed for adoption outside the State”.

In the context of amendments Nos. 1 and 2, the concern is that, as currently constructed in the Bill, the definition of "adopted person" under the section seems to only include persons whose adoptions were facilitated by the Adoption Board, a registered adoption society, the Adoption Authority of Ireland, AAI, or Tusla. There are several reasons this is problematic. First, the Adoption Act 1952 came into force in 1953. At that time, the Adoption Board did not exist and the adoption societies were not registered. This means that any person adopted outside the State whose adoption was facilitated prior to 1953 might not be included under the provisions of the Bill as it stands.

The second concern is that this is not simply an unfortunate issue of timing. These adoptions were knowingly excluded from the adopted children's register even when adoption was legalised in 1952. In his contribution to the Seanad debate on the Adoption Act 1963, the then Minister for Justice, Charles Haughey, stated, "the Adoption Board have no function in regard to a child taken out for adoption in America". We know that many of the adoptions to America and elsewhere were illegal. There is a concern that there may be a large number of adopted persons who were subjected to illegal arrangements and whose rights may not be protected under the Bill. Amendment No. 1 is our attempt to rectify that and make it clear that the Bill would also cover those placed for adoption outside the State.

Amendment No. 2 is effectively an alternative seeking to address the same issue. In the context of speaking about adoption only coming onto a legal basis in 1953, it is worth noting there was heavy lobbying against it. The Minister will be very aware that there have been times when the State has tried to put things on a different, legal or State basis and those who were in relationships with the State for the provision of services have often lobbied against such changes. I refer to the mother and baby home report in that regard. Nonetheless, I think the Minister will agree that this is a serious omission. I hope he can address it.

As I understand it, amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are part of this grouping. Amendment No. 3 introduces a new paragraph (f) under section 2 that specifically includes all persons subject to an illegal birth registration as being listed under those defined as being adopted people born in the State. The legislation currently only applies to people whose births were illegally registered before 31 December 1980. It is a deeply flawed decision to insert a date limit as there is no evidence to suggest illegal registrations ceased on 31 December 1980. Any person illegally adopted outside the date limit might not be able to access his or her rights under the Bill. The Bill should be amended to ensure that all affected persons subject to illegal birth registrations are included.

Similarly, amendment No. 4 is a variation. It introduces a new subsection (1)(e). It is the same principle of ensuring that those who may have been subject to illegal registrations after 31 December 1980 are recognised properly under the Bill.

These are two different issues but both relate to the core principle that if we are trying to move forward and make redress, we need to ensure it is not a piecemeal approach and that all relevant adopted persons are able to access their rights under the legislation, explicitly including those who were adopted overseas and those who were illegally adopted or whose adoption involved an illegal birth registration after 1980.