Northern Ireland Assembly
Monday 4 December 2000 (continued)
Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill:
Second Stage
The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety (Ms de Brún):
A Cheann Comhairle. Molaim go n-aontaítear an Dara Céim den Bhille (Gnéithe Idirthíortha) Uchtaithe.
Is é príomhchuspóir an Bhille seo ná an Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption a chur i bhfeidhm anseo. Dhaingnigh tríocha tír san iomlán an Coinbhinsiún. Shínigh Rialtais na hÉireann agus na Breataine é ach níor dhaingnigh siad go fóill é. Sa Bhreatain Mhór cuimsíonn an Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 an reachtaíocht leis an Choinbhinsiún a chur i bhfeidhm. Tá an Deisceart ag déanamh machnaimh san am i láthair ar reachtaíocht a thabhairt ar aghaidh a chuirfidh ar a chumas an daingniú a bhaint amach.
Tá cuspóirí Choinbhinsiún na Háige díreach. Is é an chéad chuspóir ná comhaí a bhunú a chinnteoidh nach dtarlóidh uchtuithe idirthíortha ach amháin nuair a rachas siad chun leasa na bpáistí i gceist. Sa dara cás, is é is aidhm don Choinbhinsiún ná córas comhoibrithe a bhunú idir na stáit a shínigh an Coinbhinsiún le cinntiú go gcomhlíonfar na comhaí a leagtar síos ann. Aidhm eile is ea go dtabharfar aitheantas trasna iomlán stáit an Choinbhinsiúin do na huchtuithe a rinneadh de réir an Choinbhinsiúin.
Sna blianta deireanacha mhéadaigh ar an tsuim i bpáistí ón choigrích a uchtú. Níl an líon mór, ach tá sé ag ardú leis. Sa bhliain 1996 fuair ár ngníomhaireachtaí uchtaithe dhá iarratas ó dhaoine ag iarraidh cead páiste ón choigrích a uchtú. Sa bhliain 1999 ba 25 líon na n-iarratas; 28 an líon chun dáta i mbliana. Ní suarach iad na buntáistí a thig le páiste ón choigrích a fháil ó bheith á uchtú ag teaghlach anseo. Agus ní féidir áibhéil a dhéanamh ar áthas pearsanta agus sásamh lánúineacha gan chlann a fhéadann baile maith a thairiscint do pháiste ón choigrích. Is léir go bhféadann mórbhuntáistí a theacht as an uchtú idirthíortha, ach tá sé riachtanach a chinntiú go gcosnaíonn na socruithe atá idir tíortha leas páistí agus go ndaingnítear cearta tuismitheoirí breithe nó cúramóirí eile i dtír dhúchais an pháiste.
Le haird a dhíriú ar fhorálacha an Bhille, leagtar iad seo amach sa Mheabhrán Mínithe agus Airgeadais. Ní dhéanfaidh mé ach breac-chuntas ginearálta ar na príomhghnéithe agus ar na hathruithe a chuirfidh an reachtaíocht úr i bhfeidhm.
Ba chóir domh a aibhsiú nach mbaineann an Bille le huchtuithe intíre, mar a déarfá, nuair a bhíonn cónaí ar na huchtaitheoirí ionchais agus ar an pháiste anseo. Baineann sé le huchtuithe idirthíortha amháin nuair is de náisiúntachtaí éagsúla iad na huchtaitheoirí agus an páiste.
Tugann an Bille aghaidh ar thrí eochair-réimse. Ar dtús, cuireann sé ar chumas mo Roinne rialacháin a dhéanamh ag cur an Choinbhinsiúin i bhfeidhm anseo. Tá téacs ábhartha an Choinbhinsiúin leagtha amach i sceideal an Bhille. Tugann airteagail an Choinbhinsiúin aghaidh ar réimse leathan saincheisteanna. Orthu seo tá ceanglais ar thíortha an Choinbhinsiúin a chinntiú, i ndiaidh machnamh ar an pháiste a shocrú ina thír dhúchais, gurb é an t-uchtú idirthíortha a b'fhearr a rachadh chun sochair don pháiste. Ar cheanglais eile tá an fhreagracht ar thíortha an Choinbhinsiúin a chinntiú gur tugadh gach toiliú riachtanach, lena n-áirítear toiliú thuismitheoirí an pháiste nuair is iomchuí, gur tugadh sin mar ba cheart. Caithfidh toilithe a thabhairt go saor agus chan mar gheall ar dhíolaíocht. Caithfidh mianta agus barúlacha an pháiste a chur san áireamh - ag cuimhneamh ar aois agus tuiscint an pháiste. Cuirtear an chumhacht ar fáil sna rialacháin coir a dhéanamh de neamhchomhlíonadh na rialachán.
Cuirfear na rialacháin uilig a chuireann an Coinbhinsiún i bhfeidhm faoi chomairliúchán agus cuirfear faoi bhráid Choiste Sláinte, Seirbhísí Sóisialta agus Sábháilteachta Poiblí an Tionóil iad.
Baineann an dara heochair-réimse a gclúdaíonn an Bille é le soláthar údaráis láir, a bheas bunaithe i mo Roinnse.
Bheadh an t-údarás láir ina phointe teagmhála d'uchtuithe idirthíortha. Go bunúsach, chuirfeadh seo na socruithe riaracháin reatha ar bhonn reachtúil. De réir na socruithe seo, chuirfí tuairiscí a rinne gníomhaireachtaí uchtaithe i gcásanna idirthíortha ar oiriúnacht uchtaitheoirí ionchais chuig an Roinn. Dhéanfaí iad seo a scrúdú agus chuirfí chuig an Roinn Sláinte i Sasana iad a ghníomhódh mar lárionad do gach comhfhreagras le tíortha iasachta i gcásanna uchtaithe idirthíortha.
Baineann an tríú heochair-réimse a gclúdaíonn an Bille é le sraith leasuithe ar an Adoption (NI) Order 1987 atá riachtanach le leas páistí a chosaint agus leis an Choinbhinsiún a chur i bhfeidhm.
Tabharfaidh na leasuithe seo aitheantas láithreach d'uchtuithe Coinbhinsiúin a rinneadh ar an choigrích amhail is dá mba anseo a rinneadh iad, faoi réir comhaí áirithe a cheadódh iarratais ar an Ardchúirt lena neamhniú. Ceanglóidh leasú breise ar iontaobhais sláinte agus seirbhísí sóisialta cuid dá seirbhísí uchtaithe a dhéanamh den uchtú idirthíortha. Lena chois sin, tá dhá leasú an-tábhachtacha ar Ordú 1987 a chruthóidh coireanna. Coir a ba ea do dhuine páiste a thabhairt isteach go hAlbain, sa Bhreatain Bheag, Sasana nó anseo le huchtú mura gcomhlíonfaí critéir áirithe. Leagfar na critéir seo amach i rialacháin agus is é a gcuspóir ár gcosaint ar ghluaiseacht cheilte páistí le huchtú.
Chruthófar coir bhreise a chiallóidh go mbeidh sé neamhdhleathach ag duine ar bith seachas gníomhaireacht uchtaithe oiriúnacht uchtaitheoirí ionchais a mheasúnú.
Críochnóidh mé m'fhocail tosaigh ag rá go gcreidim go diongbháilte go gcuideoidh an Bille go mór le leas páistí atá bainteach le huchtú idirthíortha. Mar atá luaite agam cheana, níl an líon mór. Mar sin féin, caithfimid a chinntiú go mbíonn caighdeáin arda agus comhaí córa ann le páistí a chosaint agus nach bhfaightear uchtuithe idirthíortha go mícheart. Tá an Bille go hiomlán de réir phrionsabail an UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Cuirfidh sé ar ár gcumas ár mbeart a dhéanamh in éineacht le tíortha eile ag caomhnú caighdeáin arda chosaint na bpáistí.
I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill (NIA 8/00) be agreed.
The primary purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the 1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. Thirty countries have ratified the Convention. The British and Irish Governments have signed but not yet ratified it. In Great Britain, legislation to give effect to the Convention is contained in the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. The South is giving consideration to bringing forward legislation that will enable it to proceed to ratification.
The objectives of the Hague Convention are straightforward. The first objective is to establish safeguards that will ensure that intercountry adoptions take place only where it is in the best interests of the children. The Convention also aims to establish co-operation between the states that are party to it, to ensure that the safeguards set out in it are respected. A further aim is to secure the recognition across all Convention states of adoptions made in accordance with the Convention.
In recent years there has been increased interest in the adoption of children from abroad. The numbers are not high, but they are rising. In 1996 our adoption agencies received only two applications from people seeking approval to adopt a child from abroad. In 1999 the number of applications was 25. The number for this year to date is 28.
The benefits that a child from abroad can obtain through adoption by a family here can be substantial. Equally, the personal happiness and fulfilment of childless couples who are able to provide a good home for a child from abroad cannot be overestimated. Intercountry adoption can yield enormous benefits, but it is necessary to ensure that arrangements between countries protect the welfare of children and secure the rights of birth parents or other carers in the child's country of origin.
The provisions of the Bill are set out in detail in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. I will outline the main features of the new legislation and the changes that it will bring about. The Bill is not concerned with domestic adoptions, where both the prospective adopters and the child live here. It is concerned with intercountry adoptions, where the adopters and child are of different nationalities.
The Bill addresses three key areas. First, it enables the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to make regulations giving effect to the Convention in Northern Ireland. The relevant text of the Convention is set out in the schedule to the Bill. It addresses a wide range of issues. It requires Convention countries to consider a placement for the child in the state of origin and ensure that intercountry adoption is in the best interests of the child.
Convention countries are responsible for ensuring that necessary consents have been properly given, including the child's parents' consent, where necessary. Consents must be freely given and not induced by payment. Consideration must also have been given to the child's wishes and opinions, having regard to the child's age and understanding.
Power is provided to create offences in relation to non-compliance with the regulations. All the regulations giving effect to the Convention will be subject to consultation and will be laid before the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee and the Assembly.
Secondly, the Bill provides for a central authority, based in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, to act as a liaison point for intercountry adoptions. Essentially, that would put existing administrative arrangements on a statutory footing. Under such arrangements, reports on the suitability of prospective adopters in intercountry cases, carried out by adoption agencies, would be passed to the Department. They would then be checked and passed to the Department of Health in England, which would act as the focal point for all correspondence with foreign countries in intercountry adoption cases.
12.00
The Bill also includes a series of amendments to the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 that are required to protect the welfare of children and give effect to the Convention. The amendments will allow Convention adoptions made abroad to be recognised automatically as though they had been made here, subject to certain safeguards that will allow applications to the High Court for annulment. A further amendment will require health and social services trusts to include intercountry adoption as part of their adoption services.
Also included are two important amendments to the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 that will create offences. It will be an offence for anyone to bring a child into England, Scotland, Wales or this country for the purpose of adoption unless certain criteria are met. Those criteria will be set out in regulations, and the objective is to safeguard against covert movement of children for adoption. The Bill will also render it illegal for anyone, other than an adoption agency, to assess the suitability of prospective adopters.
The Bill will make a valuable contribution to the welfare of children involved in intercountry adoption. The numbers involved are small, but we must ensure that high standards and proper safeguards are in place to protect children and ensure that intercountry adoptions are not improperly obtained. The Bill is fully in accord with the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and will enable us to play our part, alongside other countries, in upholding high standards for the protection of children.
The Chairperson of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee (Dr Hendron):
I welcome the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill, and I know that Committee members look forward to the Committee Stage. I will keep my comments brief, because it is important that the Committee be given the opportunity to consider the Bill in detail.
As the Minister said, the Bill will implement in Northern Ireland the 1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. That will be done mainly through the introduction of regulation-making powers, enabling the Department to set minimum standards relating to the process of intercountry adoption, in the best interests of the children concerned.
The Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee held consultations on the policy aims in the Bill. We received almost 30 responses from health and social services councils, boards, trusts, and voluntary and professional bodies. The vast majority of responses welcomed the Bill. It ensures that the best interests of the children are paramount, clarifies the process, and places existing arrangements on a statutory basis, allowing only registered adoption societies to be involved. The respondents raised other important issues, which Committee members will consider in detail in Committee. We will come back with amendments at Consideration Stage, if necessary.
Rev Robert Coulter:
I welcome the continued progress of the Bill, which will bring regulations into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The Bill will ensure that adoption of the kind mentioned in the Bill takes place only when it is in the best interests of the child. It is good that safeguards will be put in place. Can the Minister explain what arrangements will be made to ensure that central authorities co-operate effectively with each other in these matters?
Mr Berry:
I am glad that this matter has been brought before the House today. I give the Bill a cautious welcome, although I have some concerns, which I hope the Department will address.
First, the Bill will create two new offences. Principally, it will make it an offence for anyone other than an adoption agency to assess the suitability of prospective adopters of children from overseas. It is nice to know that civil servants from the Department love to look after their own interests by criminalising everyone but themselves.
Part of the problem is that there is no corresponding penalty upon such agencies when they make a mistake and, worse, when they become infected by political correctness. That is when we all discover that these people are really a law unto themselves. Irrespective of what other legislation says on this point, there ought to be some reference to appeal provisions when adopters are treated either wrongly or unfairly. Instead of thinking only of making criminals, they should balance that by considering their own faults as well.
I welcome, however, the exclusion mentioned in clause 12, page 7. Another area that concerns me is the excessive emphasis on individualism. The Department and its draftsmen do not appear to have thought through the crucial point that is made on page 9 - namely, that
"the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment".
Those drafting this legislation did not give enough credence to this point made in the Convention.
I trust, however, that the issues that I have raised will be addressed. As the Chairman of the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee has said, we look forward to the Committee Stage.
Mr J Kelly:
Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. We generally welcome the Second Stage of the Bill. It implements the Hague Convention, which ensures that the best interests of children are paramount. That must be welcomed wholeheartedly.
There are concerns, however. Our concerns are that there should be more consultation with interested groups, such as the Children's Law Centre. There is also need for clarification on the issue of the consent of the birth parents, in particular in relation to children who have been abandoned. Will the Bill preclude adoption in such cases?
I am also concerned about the issue of home study charges, because this may preclude people of limited means. The impact of the Bill on equality of opportunity under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 should, therefore, be reconsidered.
Having said that, a Cheann Comhairle, I reiterate that we welcome the Second Stage of the Bill, and reserve further comment.
Ms McWilliams:
It came to my attention that this legislation is the result of a private Member's Bill at Westminster, introduced by a Liberal Democrat Member. I therefore take some heart that private Members' Bills can result in such important legislation. No doubt we all look forward to that happening here eventually.
The role of the Government in this is critical. When I was conducting some background work, I visited the Family Care Society, which had recently attended a conference on intercountry adoption. It noted that in the first year after the fall of Ceaucescu in Romania some 7,000 children had disappeared from that country; it had been plundered for children. That was at a time when there were no regulations on intercountry adoption. Clearly, we have had to learn a great deal from that, because many of those children are now growing up in Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
I also gathered information from a report by the Health Committee at Westminster entitled 'The Welfare of Former British Child Migrants'. It pointed up the disastrous effect that migration to Australia and New Zealand had on children from Northern Ireland and Britain. Between 7,000 and 10,000 children were sent from Britain and Northern Ireland, some 500 from Northern Ireland.
We learn from a recent report by the Health Committee at Westminster that in the initial years, when children are growing up, the fact that they have been adopted does not have terrible implications for them. However, as they turn into adolescents and adults they desperately seek information. That information was not available to those children. We are now trying to put information in place about where they came from, why they were sent for adoption and how they can maintain contact with their birth parents. The absence of regulations and information has left a devastating trail of damage.
It is right that we ratify the 1993 Hague Convention. It never ceases to amaze me how many times Governments sign conventions and then do not ratify or enforce them. It is good to see a private Member's Bill seeking to ensure that this part of the Hague Convention will consequently be ratified.
Intercountry adoption began as a humanitarian act after the first and second world wars. Many people put themselves forward to adopt on an intercountry basis because the children were orphaned. Traditionally, intercountry adoption in Britain has mainly been through Indian and Pakistani families maintaining links with the home countries. Today there are very different reasons.
I am very concerned about a trade in children and in particular the consequent scant regard for children's rights. The potential is there for trafficking, and it has clearly been the case that with money can buy children from the less well off, particularly in Eastern European countries. This legislation should ensure that children adopted from overseas receive the same standard of care as those adopted in our own country.
In Britain, between 4% and 14% of children in care are put forward for adoption. However, in Northern Ireland the percentage is only 2%, lower than any local authority in England. The Government review of adoption refers to those children who are currently in care and argues that Northern Ireland needs to raise its adoption rate to 10%. Why am I referring to our home adoptions? Currently only 60 to 80 children in Northern Ireland are being put up for adoption, and there are resource implications because of this legislation.
In 'Community Care', Ruth Winchester states:
"There is little doubt that the services provided to deal with inter-country adoption applications diverts efforts that would otherwise be spent on recruiting and assessing adopters for children in the UK. The vast majority of inter-country adopters would also make excellent adopters of children here, and in that respect they are a loss to children in this country."
The resource implication is that more and more time will be taken up if, as the Minister reports, there are now 25 to 30 cases per year, up from a small base of two per year as recently as 1996. If resources are being diverted to conducting detailed and rigorous reports on intercountry adoptions, are they eating into the resources for local adoptions? That case has been made by organisations that deal with local adoptions. I hope that it will not be at the expense of local child-care services and that we will not be taking money from children in care, who need these reports to be thorough and rigorous. We have regulations about local adoptions.
12.15 pm
Follow-up services also need to be put in place. If the central authority is in England, to what extent are resources being put aside in Northern Ireland to - as the Rev Robert Coulter pointed out - not only liaise with that authority but also deal with pre-adoption information, the database needed for tracing details and the post- counselling and post-adoption services that are required? How much of that will take place locally? What will be the relationship between our authority, the central authority and local non-Government organisations?
I refer in particular to the work done by the Family Care Society, which gives post-adoption support for the child, the adoptive family and the birth family. Who gives that support when it is an intercountry adoption? I am glad to hear that the consent principle has been taken as strongly as it has. It is undoubtedly the case that years later, people realise the implications of what has happened and need a great deal of counselling. The counselling provided to support former Australian child migrants and their extended families is a case in point. I would like to see the Bill addressing the required support for all those involved in intercountry adoptions. There are implications when you take a child out of its birth country. Ethnic identity has been flagged up and a child's identity throughout its adult life. If the number of children coming into a country such as Northern Ireland is due to increase, a great deal of support must be made available.
The best interests of the child should be at the heart of intercountry adoptions. That has not been the case to date. I am glad that offences are now stipulated in this legislation. Private agencies have entered this field, clearly because money is involved. Those who have a great deal of money have spent that money on finding individuals and agencies which have set themselves up to do nothing except this kind of trade. Industry, business and trade are now regulated in a global market, and trading in children must be regulated in the same way, not just in the United States but also in Britain and Northern Ireland.
It is important that countries adhere strictly to these regulations. The Hague Convention was supposed to be practised in principle, but the regulations were so wide open, there were so many loopholes, that people could bypass them. Following these regulations should involve no profit. People have been bypassing the current regulations by charging inflated fees; this should not be allowed, nor should expenses for the production of reports by private agencies.
Arrangements should cover a comprehensive range of aftercare services in the receiving country. The Committee will look at how the Bill speaks to aftercare services and the support that should be available. If anything has been learned from the Australian and New Zealand experience, it is that years and years of trauma will follow, and a great deal of counselling and therapy will be required if those services are not available.
Mr Fee:
If the purpose of this Bill - as explained in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum - is to implement the provisions of the 1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, then it is failing miserably. I ask the Minister and the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee to look carefully at some of the provisions of the Bill.
I see three immediate and glaring problems. First, article 35 of the Hague Convention says
"The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall act expeditiously in the process of adoption."
The Convention also says
"A Contracting State shall designate a Central Authority to discharge the duties which are imposed by the Convention upon such authorities."
That is a very laudable suggestion and objective.
Clause 2(1) of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill says
"The functions of the Central Authority named in the Convention, shall be discharged in relation to Northern Ireland by the Department."
The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will be the central authority to discharge responsibilities in relation to intercountry adoption. However, clause 7, by its amendment of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 delegates that authority to the 19 health and social services trusts across Northern Ireland. Therefore we will have 19 authorities dealing with an average of 25 to 30 intercountry adoptions every year. I do not know how that can possibly fulfil the requirement of article 35 of the Hague Convention, which states that these adoptions should be "expeditiously" dealt with.
Current experience shows that it takes months, if not years, for an overseas adoption. These adoptions are more complicated, more costly and more emotionally fraught than domestic adoptions. This Bill will not relieve those pressures in any way.
Ms McWilliams referred to the trade in children. I am also concerned about the costs of these adoptions. The Convention says that only costs and expenses - including reasonable professional fees of persons involved in the adoption - may be charged or paid. In my experience, this is the only service provided by health and social services trusts where every penny of administration costs, including mileage, light, heat, power and paper, is calculated. Those charges are passed on to the potential adoptees by the health trusts. That is over and above any specialist counselling they may employ or legal expenses that result from the adoption procedures, both in other countries and in this jurisdiction.
Finally, article 17 of the Convention says that an adoption may go ahead if
"it has been determined, in accordance with Article 5, that the prospective adoptive parents are eligible and suited to adopt and that the child is or will be authorized to enter and reside permanently in the receiving State."
In our circumstances, the Home Office must have given prior approval to the entry of the child, presumably by way of an entry visa, and to permanent residency. That particular area of intercountry adoption has been fraught for years. There is no clear relationship between the Department here and the Home Office officials who deal with the applications for entry and permanent residency. Unless that relationship is sorted out, we will continue to provide a very poor service for quite a small number of people who are paying quite a lot of money for the benefit of establishing a good home environment for themselves and a safe home environment for these children.
Ms Lewsley:
I broadly welcome this Bill. It is commendable that its purpose is to prevent the sale or abduction of, or trafficking in, children. While I agree with the tenet of the Bill, and that there is a focus on the needs and rights of the child, I must press that the child's interests be of paramount importance in all regards and in all aspects of the legislation.
I have reservations on several issues, some of which have already been mentioned. What is the relationship between the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety here and the central authority in England, as stated in clause 2? There is concern that unless the role of the Department of Health is clearly defined, prospective adoptive parents here could find themselves caught between the Northern Ireland authorities and those in England.
How does the Department intend to ensure that the safeguards outlined in clauses 4 and 5 are implemented? That needs to be clarified. Are those roles to be taken on by current domestic adoption agencies? Will there be additional resources to cover the costs?
There is also concern regarding the charges for overseas home studies, as mentioned by John Kelly. One problem is the difference in charges between one trust board and another. There is potential for inequalities in the service, depending on which trust board area prospective adoptive parents live in. This in turn could have a negative effect on people on lower incomes.
John Kelly mentioned abandoned children whose parents can be neither found nor contacted. Will those children come under the protection of the adoption agencies? If so, will they have similar opportunities to be considered for intercountry adoption?
I question what precise measures will be taken to ensure that there is no improper financial gain in connection with intercountry adoption. Like many other procedures, it could be open to abuse. While I have the greatest respect for prospective adoptive parents - and they must also be protected - we need to safeguard the rights of the children and their natural parents. Is there any provision for these children to have access to information about their origins, should they wish it? Perhaps the Minister should also consider ways of providing a general evaluation report on the service.
Overall, I welcome the Bill, because it provides the opportunity to regulate adoptions from abroad and, as Ms McWilliams stated, those adoptions overseas from Northern Ireland. My main concern, however, is the possibility of an increase in the bureaucratic process which would significantly increase the cost of adopting a child from abroad. There is also medical costs and the cost of essential post-placement support. Where will the funding come from?
The importance of the Bill is to place the arrangements for intercountry adoption on a statutory basis. That in itself must be seen as a positive step.
Ms de Brún:
A Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas le Teachtaí as ucht a suime sa Bhille. Thóg Teachtaí roinnt ceisteanna agus luaigh siad pointí suimiúla. Féachfaidh mé le plé leis an iomlán acu.
I thank Members for their interest in the Bill. Several questions were raised, and interesting points were made. I will try to deal with all of them.
Ms McWilliams asked to what extent resources were being put aside, for example, for post-counselling services. The Bill does not imply that there will be more intercountry adoptions, although clearly the number is rising. The number is still small, but if there is a substantial rise, we will need to consider more resources for counselling.
There were questions from the Rev Robert Coulter and John Fee about arrangements to ensure that central authorities co-operate. Arrangements already exist to ensure a high level of co-operation between my Department and the Department of Health. The Bill will build on this.
12.30 pm
John Fee spoke about delegation. It is very clear that this is not a delegation of central authority. Rather, we are allowing trusts to carry out some of the essential work which they are best placed to do - namely, information gathering and other specific functions. The central authority will remain in the Department.
Ms McWilliams asked if intercountry adoption would prejudice the adoption of local children by taking resources away from the adoption services here. Clearly, those working here must see this as part and parcel of their work. However, most of those applying to adopt a child are childless couples who have a clear view about the type of child they wish to adopt. The preferences of childless couples vary, but in general prospective adopters are looking for a child who has been voluntarily placed for adoption. Usually, those seeking intercountry adoption are looking for a newborn child or a child without health problems or a difficult family history, and so on. Very few children born here who become available for adoption fall into the categories most sought by prospective adopters.
It is true that fewer than 3% of children cared for by social services are adopted. However, the social services inspectorate is currently carrying out a review of our adoption services and we will be looking at ways to make adoption a more realistic option for children in care. It is right that we facilitate intercountry adoptions. At the same time we must ensure that the welfare of children put up for adoption here is guaranteed.
Ms Lewsley, among others, asked what additional resources would be made available. The Bill will not have significant resource implications because central authority functions are already carried out in the Department, and trusts already carry out work on intercountry adoption cases by assessing the suitability of prospective adopters.
Ms McWilliams asked whether other Convention countries would adhere to the legislative requirements. The purpose of the Convention is to ensure that high standards are maintained, and the operation of the Convention will be subject to review. We were also asked to be alert to difficulties in the framing of regulations to ensure their effectiveness, and we have done so. The regulations will be subject to consultation and will be laid before both the Assembly and the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee.
Mr Fee asked what would be done in order to expedite these points. A project has been established to review the legal and social work processes and timescales relating to the adoption of children. This report is expected in September 2001.
Ms McWilliams also queried the relationship between voluntary agencies and trusts. Both trusts and voluntary adoption societies will be able to process intercountry adoptions. Voluntary agencies will have to be registered to conduct intercountry adoptions. They will be able to apply for registration under the legislation.
Ms Lewsley asked what measures are to be taken to prevent improper financial gain. The Convention makes it clear that any state which signs the Convention must ensure that there is financial propriety at all times.
Mr Berry asked about what he perceives as too much political correctness. Adoption agencies here have a statutory duty to ensure that people who apply to adopt are, in every respect, suitable to care for a child. Agencies are committed to doing this in a sensitive way, and, where necessary, they help prospective adopters to assess their needs and those of the children to ensure that they are compatible. It is unfair to suggest that officials are self-serving or that this work is carried out in a way which benefits anyone other than the children.
Mr Berry asked why there is no penalty on agencies. Decisions relating to adoption are ultimately the responsibility of the courts. The question of mistakes made by adoption agencies is a difficult one, but all agencies here work to high ethical standards, which are maintained by the way in which the regulations are implemented.
A number of questions related to the need for the consent of both parents. The Hague Convention contains extensive provisions on the issue of consent. Consent must not be induced by payment - it must be given freely. The Convention includes provision for counselling to be given, as necessary, to those whose consent is required. Specific provision is also made for cases in which it is not possible to obtain parental consent. For example, where children have been abandoned, the Convention recognises that consent cannot remain a requirement. I can tell John Kelly that this applies in all cases.
On the question of whether there should have been more consultation on the Bill, there was consultation on adoption in 1996. The safeguards set out in the Convention were welcomed by boards, trusts and others. The consultation that was carried out by the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee also indicated similar widespread support, and Dr Hendron kindly informed us of that this morning.
In response to John Kelly's question about whether arrangements should be made to clarify charges, trusts have discretion on charges for carrying out work on adoptions, including intercountry adoptions. During implementation, any inconsistencies in charges between trusts in board areas will be addressed. Although trusts have discretion, any charges must reflect the expenses which have been reasonably incurred in connection with an adoption.
I hope that I have fully covered the questions raised and the points made in this useful debate. My officials will also study the Hansard report of the debate, and if any question has not been dealt with, I will respond in writing.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill (NIA 8/00) be agreed.
Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill:
Final Stage
The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (Sir Reg Empey):
I beg to move
That the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill (NIA 8/99) do now pass.
I will summarise the main provision and effects of the Bill. The Bill proposes three specific amendments to the Weights and Measures (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, all of which deal with the verification of weighing and measuring equipment in use for trade. Verification is the examination and testing of weighing and measuring equipment before it is allowed to be used for trade transactions. The equipment includes such items as butchers' scales and petrol pumps. Currently a qualified weights and measures inspector carries out this examination. The three proposed measures which are of a deregulatory nature are as follows.
First, self-verification of weighing or measuring equipment will permit approved manufacturers, installers and repairers to conduct their own testing in order pass as fit for use for trade and to stamp weighing and measuring equipment. Secondly, testing by official European economic area testers will allow an inspector of weights and measures to accept test reports from third-party testers established in the European economic area as part of the process of the verification of equipment. Thirdly, applying the prescribed stamp prior to testing the equipment will enable those manufacturers of weighing or measuring equipment who are approved verifiers to incorporate the stamp to be applied to the equipment into the manufacturing process.
These measures have the potential to reduce burdens on business without diminishing the level of consumer protection currently available in this area. The measures will have the potential to increase flexibility, as the verification process will no longer be restricted to weights and measures inspectors. The changes will increase choice and competition, as new players will have the opportunity of coming into the market. Reduced costs will also result, as manufacturers will be able to incorporate these processes into their systems.
At the same time, the proposed self-verification process retains current consumer protection by ensuring that equipment will meet the same prescribed requirements as an inspector would currently apply when verifying equipment. The requirements for testing are not altered and consequently will not facilitate the use of inaccurate equipment for trade.
Competent persons will conduct testing and verification of the equipment. The specified requirement for approved verifiers and the ongoing surveillance of their quality systems by weights and measures inspectors will ensure confidence in the integrity of these processes and of the officers charged with them.
In its scrutiny of the Bill, the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee was satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards to protect consumers from malpractice. In agreeing the provisions, Members will ensure that parity is maintained between the legislative provisions on weights and measures in Great Britain and those in Northern Ireland. I am also pleased to see a European dimension to the proposals insofar as they will allow equipment manufactured and self-verified in other European Community countries to be used in the United Kingdom.
There is, therefore, a free trade element to the proposals, which, as Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, I naturally welcome.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Members for their contributions. I am particularly grateful to the chairman and members of the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee, who carried out detailed, clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. I would also like to thank the Committee for affording my officials and me the opportunity to give evidence to it during that scrutiny process.
Mr Wells:
When this measure first appeared before the House I was in the Chamber and a rather scurrilous journalist alleged that I was wearing a wig. I assure the House that every follicle, every lock, every strand is my own and that there is not a David Ervine frantically trying to get out. It is all mine. However, the weights and measures people are welcome to come and check, just in case.
12.45 pm
This is a non-contentious Bill. The Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee examined it in considerable detail, and we are happy that it brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom and with European legislation. We were concerned that consumers should continue to have confidence in the product they were buying. Was it correctly measured? Could they have faith in what they were being given? We are content that this Bill will in no way endanger that and that the consumer can indeed have confidence.
I suspect that we need to have that confidence in Northern Ireland in particular because many incoming goods may not originate from the most legitimate of sources. For instance, if weights and measures personnel were to inspect Jonesborough market or Nutt's Corner market on a Sunday afternoon and implement this legislation effectively, one or two people would be found wanting.
Apart from that, we are more than happy that this is a non-contentious issue and we congratulate the Minister and the Department for bringing it forward and for its speedy implementation. I am confident that this will be the third Bill that the Assembly has managed to pass to Royal Assent stage in a short time period.
Sir Reg Empey:
I want to confirm the point made by the Member for South Down (Mr Wells) about consumers having confidence. This is a key issue that a number of Members raised during the passage of the Bill. The Department is satisfied that the necessary protections are in place.
The Member raised wider questions. It is our intention to bring forward legislation in the next session to address a range of issues such as rogue traders and other matters that are more "weighty" in nature - dare I use the expression?
I want to confirm to the Member that we are satisfied that the interests of consumers will be protected by this measure and that inspectors will continue to have the right to have surveillance over equipment. If any malpractice is detected, the option of prosecution remains available to us.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Weights and Measures (Amendment) Bill (NIA Bill 8/99) do now pass.
Family Law Bill:
Committee Stage (Period Extension)
The Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee (Mr Leslie):
I beg to move
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to Friday 27 April 2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Family Law Bill (NIA 4/00).
The motion stands in the name of the Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee. The Chairperson is unavoidably engaged elsewhere and has asked me to move this motion on his behalf. It has the approval of the Committee.
The Committee Stage of the Family Law Bill notionally started on 7 November, but at that time the Committee was still dealing with the Ground Rents Bill and, furthermore, had had two additional Bills placed before it - namely the Government Resources and Accounts Bill and the Defective Premises (Landlords' Liability) Bill. Following consultation with the Minister, it was agreed that priority must be given to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill with a view to finishing it by the end of January because it must be in law, with Royal Assent, by the end of the financial year. That Bill, therefore, is the Committee's first priority, and it will demand all our efforts over the next four to six weeks. It will be followed by the Defective Premises (Landlords' Liability) Bill. We can only start on the Family Law Bill after we have completed these two other Bills.
Under the terms of Standing Order 48, and partly in response to remarks that were made in the Chamber during the Second Stage debate, the Health, Social Services and Public Safety Committee agreed to consider clauses 1 to 3 of the Family Law Bill, and we will be grateful for its input. However, that Committee also has a certain amount of legislation in front of it. Therefore, it will take some time for both Committees to give the Bill proper consideration. We felt that it was prudent to apply for the maximum extension available. We would like to complete the Bill before then but in view of the outlined schedule and the interference of the Christmas and Easter recesses it would require a considerable effort to complete it by the date sought.
I ask Members to support the motion.
The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Durkan): I note the Deputy Chairperson's concerns. I recognise that the Committee shares those concerns about the Family Law Bill and about other legislation that is causing congestion. The Committee for Finance and Personnel is not alone in that, as the Deputy Chairperson said.
The timetable for the remaining Assembly stages of the Family Law Bill will be tight if the Committee Stage is extended to 27 April 2001. Nonetheless, I hope that the Bill can complete its passage in this session. On that basis, I am content with the course of action set out in the motion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to Friday 27 April 2001 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Family Law Bill (NIA 4/00).
The sitting was suspended at 12.52 pm.
On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) -
Oral Answers to Questions
2.30 pm
Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister
North/South Ministerial Council: Nominations
1.
Mr Dodds
asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister what arrangements are in place to make nominations to the North/South Ministerial Council.
The First Minister (Mr Trimble):
Section 52(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states
"The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make such nominations of Ministers and junior Ministers . as they consider necessary to ensure -
(a) such cross-community participation in the North-South Ministerial Council as is required by the Belfast Agreement".
In making such nominations, the First Minister and Deputy First Minster jointly decide on the nomination of at least one Unionist and one Nationalist Minister, or junior Ministers. The nomination forms, indicating the names, date and agenda of the meeting, are signed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. These details are notified to the Executive and to the Assembly in advance of the meetings, and the Ministers who participate in the North/South Ministerial Council subsequently report to the Assembly and the Executive.
Mr Dodds:
In the light of the current arrangements, are the First Minister and Deputy First Minister aware of how the present farce is being viewed outside the House? The First Minister is being forced to defend himself in court as two Ministers sue him, and the Deputy First Minister is being named as a witness in support of the two Sinn Féin Ministers. Does the First Minister recall his statement of 1 November 2000, in which he said that he had taken the least possible measures? Is it not now time that he took the best possible measures, which would be for him to join with us in seeking to have Sinn Féin/IRA excluded from Government for failing to decommission? As regards the nomination arrangements, can the First Minister condemn the misuse of public money by Sinn Féin Ministers in legal shenanigans? Will he confirm that he will not authorise the spending of any public money on similar legal action, either on his own behalf or on behalf of the Deputy First Minister?
The First Minister:
I am disappointed that the Member does not realise that there is public interest in having a precise ascertainment of the law on this matter. It is for the benefit of us all to know exactly what the law is on this issue. It is clear, especially in view of some DUP comments this morning, that members of his party are gradually repositioning themselves as they insist on making comments indicating how ready and eager they are to interact with their counterparts in Dublin.
Mr Kennedy:
Does the First Minister agree that the non-nomination of Sinn Féin Ministers to the North/South Ministerial Council is clearly appropriate because of their failure to honour their obligations of 6 May 2000? Does he agree that it is disgraceful that taxpayers' money is being used to contest this issue in the courts, particularly when there are priorities in education and health?
The First Minister:
I appreciate the Member's frustration. However, I repeat my response to the earlier question. It is in the public interest that the law be made clear on this matter, and I look forward to seeing the law clarified. In view of the ongoing legal proceedings, the Member might very well comment on the non-nomination of Sinn Féin Members, but I could not possibly add to that.
Mr C Murphy:
Is the First Minister aware that his damaging behaviour towards the North/South institutions is likely to have a knock-on effect on all the institutions? If one institution is not functioning properly - as is currently the case with the North/South institution - that is likely to have a knock-on effect on the other institutions. Perhaps that is his intention, so that his exit strategy might be fulfilled with the suspension of all the institutions. Can he inform the House who is paying for his defence in the case currently going through the courts?
The First Minister:
As I said to other Members, it would be inappropriate for me to go into details on matters which will be considered by the court in the very near future. No doubt the Member will agree that the whole agreement hangs together and that there are reciprocal obligations that affect all participants. All of us need to reflect on that.
Hate Crime
2.
Mr Ford
asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail what action is being taken to reduce incidents of hate crime in Northern Ireland.
The Deputy First Minister (Mr Mallon):
I thank the Assemblyman for his question. First, I should like - without taking issue with him - to call his attention to the term "hate crime". Perhaps we are letting those who indulge in such crimes off too lightly by not calling them by their correct names - racially motivated or sectarian crimes. Whatever words we use, I assure the Member that we deplore and condemn such actions as a manifestation of the underlying problem of community division.
As I said in my reply to Mr Ford during Question Time two weeks ago, the Programme for Government contains a considerable number of actions designed to address community divisions on a wide range of fronts. These include a proposal to implement cross-departmental policies to tackle racial inequality, involving targeted support for ethnic minority groups and projects within a strategic framework for the period 2001-03.
Responsibility for tackling crime, including the offence of stirring up racial or sectarian hatred or fear, is a reserved matter. However, tackling racism and sectarianism is as much about changing attitudes as about dealing with crime. The actions in the Programme for Government demonstrate our commitment to eradicating racism and sectarianism to create the pluralist, inclusive society we all wish to see in Northern Ireland. However, those are, by definition, longer-term than we should wish, and I ask, especially on this question, that none of us representing political opinion in the North of Ireland in any way contributes to the climate of sectarianism, racism or hate which exists in so many parts of the community.
Mr Ford:
Perhaps I shall have to answer the Minister's question as part of my supplementary. Certainly, for us in this corner, when we talk about "hate crimes", it is clear that there is still a major problem with sectarianism, an example being last night's disgraceful attack on Harryville parochial house. Racism has affected the Chinese community in recent weeks, and there is no doubt that homophobia is in many areas not far below the surface, an area of hate crimes -
Mr Speaker:
I urge the Member to put his question.
Mr Ford:
I felt that the Minister deserved an answer, but I certainly shall. Will he -
Mr Speaker:
It is not for the Member, but for the Minister, to give answers.
Mr Ford:
I wish you had told him before he asked me.
On that point, while accepting that the Minister has given a more detailed response than a fortnight ago - for which I am grateful - does he not agree that there must be a very strong commitment, expressed not in a year but in a week, across all Government Departments to improve community relations? Does he also agree that there is a need for the Executive to raise the necessity of hate crime legislation with the Secretary of State? While it is a reserved matter, it must be seen to affect us, and we must react to it.
The Deputy First Minister:
I thank the Member for his questions and, indeed, his answers. The person with the solution to the problems of hatred, division and racism in Northern Ireland is a very lucky individual indeed, and the party to which he belongs is very lucky. There are many facets to this question which we have seen in our own communities on a daily basis for 30 years. We have seen hatred not only between communities but within communities, streets, families and houses, and between ethnic groups.
Can there be anything as appalling as people coming to this country, North or South, for whatever reason - in many cases to get away from the bigotry and hatred they had to live with at home - only to be assaulted, as has happened to members of this city's Chinese community?
Yes, we are acting in response to this and these actions are itemised in the Programme for Government. We can suggest to the Secretary of State ways in which the issue may be approached within his reserved powers. However, ultimately it is not going to be so simple - it is not just a question of law and order. I do not want to evade the subject, but it is not simply a question of getting law and enforcing it. Rather, it is a matter of changing mindsets and getting people to act humanely towards each other.
Mr Dallat:
Will the Deputy First Minister join me in deploring the view recently expressed by the DUP Mayor of Belfast that attacks on members of the Chinese community are not racially motivated? Can he assure us that the Assembly will continue to fund ethnic minority organisations in Northern Ireland?