A Look At the Provinces: Chongqing

Beginning this month, we will begin a year-long study of the major Provinces involved in the international adoption program in China. We will look at the orphanage statistics from each orphanage, and discuss anomalies and patterns in each. It should prove to be an interesting and enlightening journey.

The first of these installments is now available on our subscription blog. Beginning with this installment on Chongqing, I will be presenting you with an in-depth look at the major Provinces involved in international adoption. We will begin with Chongqing because it is the smallest in terms of orphanages, and will lay the foundation for future Provinces. In the following months we will also look at Guangdong, Guangxi, Hubei, Hunan, and Jiangxi Provinces. Collectively these Provinces contribute the vast majority of all adoptable children in China.

http://www.research-china.org/blogs/index.htm

Why the Wait Time Increase?

There has always been discussions on wait times among waiting families, and every time the wait has increased there have been myriad explanations to what was the root cause -- changing CCAA personnel, Olympics, implementation of the Hague Agreement, the Hunan scandal. Analyzing the data, however, shows that only one of the above explanations has any data to support it, and the others, while possible, have no empirical evidence to back them up.

This article will focus on the wait times between January 2002 and December 2008. The data that will be considered are orphanage submission rates (as compiled from Provincial finding ads), international adoption rates (provided by various country websites), and DTC wait times as retrieved from A-P-C, the Yahoo newsgroup dedicated to waiting families.

The wait time between DTC ("Dossier to China") and referral was thirteen months in January 2002, and ended in December 2002 at fourteen months. For the entire year, the wait time remained basically unchanged, with nearly 10,200 children being referred world-wide.



At the beginning of 2003, the wait time remained at fourteen months. However, beginning in August 2003, wait times began to fall as referrals accelerated. In that month, families who had submitted their dossiers in August 2002 received their referrals, dropping the wait time to 12 months. The following month, September 2003, wait times again decreased to 11 months. October 2003 saw the wait drop to only eight months, where it remained for almost nine months, to June 2004, when it dropped again, reaching a low of six months in September 2004. The wait time remained between six and seven months until November 2005.

Since total adoptions world-wide for 2003 remained basically unchanged from 2002 (10,290), the explanation for the fall in wait times in 2003 can be found on the "supply" side of the equation. 2003 saw dramatic increases in orphanage submission rates. Guangdong Province, for example, saw submissions increase 34% from 2002 to 2003, an increase of 747 files. Hunan Province saw its submissions increase 20%, for a net increase of 439 files. Hubei Province, as another example, saw adoptions increase 37%. In the face of steady international demand, the increased submission rates across China resulted in wait times declining from fourteen months at the beginning of 2003 to eight months by its end.

The increase in orphanage submissions can be attributed to several factors, but a significant portion of it, at least in Hunan Province, can be traced to the introduction of baby-buying programs in at least six orphanages. These six orphanages -- Changning, Hengdong, Hengnan, Hengshan, and Hengyang County -- made contact with a trafficking family from Guangdong Province in December 2002. Although court testimony indicated that these orphanages had incentive programs in place before that time, the Guangdong traffickers added a substantial number of children to these six orphanages. Collectively, the four orphanages doing adoptions in 2002 saw submissions increase from 257 adoptions in 2002 to 406 in 2003, a 58% increase.

In 2004, demand from international countries began to increase, as families began to take notice of the short wait times. Although international demand increased to a little over 13,300 adoptions in 2004 (an increase of 29% over 2003), orphanage submissions flattened, with no significant increase occurring in 2004. Thus, in 2004, like 2002, demand once again approximated the supply submitted by the orphanages, and wait times trended lower, from eight months in January 2004 to six months in December. Interestingly, in 2003 the wait time began to drop in September, when the record number of children submitted in March 2003 were referred. Wait times reached their low in September 2004, again when the children submitted in March 2004 were referred. March was the largest submission month in 2003, 2004 and 2005, and this spike in submissions following Chinese New Years had its impact at the end of 2003 and 2004.

Total adoptions from China increased again in 2005, reaching almost 14,400 in 2005, an 8% increase over 2004. But orphanage submissions began to decline. In seven Provinces (Anhui, Chongqing, Guangdong, Guangxi, Hubei, Hunan, and Jiangxi), total submissions in 2005 fell from over 12,800 in 2004 to 11,318 in 2005, a drop of nearly 12%. With the eight percent increase in demand, and the twelve percent decrease in supply, wait times began to increase in 2005. Starting at six months in January, wait times upticked to seven months in July and was eight months in November 2005.

There is little question that wait times were increasing in the second half of 2005, and it is likely that they would have returned to twelve months sometime in 2006 or 2007. There is also little doubt that at some point an equilibrium would have again been reached, as demand declined in response to the increased wait times. In all likelihood, the program would have returned to a 12-14 month wait, as it saw in 2002.

But November 2005 saw the Hunan scandal break, and the dynamics of the program were irreversibly altered.

There is little question that the Hunan scandal had a dramatic impact on orphanage submissions, not just a result of the closure of Hunan Province from December 2005 until April 2006, but in the fallout from the scandal going forward.

Orphanage submissions fell from 5,400 in the last six months of 2004 to 4,642 in the seven Provinces in this analysis. A significant percentage of that decline can be attributed to the CCAA's decision to shut Hunan Province to new submissions, which effectively reduced that Province's submissions from 1,166 in the last six months of 2005 to only 505 in the first six months of 2006, a decrease of 661 submissions. Thus, a majority (58%) of the decline in submissions in the first half of 2006 can be attributed directly to the Hunan scandal.

That the decline can be specifically pegged to the scandal itself can be seen by looking at the submission rates of the orphanages involved in the scandal. In the weeks leading up to the arrests of the six orphanage directors on November 11, 2005, they submitted an average of over ten files per week. Submissions from these six orphanage all but ended following the scandal, with submissions falling from a combined 534 in 2005 to only seventy-two in 2006, thirty-three in 2007 and thirty-one in 2008.

The effect of removing Hunan from the adoption pool between December 2005 and April 2006 had an immediate and dramatic effect on wait times. In January 2006 the wait time increased to nine months, longer than any month since November 2003. By April, when a majority of Hunan's orphanages were given the green light to resume adoptions (the "Hunan Six" were not allowed to resume submissions until September), the wait time had increased to eleven months. With an increasing number of families submitting files for adoption, and submission rates in the six Hunan orphanages all but gone, China's program sought to find a new equilibrium.

The significant decrease in adoption submissions wasn't isolated to just the six implicated orphanages in Hunan, but were seen in many other orphanages as well. In Hunan Province, for example, Changde, Changsha #1, Huaihua, and Yiyang and many others saw steep declines. A look at their submission rates confirms that these decreases have their origin in the Hunan scandal also.



Whereas Changde, Changsha#1, Huaihua and the Yiyang orphanages had submitted 175 children in the six months between July and December 2005 (9 per week), following the Hunan scandal their numbers dropped to 124 for all of 2006, or 2.4 per week. These numbers declined even further in 2007 to an average of 1.4 per week, or 73 for the entire year.

This pattern is seen in other areas of China as well. Although a deeper analysis of just which orphanages saw dramatic changes following the Hunan scandal is available on our subscription blog, a few examples will illustrate how November 11, 2005 becomes a significant reflection point all across China.

In Guangdong, many orphanages saw their adoption numbers collapse simultaneous with the Hunan scandal. Two orphanages that stand out as having experienced substantial declines between 2005 and 2006 are the Qujiang and Suixi orphanages, which saw adoption numbers decline 79% and 52% respectively. Other orphanages in Guangdong that saw substantial declines include Gaozhou, Huazhou, Maonan, Shaoguan, Sanshui, and Zhanjiang. Collectively, Guangdong's numbers declined from 2,645 submissions in 2005 to 1,889 in 2006.

Jiangxi Province saw similar patterns. Fenyi, Fuzhou, Gao'An, Guangchang, Jianxin, and Nanfeng, among others, saw adoption rates cut almost in half, from 798 adoptions in 2005 to 424 adoptions in 2006. These four orphanages constituted 70% of the decline across Jiangxi Province between 2005 and 2006, when overall submissions fell from 3,027 to 2,494 children.

Upcoming analysis on our subscription blog will detail more fully which orphanages in each Province showed declines, and provide detailed explanations as to why. The first Province to be considered will be Chongqing, followed by Guangdong, Jiangxi, and Hunan.


In summary -- Observations that wait times were increasing in 2005 are correct, but mis-attribute the increase to incorrect assumptions. The increasing popularity experienced by the China program in 2003 and 2004 led to increased submissions into the China program in 2005. Although orphanage submissions hit records in 2003, resulting in wait time declines in late 2003 and early 2004, submissions stabilized in 2004 and 2005. As additional families entered the program in early 2005, demand bumped up against supply so that wait times bottomed in March 2005 and slowly began to increase to historical norms by December 2005.

The Hunan scandal, with its resulting closure of Hunan Province for four months, and the collapse in adoptions from many other orphanages, created the "perfect storm" of high demand and falling supply. This resulted in the stunning rise in wait times seen over the past three years.

Thus, to understand the increase in wait times one must look at the impact of the Hunan scandal on orphanage submissions. All other speculations to explain the increased wait -- from Hague implementation, the Olympics, or any of the many other rumored explanations -- fail to account for the dramatic change in direction that occurred on November 11, 2005.

Dutch Meetings in Sixty Seconds

The minutes of the Dutch Parliamentary meeting are important for the adoption community to read and understand. For years, the response to allegations of corruption has largely been, "I trust that my government will look into it. If the program is not shut down, that is evidence to me that the problems were small. I trust the Chinese government and my government, combined with the Hague Agreement, to protect my adoption from corruption."

The minutes of the Dutch meeting show the problems with such assumptions. The Dutch, in this meeting, were grappling with the resignation of the director of the largest adoption agency in the Netherlands. Ina Hut resigned due to her inability to do research to dispel or confirm accusations of wide-spread corruption in China's orphanages. She reportedly was told by the Ministry of Justice that doing independent research would threaten the "treaty relationship" that the Netherlands had with China, and if she did so her adoption license would be revoked.

So, the central question in the meeting was: If one suspects that the CCAA is not being truthful in their answers to official questions (which factually they had not been in the case of the Netherlands), what options are available for further investigation?

To date, the Dutch have done no governmental investigation into problems with China's program. Official delegations have been sent to the CCAA, questions have been asked of the CCAA, reassurances have been given. That is the extent of the "research".

As Ms. Azough so succinctly put it, "You cannot call that research."

The issues confronting the Dutch are the same issues confronting all governments involved in China adoption. Can investigations by officials of foreign governments be done inside China? Would such investigations damage important corollary relationships? These discussions should give everyone pause before asserting that world governments are actively involved in monitoring the integrity of adoption programs, especially the program of one of the most powerful nations on earth.

Lastly, the Dutch minutes show that they, like all other governments, are reactionary rather than proactive in finding problems. All of the meetings, all of the delegations sent to China, were a result of media exposes' that revealed problems. While some may deride the media, without the newspaper and television reports about problems inside China, there would be no debate about China's program. At the end of the day, it is the media, rather than governments, that bring the issues to public awareness.

Given the propensity of all politicians to repeat, reframe, obfuscate and obstruct, it has been suggested by one reader that I give a "bullet-point" synopsis of the meeting. What follows is a boiled down version of the meeting, with the important charges and questions retained. I, of course, encourage readers to read the full minutes.

__________________________

The Chairman: Welcome. Each spokesperson should know that they have about five minutes speaking time.

Ms Langkamp (SP): Chairman. For some children, intercountry adoption is ultimately the best solution. It is a fragile process in which it is hoped that nothing should go wrong. The control and supervision of international adoption should therefore be maximized. As the demand for adopted children is far greater than supply, it sometimes becomes a market in which adoptees are sought from parents, rather than the other way around, with all the resulting risks of child trafficking and corruption. In recent years, we have been confronted with incident after incident relating to intercountry adoptions. . . .

We come to China. We have all heard to the new scandals about child trafficking in China that have recently come out. The obstruction by the Ministry of Justice for further investigation into these stories by former director of World Children Foundation Ina Hut, was the main reason she resigned and left.

The Quality Framework for agencies participating in inter-country adoption is that it is the duty of an adoption agency to constantly keep a finger on the pulse. However, "World Children" was threatened by the ministry with revocation of their adoption license if they continued in their investigations. I find that incomprehensible. If an adoption agency finds it safe to play (investigate), then the Minister should applaud it, certainly in light of the Quality Framework, not advise against it!

With further research, I do not mean simply inquiring of the China Center of Adoption Affairs (CCAA) and then being reassured by them that nothing is wrong. What about that? This fact raises at least the suggestion which Mrs Hut also suggested, that there are other interests at stake which apparently play a larger role. Why is the ministry so docile with the CCAA?

Mrs. De Pater-van der Meer (CDA): At the last consultation on adoption is was explicitly stated that each country that had ratified the "Convention for the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Inter-country Adoption" (Hague Adoption Convention) should be confident that they themselves are the safeguards of adoption procedures. When in doubt, authorities should be contacted.

Ms Langkamp (SP): I have a supplementary question about the first part of the answer. If countries have signed the Convention, the authorities of each country can appeal to each other, you say. That's right. Do you now find that that is sufficient in all situations like now in China, this is sufficient? I mention this issue also in my own contribution. The Dutch Central Authority has inquired of the CCAA and is reassured, while there are still many indications that abuses occur in China. Do you agree with me that in some cases more could be done, not just a display of another appeal?

Ms Azough (GL): Is it not crazy that in non-treaty countries, including Ethiopia, there are better opportunities to do a thorough, profound and comprehensive study that we have in treaty countries such as China? There we have to operate in very limited frameworks, taking account of "diplomatic sensitivities".

In recent years, not from 2008 or 2007, but since 2003, there have been regular reports on adoption from China. The fact of her departure moves us from a general consultation to core questions. For my party this is a signal that we must have a much deeper and more thorough discussion about adoption from China. Central to my group are concerns and questions about adoption from China. The news accounts of recent years give a picture of trade, market and corruption. How that image corresponds to reality is, for me, still a question. It seems of utmost importance that this be further investigated. The responses so far from the Ministry and the Minister of Justice are still insufficient for my party. Every time that independent researchers and journalists investigate particularly China, gross violations of the Hague Adoption Convention are reported, including one very recent article in the "Los Angeles Times" of September 20.

It is reported how local authorities, instead of writing out fines for violating China's population policy, take babies and sell them at a rate of $3,000 per baby. I am very harsh -- maybe too harsh -- but the investigation that the Minister of Justice performed last year by means of a high official delegation to China to speak to the CCAA, came down to this, which is also reflected the answers to written questions:

"We have talked to the CCAA. They indicated that there have been past abuses, but that they were addressed. Now there is an honest and careful procedure. We must rely on the answers of the CCAA, for the Hague Adoption Convention was set up that way. This gives us at present confidence."

You cannot call that research.

My group is concerned that the Hague Adoption Convention is an obstacle by creating a false sense of certainty in the procedures. Because we, as an adopting country, also have a great responsibility, I ask the Minister whether it is possible, following the recent reports, to do further research into the situation in China. Is it also possible to see the positive and possible negative effects the Hague Adoption Convention has specifically in the case of China?

There are indications to me that much more information is known to the Chinese authorities on individual foster children, than is currently given to the agencies. This is extremely important in the context of identity and possible investigation of children to determine their own roots. Does the minister also these signals? Did the CCAA send children abroad from the Hunan scandal on false grounds? We have already talked about this question before. At the time the reply from the CCAA was that none of those children have ended up in the Netherlands. OK, very fine. However, according to research from outside - here I am somewhat limited in my resources - that the same answer was given to all countries that received adoptive children from China. This is a very strange state of affairs.

Mr. Van der Staaij (SGP): There are important steps and principles laid out in the Hague Adoption Convention: the subsidiarity of inter-country adoption, the importance of the strict voluntary relinquishment of a child, and that there should be no profit. It is, however, very important that in practice those high standards are also adhered to. . . .The minister acknowledges that there were irregularities, particularly at the provincial level. He points to the legitimate expectations of the Hague Adoption Convention and sees at the same time positive developments, real will in China to take care of abuses. What strikes me as most important from the guarantees in the Hague Adoption Convention, which China has also signed, is that there is a critically constructive dialogue with China to continue to engage on vulnerabilities that arise.

Mrs Timmer (PvdA): We all know that this is not the first time that we talk about incidents. We have already talked quite extensively about China. The Minister said that people from the ministry and the CCAA already considered incidents. I therefore strongly ask the minister: Have you talked with them again? If those problems continue, then they are probably serious and we have to look what we can do about it. But I would like to wait for the answers from the Minister, in part because it can be about things we already know about. We have to do with the one-child policy in China, and the fact that not all conditions are the same in the Netherlands as in China. That you must take into account.

Ms Langkamp (SP): I can not conceive otherwise than that you say the following: If the Minister believes that no further investigation is needed, then we accept that and so sit down. If he believes that further investigation is desirable, we find it sufficient if he again simply talks with the CCAA, which is then called "research", and if it reassures us, we will be assured also.

Ms Azough (GL): In a way, Mr Teeven says he has no confidence in the Chinese authorities when it comes to adoption from China. It surprises me somewhat that he doesn't favor a moratorium until follow-up research can be done. He accepts that children are sent to the Netherlands based on robbery and markets?

Mr. Teeven (VVD): We think there are incidents in China. That was even mentioned a little in the letter last September, so I also say what previous speakers and also what Mrs. Hut of "World Children" has said. The question is how big the incidents are, and whether they warrant the termination of the trust that we have with a Convention country in the treaty with China, or whether that trust outweighs the number of incidents. You can, of course, say that if one incident is proven true, we should immediately stop adopting children from China. This is not the position of my party. We are willing to make a trade-off. We also see that things are wrong in places. We do not close our eyes, but we do not, at this moment, believe we all have to stop adopting from China. That moment could come if the Minister is tells us that 60%, 40% or 20% of the cases are wrong. There are certainly things wrong. We do not deny that.

Ms Langkamp (SP): You just ask the minister whether there are possibilities for further research in China. You say frankly that "I do not see that there are, and we should rely only on the CCAA." Is that correct?

Ms Azough (GL): Mr. Teeven does not know how big the scale of the abuses is. That also goes for my party. I therefore call for a follow-up study. If this research can be done, then I call for a moratorium until such conclusions can be drawn. If the minister indicates that there is no further investigation possible, then consider my party in effect saying that for the time being there should be no more adoptions from China. Mr. Teeven does not. He cannot guarantee that there aren't far more incidents of abuse then have been seen so far.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): Mr. Anker already said it himself -- If you have signed that treaty, like China and the Netherlands have done, you have to deal with the principal of trust. And then he knows as well as me that the possibilities to investigate things for yourself in those countries are extremely small, if not nil?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: I come now upon the two letters concerning the decision by Mrs Hut to quit as director of "World Children", as well as to the responses attached to them. Much is said about it. Of course it’s also based on what Mrs Hut herself has publicly stated about the reasons for her decision, along with others why she could not go along with the way which was reacted regarding an offer concerning an investigation into the abuses that allegedly occur in China. In July this year, the report about it came out in the media. In it a connection was constructed between the removal of children from parents who did not comply with the one-child policy, and the unlawfully ending up of those children in the adoption circuit. Then we immediately had questions submitted to the CCAA to see whether that message could be confirmed. The CCAA has let us know that the case has been taken under investigation.

It was asked whether Mrs. Hut was put under pressure. I want to preface my answer by saying that none of those sitting at this table, were present at that conversation. That seems to me reasonable at such a conversation. And then I assume that it refers to one and the same talk. But, as I've answered the questions of the Chamber, it is perceived that several talks have taken place. They are talking about one conversation.. It seems that it in a certain way came across from Mrs. Hut there have been various discussions. I'm discussed this in pretty much detail. With that "World Children" brought the possibility up for something like an undercover investigation into possible abuses in case of adoption. Then on the part of my ministry it was said: "That’s not the way we should and can go." I have given the reasons for that. We have a treaty relationship with certain countries. I would not leave any doubt that I consider that treaty relationship valuable. In previous consultations we have talked about complications that could result in your ending up without a treaty relationship. We are nevertheless exploring some opportunities beyond the existence of a treaty relationship, but we have always devoted ourselves to the treaty relationship and the obligations resulting from it for the states who are parties to the Convention.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): When Mrs. Hut said she was going to do an investigation and the Ministry said that this would be an undercover operation, was it then said by the Ministry the straight answer: "If you really are going to do it, you will immediately lose your license"?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: I will once more state this explicitly: We have no eye- or ear witnesses of that discussion here at the table. So I can neither say with certainty from my own knowledge about the dynamics of that conversation. But it was reported to me that the response to this idea was businesslike, and that what was said is that this does not fit in the relationships we maintain.

Ms Langkamp (SP): The Minister is still expressing his full confidence in the CCAA, but that institution has explicitly urged the Netherlands to not do any further investigation. I have namely, a letter proving this. Why does the Minister still have the fullest confidence in a investigation by the CCAA? It turned out earlier that they had got it at the wrong end of the stick, saying that there was nothing the matter. Afterwards, it turned out there was really something the matter. Why does the minister still trust the CCAA?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: You say something different than what I just said. I have said that the principle of trust between states is what counts. It’s something different when you vis-a-vis the [Dutch] government say whether or not you have the fullest confidence in the government. In the interstate relations we call each other to account on what they owe each other. That’s what we mean by the interstate trust principle. Then a situation could emerge where you must say: "Hello, there is a state that does not respect its treaty obligations."

Ms Azough (GreenLeft): I have another question, in line with that of Mrs Langkamp: I think we all have that letter from the China Center of Adoption Affairs, which was also mentioned in the “Netwerk” show. One sentence is crucial there. I was terrified by that sentence. The sentence reads: "It is better not to pursue, expand or elaborate further on this issue and to keep it secret for the related families, in order not to interrupt the association established." That language causes at least my party some concerns. I very much like to have a response from the Minister to this.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: I remember that sentence too, so I understand your question well. Let us first wait for the reports of the Inspection Youth Care. I will take care of it that you get sufficient description of the procedure that was used. That will be the case in a few weeks. I'm not trying at all to jump to conclusions. I'm just trying to do the investigation orderly.

Ms Azough (GreenLeft): What is your response to the specific sentence I just put forward?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: From this investigation we will have to learn it. I’m not jumping to conclusions. That’s also the reason I distanced myself, by interruption, to previous questions from those who thought that I would have drawn the conclusion that there is nothing wrong. Of course this is not the case, otherwise we would not investigate. That includes this sentence too.

Ms Azough (GreenLeft): I’m not that much after a conclusion of the Minister. I just ask a reaction to the fact that such phrases in a letter of the CCAA do exist.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: As you've seen, this statement is open to a certain ambiguity. That statement could mean that something has gone wrong and that it was better not to dig too much deeper and do no investigations. It could also mean that there is no absolute certainty, and therefore there is no reason to go further. That sentence also has struck me. That obvious question will be addressed either in the investigations, or in the discussions which will be conducted by the delegation under my supervision.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): Now I have told the whole story. They would have said that the license will be revoked from "World Children" if it did its own investigation. It was said that the reason for the measure was, that "other interests" played a role, and that the China-Netherlands relations could be damaged. Now, you are answering the question about commercial interests in the negative, but this was literally said so by the ministry, according to the manager of an agency.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: First, I do not know whether this is a literal quote. Moreover, as far as this text is cited, we are not talking here, if it is about relations with China, about commercial interests, but rather about the relationship from state to state. That's what it is about.

Chairman: There is still an opportunity for a second round. Please, keep it short.

Ms Langkamp (SP): Chairman, I will try to be brief. The Minister says: "Let us wait for the investigations in China and then our delegation will go there with the right investigation questions to ask to do the further investigation." Can he explain the difference with the previous investigation of the delegation which has been previously to China, and which came back with the message that nothing was wrong? If it is, namely, again boiling down to number of talks over there, I really have no confidence at all that there will be any other outcome possible, given the attitude of the CCAA to date.

Mrs. Azough (Green Left): Chairman. I’m dying to know what the investigations exactly involve. So far, the Minister is somewhat vague about it. He also says he doesn't know exactly what has been investigated. Until then, he will keep his mouth shut. I find that a bit strange, because he can very well indicate in which way the investigation was done. He does not need to give the results right away, but I can’t imagine that the methods have not been discussed. The interpretation of the phrase in the letter of the CCAA seems of great importance to me. I may hope that a very specific answer will be given in the letters that the Minister has yet to send the Chamber. Mr. Anker asked a good question: What are the limits of the principle of trust? The Minister did not address this, although this might be the core of this debate.

Mr. Anker (Christian Union): The director of the "World Children" said that she has been put under pressure and could possibly lose the license if she did her own investigation. On that, the Minister has not yet responded.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: I did not respond because I was not present at that conversation. I can very well imagine that was clearly expressed that it does not fit into the type of relationship with China, namely a relationship ruled by the treaty, that an agency is doing private investigations. The question was whether then something is said about the situation that would arise if it yet would happen despite this warning. I have the impression that Mr. Anker asked if a particular kind of improper pressure came into play. In these conversations, improper forms of pressure should never be allowed, but you can say that certain activities do not belong to what a agency ought to do, knowing that it is about a relationship between two states which should address each other as states.

Report of General Consultation, Part Two

Below is the second half of the minutes from the November 9, 2009 meeting of the Parliamentary committee meeting held to debate the information contained in the report submitted by Ina Hut, the previous director of "World Children", the largest adoption agency in the Netherlands.

In the second half of the meeting, the focus shifts to the actions of the Justice Minister, Hirsch Ballin, regarding allegations of corruption in China's adoption program, and his alleged putting of pressure on Ina Hut, director of "World Children" to stop any private investigations in China.

Taken in total, it should become clear to even the casual reader that investigations into allegations of corruption in China are difficult, if not impossible, to conduct as a government, and as a private agency. The protocol, as outlined by the Ministry of Justice is clear: Since China has signed the Hague Agreement, it is assumed that they will abide by its precepts. Thus, any issues of corruption must be presented to the Chinese Government to rectify. The treaty is founded on a basis of faith and trust. Thus, it is improper for an outside government to conduct its own investigation, and certainly improper for private entities such as adoption agencies to do investigations.

This creates, of course, a circular and predictable response cycle: Allegations of corruption are publicized, questions are presented to the CCAA for clarification, assurances are given, and the cycle ends until the next allegation arises. If all parties acted in good faith, this might work well. However, as the participants in the Parliamentary meeting realize, what happens if the CCAA is not acting in good faith? What options are open if a treaty country willfully violates the foundational principles of the Hague Treaty? What options are open then?

_____________________________

Mr. Anker (Christian Union): You can draw your conclusion after the debate, but the questions I’m going to put forth - I just prepare you for it, because I have quite a few questions - are about the relationship between the Justice Ministry and China, the possibilities for research and the possibilities to add research criteria in a country of origin. I am currently still very much in the process, not jumping to conclusions.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): Mr. Anker already said it himself -- If you have signed that treaty, like China and the Netherlands have done, you have to deal with the principle of trust. And then he knows as well as I that the possibilities to investigate things for yourself in those countries are extremely small, if not nil?

Mr. Anker (Christian Union): Simultaneously we have written down in a "Quality Framework" what we require of our licensees, namely, that they regularly investigate the quality of the procedures. This includes also a study in the country of origin. It isn’t for nothing that we put that in the "Quality Framework"; there will be possibilities for it. Mr. President, I have some questions, which I had already announced. What are the limits to the Justice Minister of the principle of trust? This is a very fundamental question. Mr. Teeven has also said a little about it. In the letter from the Minister of September 10, 2008, he wrote that the Chinese authorities had made good progress, but the investigation did not allow us to give a judgment on the way the policy is executed at the provincial level. Because it is in the provinces it should be done. What are the possibilities of the Minister to watch at that level the carefulness of the process? Or does he simply continue to trust the words of the Chinese authorities?

While verifying abuses, the interests of the child must be paramount and have priority over any other interests whatsoever, including possible commercial interests. Sensitivity should also never explicitly preclude the naming of wrongdoing. Does the Minister share this basic assumption? I explicitly that because there appears to exist some misunderstanding about it. The Minister states that "World Children", after the doubts as expressed by Mrs. Hut, could have decided itself to no longer mediate adoptions from China. That is true, but that can not discharge him from his own responsibility to verify signals, doe it? Undercover investigation is not an option, whether or not it was proposed. My party understands that. But licensees can not be denied the right to do their own research. The minister also confirms this in his answers to the questions. But what then does doing an "own investigation" actually still involve? Aren't you then always being spoon fed by being pulled around by the strings of the Chinese government?

We have seen some bad examples of journalists who investigated the feelings of the rank-and-file people during the Olympic Games in China. When someone from the government was walking around, suddenly quite different answers emerged. Does the minister employ certain quality criteria for a good and adequate investigation? What possibilities do the licensees themselves have to investigate? Would it be a good idea if we build a "Framework of Quality" criteria with which we also can make agreements with China? My last question has already been asked by Mrs Azough. That was about the news that all countries were told: No child from Hunan has gone to your country.

Mrs Timmer (PvdA): We just have established a "Quality Framework". Do you think this is not enough?

Mr. Anker (Christian Union): It is now specifically about the question what a licensee can do in China. There is much lack of clarity about this. I have just indicated it in my story about the Olympics, that you get different answers with a police officer present. I can see that you try to agree with China about the question "What possibilities our licensees have to do quality research there?" At any case, for Mrs. Hut it was not sufficient what the ministry had done, or what she could do herself. She would have liked to go one step further. So today it is in the first place about the question: What can we do to ensure the quality?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: Mr. President. It was not so long ago, namely June 11, that we talked about international adoption. The accents differ in each debate, as regards country or angle. The approach of the Parliamentary Committee always are: not too strict, but also not too loose. I do have some images concerning that middle road.

Let us keep in mind that adoption, including inter-country adoption, is designed in the interests of the child. That was underscored once more by Mr. Van der Staaij and Mrs De Pater, and I thinks that’s true for all of us here. With all due appreciation, gratitude and respect for parents who are willing to take care of adopted children -- this is the beginning and the end of everything we say, think and organize around adoption.

The debate of June 11 has resulted in a number of motions. In the meantime, I've forwarded my answers in writing to the Chamber. After I would have answered other questions, I shall, with the consent of the party spokesmen, still respond to written questions from the commission on Ethiopia. It was already mentioned this evening that it would be good to say what is necessary about it.

I come now upon the two letters concerning the decision by Mrs Hut to quit as director of "World Children", as well as to the responses attached to them. Much is said about it. Of course it’s also based on what Mrs Hut herself has publicly stated about the reasons for her decision, along with others why she could not go along with the way which was reacted regarding an offer concerning an investigation into the abuses that allegedly occur in China. In July this year, the report about it came out in the media. In it a connection was constructed between the removal of children from parents who did not comply with the one-child policy, and the unlawfully ending up of those children in the adoption circuit. Then we immediately had questions submitted to the CCAA to see whether that message could be confirmed. The CCAA has let us know that the case has been taken under investigation. As I wrote on August 5, in answers to questions, the Inspectorate Youthcare was asked by me to investigate with the relevant licensees concerning the placement of children from the orphanage that was mentioned in the reports. I hope to have the results of investigations of the Inspection Youth Care available within a few weeks. We also intend to energetically monitor this issue, also based on those investigations. However, it is also the intention that a delegation from my office will go to China to speak about it.

I come to the specific questions. I start with questions about how the points of departure concerning the subsidiarity-principle can get hands and feet. Mr. Van der Staaij did not bring it up only concerning China. The licensees are responsible to find out in which way the subsidiarity-principle in the proceedings vis-a-vis foreign countries is given a meaning. Mrs Azough asked whether all countries had received a notice from China, that there are problems relating to children adopted into those countries. In any case we know from Sweden that there confirmation was received that children were involved. It was asked whether Mrs. Hut was put under pressure. I want to preface my answer by saying that none of those sitting at this table, were present at that conversation. That seems to me reasonable at such a conversation. And then I assume that it refers to one and the same talk. But, as I've answered the questions of the Chamber, it is perceived that several talks have taken place. They are talking about one conversation.. It seems that it in a certain way came across from Mrs. Hut there have been various discussions. I'm discussed this in pretty much detail. With that "World Children" brought the possibility up for something like an undercover investigation into possible abuses in case of adoption. Then on the part of my ministry it was said: "That’s not the way we should and can go." I have given the reasons for that. We have a treaty relationship with certain countries. I would not leave any doubt that I consider that treaty relationship valuable. In previous consultations we have talked about complications that could result in your ending up without a treaty relationship. We are nevertheless exploring some opportunities beyond the existence of a treaty relationship, but we have always devoted ourselves to the treaty relationship and the obligations resulting from it for the states who are parties to the Convention. Then you must also call that counter-state to account for it. That’ s the crucial point concerning the need for an investigation.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): When Mrs. Hut said she was going to do an investigation and the Ministry said that this would be an undercover operation, was it then said by the Ministry the straight answer: "If you really are going to do it, you will immediately lose your license"?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: I will once more state this explicitly: We have no eye- or ear witnesses of that discussion here at the table. So I can neither say with certainty from my own knowledge about the dynamics of that conversation. But it was reported to me that the respondse to this idea was businesslike, and that what was said is that this does not fit in the relationships we maintain.

Mrs Timmer (PvdA): I assume that we deal in a kind of trust with licensees, like treaty countries do with each other. The Minister said that a delegation from the Ministry of Justice is going to China. The Minister has done this before. So he is giving us to understand that signals that then things, which emerged from the investigation and which according to the meaning of the Chinese authorities would be addressed, did not happen? Is that correct?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: Some elements do measure up. The Chinese authorities have committed themselves to investigate. When that will be done, I do not know. I expect within a couple of weeks the result of the investigation of our own Inspection Youth Care. With this it is important that we are not dealing with a Chinese agency, but with a State: the People's Republic of China. This has also been instrumental for the way we approached the idea of an investigation by our own resources. The People's Republic of China is our treaty party. It would be quite wrong to ignore that. Because we then would suggest that we, on our own initiative, go deeply into what the responsibility is of which we call the states account. Mrs. Timmer asked what then still is the significance of our planned visit. The exact contents of the conversation will partly depend on what emerges by it. That is, of course, also partly established by our concerns, the signals, the media messages, and what was said by "World Children". The delegation will be led on high-level by the Director of Judicial Youth Policy.

Ms Langkamp (SP): The Minister is still expressing his full confidence in the CCAA, but that institution has explicitly urged the Netherlands to not do any further investigation. I have namely, a letter proving this. Why does the Minister still have the fullest confidence in a investigation by the CCAA? It turned out earlier that they had got it at the wrong end of the stick, saying that there was nothing the matter. Afterwards, it turned out there was really something the matter. Why does the minister still trust the CCAA?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: You say something different than what I just said. I have said that the principle of trust between states is what counts. It’s something different when you vis-a-vis the [Dutch] government say whether or not you have the fullest confidence in the government. In the interstate relations we call each other to account on what they owe each other. That’s what we mean by the interstate trust principle. Then a situation could emerge where you must say: "Hello, there is a state that does not respect its treaty obligations." Let me give another example. One voter of your party says to have full confidence in the adoption policy spokeswoman....

Ms Langkamp (SP): This is a funny word game, but for me it’s about the following: You just said that a ministerial delegation travels to China, but will further wait for the results of the investigation by the CCAA. That delegation is going to talk over there, but not perform a supplementary investigation or something like that. This you leave to the CCAA. So I repeat my question: Why have you the fullest confidence that the results came purely and carefully into being, so that you no longer will have reason to suppose that further research is needed?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: Now you are going too fast. I draw that conclusion at this moment not at all. Otherwise we would have no need to do an investigation or to ask for an investigation. The findings of these investigations and the questions that may arise from what gets through or have gotten through to us, will determine the phrasing of the questions of the delegation led by the Director, Judicial Youth Policy to China. Only then can further conclusions be drawn.

Ms Azough (GreenLeft): Can you specify what the investigation of the official delegation, as well as of the Inspection Youth Care, means? We know how the inspection here in the Netherlands is doing research. How exactly will be the investigation be done over there? I have another question, in line with that of Mrs Langkamp: I think we all have that letter from the China Center of Adoption Affairs, which was also mentioned in the “Netwerk” show. One sentence is crucial there. I was terrified by that sentence. The sentence reads: "It is better not to pursue, expand or elaborate further on this issue and to keep it secret for the related families, in order not to interrupt the association established." That language causes at least my party some concerns. I very much like to have a response from the Minister to this.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: I remember that sentence too, so I understand your question well. Let us first wait for the reports of the Inspection Youth Care. I will take care of it that you get sufficient description of the procedure that was used. That will be the case in a few weeks. I'm not trying at all to jump to conclusions. I'm just trying to do the investigation orderly.

Ms Azough (GreenLeft): What is your response to the specific sentence I just put forward?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: From this investigation we will have to learn it. I’m not jumping to conclusions. That’s also the reason I distanced myself, by interruption, to previous questions from those who thought that I would have drawn the conclusion that there is nothing wrong. Of course this is not the case, otherwise we would not investigate. That includes this sentence too.

Ms Azough (GreenLeft): I’m not that much after a conclusion of the Minister. I just ask a reaction to the fact that such phrases in a letter of the CCAA do exist.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: As you've seen, this statement is open to a certain ambiguity. That statement could mean that something has gone wrong and that it was better not to dig too much deeper and do no investigations. It could also mean that there is no absolute certainty, and therefore there is no reason to go further. That sentence also has struck me. That obvious question will be addressed either in the investigations, or in the discussions which will be conducted by the delegation under my supervision.

Ms Azough (Green/Left): Can then a specific explanation and interpretation of this phrase be indicated in the results you send to the Chamber?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: Of course, this should be addressed. Whether that can be done based on the report of the Inspection Youth Care I don’t know. For that, I would have to know the report. If I would know the report, it would be ready and the Chamber would have it. So I can only address it at the time the report is there. Otherwise, this question will be addressed on the occasion of the visit that the director Judicial Youth Policy will pay to China, at which the necessary questions will be put. Of these, the Chamber can be sure.

Mr. Van der Staaij (SGP): The minister will take care of a certain investigation himself. I applaud that. At the same time, he reports in his response that the agencies have a duty to investigate as well. However, we notice that in China the contacts were run via the CCAA, which does not recognize the agencies as official persons to speak to. Does this altogether not lead to a complicated split we are today confronted with? On the one hand the Minister says to the licensees: "We can call you to account on the quality of the adoptions and if something goes wrong, you are responsible to me." On the other hand, they are very limited in their investigating possibilities, or even be on guard to not influence the relations between the countries negatively. Doesn’t bring the agencies into a very difficult position?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: I will not deny that it is a difficult way of working. As a matter of fact, the questions you pose are actually answered in the treaty and the approval of it. The treaty assumes the responsibility of States with agencies we call Central Authorities - a term attributed to a state agency by virtue of the treaty and the approval legislation - which are required to ensure an orderly adoption procedure, consistent with criteria of the treaty. However, neither in the treaty nor in the implementation of it, was total state process chosen. That could have happened. That question was also addressed as a result of the report of the committee-Kalsbeek. It is known that in the first report of the committee Kalsbeek the quality criteria, on which adoptions have to comply to, were addressed as well. We also discussed then the requirements to which the agencies must comply, and connected conclusions to it. Concerning the equipment for the professional conduct of their tasks, the agencies are very different. We have concluded that a professionalization of the way agencies are working is desirable. Simultaneously, on June 11, we found that it is not desirable that there is a kind of monopoly situation of agencies who apply their own methods. That was a reason for me, conforming to the feelings of the majority of the Chamber, to stimulate that a second license holder in the United States could be active. The question can arise, of course, whether it wouldn’t be better to put this completely into state hands and I do think this question is legitimate. Only now I don’t answer this in the affirmative. You could bring it totally into the hands of the state.. That is a possible approach in this field. Then you don’t have agencies anymore, no private initiative and no special relationship with the idealistic motives of the adoptive parents. I don’t answer this question with "yes", but it is a question that can be set. But you really cannot have both. Now we now have agencies with their own responsibility. With this, the government has a supervisory role which it fulfils in response to turned-out problems, for instance by advocating greater professionalization. That also requires a certain scale of the work. Then, it's not from A to Z and with every scrap a state responsibility.

Mr. Van der Staaij (SGP): I do not know whether we should address this that wide because then it leads to a much farther reaching discussion. Let’s do it slightly smaller. If I'm well informed, adoptions in China go via the CCAA. Then you miss what you do have in other countries: The direct contact of concrete agencies with concrete orphanages. In this case, it’s my assumption that you have a kind of state-state relationship in which you speak with each other about abuses. You may expect of an agency that he takes his responsibility directly, that private homes are responsible, and takes a good look at what is happening there. However, does this model work in China?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: China has no system of society characterized by considerable space for private initiative. This also applies to this subject. This means that agencies meet there different counterparts than in a country which does have that space.

Mrs Timmer (PvdA): Will there, before the delegation leaves, be made an inventory whether the other agencies, Meiling and "Foundation Child and Future", are confronted in the same way as "World Children"? You say yourself that there are a sort of state-to-state consultations taking place. We have already sent earlier a delegation to China. So I would suggest to you to consider to send from here as high as possible delegation. Then I’m not thinking of a director, but a vice-minister or a Director General. I know that’s my resort, but you yourself make it very heavy by saying that it is about state-to-state. Then, you also yourself have to set in very high.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: It is a strong delegation, especially if you know how experienced the director is who will lead this delegation. Knowing about the specific work area is certainly important. By this I don’t want to say anything to the detriment of alternatives. Before that, you asked whether during the preparation information was derived from other licensees. The answer to that question is "yes".

Ms Azough (GreenLeft): I have a question in addition to the one of Mr Van der Staaij. Do you say in a certain way that we can not prevent agencies, dealing with China, from being legally liable for possible abuses, and that agencies can do nothing more than to warn adoptive parents of possible abuses? Do I understand well that they can not do anything beyond that?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: At the very moment, a structural problem is arising, it also can be concluded that you can not go on in this way. This is the worst case scenario. But I have informed you already previously on the previous findings and the methods. In a few weeks we’ll know more. It’s no problem now speculating together, but that is neither in the interest of the parents nor of the children.

President, I come to the question from Ms Azough on signals that there is more information from China than was published. What’s coming up on questions in response to what we know, is involved in the phrasing with which the investigation is conducted by the Inspection, respectively the delegation traveling to China. In the written answers I have already answered the question about commercial interests and other interests: No, that link is not there. We deal with this as a specific topic. Although I always appreciate that my colleagues sympathize with my work, I did not get any comment on this topic from colleagues involved in the commercial interests in China.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): That is kind of strange. According to Mrs. Hut she spoke with Mr. Levenkamp and Mrs. Van ‘t Woud. These are probably colleagues of the civil servants now sitting next to the Minister.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: Those are other than those who sit next to me.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): Now I have told the whole story. They would have said that the license will be revoked from "World Children" if it did its own investigation. It was said that the reason for the measure was, that "other interests" played a role, and that the China-Netherlands relations could be damaged. Now, you are answering the question about commercial interests in the negative, but this was literally said so by the ministry, according to the manager of an agency.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: First, I do not know whether this is a literal quote. Moreover, as far as this text is cited, we are not talking here, if it is about relations with China, about commercial interests, but rather about the relationship from state to state. That's what it is about. I would also expect the other side as is the case. The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on private international law has no enforcement role. Mrs Timmer and Mr Van der Staaij asked for enhanced cooperation in European policy towards China. My commitment is to come in the European context to the exchange of information. That’s what we started in the European context, as I have said previously. For the time being, concerns about China are only dealt with by the Flemish authorities. I am, however, open to the idea that we also take it on at the European level. It seems to me a valuable idea to agree with China on a quality "criterion" according to the progress of the consultation and in response to the findings of the preceding investigation. Mrs. Langkamp and Mrs De Pater asked about non-treaty countries. On July 1, we achieved the “Quality Framework licensees inter-country adoptions”. It states that an agency has the obligation to check as good as possible the reliability of the contacts abroad, both by entering into a relationship, as by continuation of it. As that is known and in agreement with the feelings of the parliamentary committee, we have not slammed the door on adoptions from non-treaty countries. I remind you of the appreciation that we already had was before the United States was a treaty country. There are other countries with which that may occur and occurs, albeit sometimes at a modest scale. Mrs. De Pater asked for a better guarantee for children who want to know who their parents are. She also talked about the right to care. I strongly agree with what she has said on this. These are important principles, also for the further development of the subject. The brokerage records must provide as much information as possible about the origin. The agency must take care of that. That responsibility is theirs. And it is one of the quality demands we require. Mr. Teeven asked about the financial monitoring and Future Child Foundation. Annually the audited accounts of the agencies, including on the basis of the certificates, so those of Child and Future Foundation. To date I have no signs that something was wrong with the accounts of Child and Future Foundation. Mr. Teeven has asked about the financial supervision on the Foundation Children and Future. Yearly, the year balances of the license holders are being checked, also based on the accountant’s statements - that’s also true for the Foundation Child and Future. To date, I have no signals that something would be wrong with the year balance of the Foundation Child and Future.

Mr Teeven has asked about a greater role of government. I already answered that question when I talked about a possible different model than opted for in the treaty and the implementing legislation. Mr. Van der Staaij asked about the transparency of adoption costs in the United States. We are attentive to transparency, as I have said on the previous occasion. The Central Authority shall keep a record. An unclear definition and insufficient plausibility also give rise to action by the Central Authority. Child Foundation and Future - Mrs Timmer has asked for it - has been trying for three years to a come to a contract with two U.S. adoption organizations. This did not lead to a positive result. This opens the possibility for the second license holder NAS to come to a cooperation agreement with those two license holders.

Mr. Van der Staaij has asked whether other countries have ended their adoption relationship with the U.S. For the time being only the Flemish Central Authority Adoption indicated not to want cooperation with so-called private persons who are active in the United States. The Flemish Central Adoption Authority is looking for possibilities for other adoptions from the foster care system. Mrs Langkamp has asked whether we are going to do an investigation regarding adoptions from Haiti. Yes, we know the reports about Haiti. In consultation with the agencies who work in Haiti, we are keeping a finger on the pulse. I already was intending to have the Central Authority bringing a visit to Haiti to talk there with the authorities and other related partners too, and to ask attention for adoptions from Hati. I will inform the Chamber about it if the visit gives a reason for it. Mrs Timmer and Mrs Langkamp asked whether there is some talk about structural abuses in Ethiopia and whether there has been diplomatic consultations. This is related to the question already put by the parliamentary committee. The Foundation World Children has informed me in a letter on September 17 of the fact that the adoptions from Ethiopia has been shut down for the time being and that they take for the time being no new adoption applications under consideration. From its own files investigation, "World Children" has already found out that there were discrepancies and that the background data were not always in agreement with the information in the files.. Then it was decided to further investigate current procedures. I consider "World Children's" decision to temporarily suspend adoptions and to start an investigation courageous. I also appreciate it that they are willing to take such a step when they are of the opinion that there is a reason for it. Of course, this critical attitude is appreciated. I follow the investigation with great attention. Collaborators of my Department have in the mean time conducted a first conversation with the Foundation World Children, Foundation Africa and the other organizations acting as mediators in Ethiopia. It was agreed that an inventory of the ascertained problems will be made. Based on the inventory it will be considered what has yet to be done. These are the provisional answers to the questions you asked me on October 5. They just arrived. When that inventory is complete and we have more results, I’ll gladly inform the Chamber.

Chairman: There is still an opportunity for a second round. Please, keep it short.

Ms Langkamp (SP): Chairman, I will try to be brief. The Minister says: "Let us wait for the investigations in China and then our delegation will go there with the right investigation questions to ask to do the further investigation." Can he explain the difference with the previous investigation of the delegation which has been previously to China, and which came back with the message that nothing was wrong? If it is, namely, again boiling down to number of talks over there, I really have no confidence at all that there will be any other outcome possible, given the attitude of the CCAA to date. What more will the investigation contain than the previous one? I come to the answers concerning other countries. The Minister called the critical attitude of "World Children" courageous vis-a-vis Ethiopia. When there was some talk about a critical attitude vis-a-vis China, the Minister gave a slightly different reaction, so is my impression. After all, he still has not encouraged an investigation that "World Children" itself wants to conduct in China. Why it is up to the agencies to decide to stop adoptions from a country? "World Children" has, for instance, decided to do this with the adoptions in Haiti, while two other agencies continue. In other words: Shouldn’t the Dutch government take more of a leading role in such decisions?

Mrs. De Pater-van der Meer (CDA): Chairman. We’ll get soon more information, including on China, Ethiopia and Haiti. I make the difference that two of these are non-treaty countries, and one is. I have already said in the first round that I gradually am also kind of worried - not "only" but "also certainly" - about non-treaty countries when we want to closely verify in these vulnerable situations that all procedures are properly conducted. I am still going to further orientate myself. I already asked in the first round: Can’t we require further demands on the right of identity for the benefit of the child made eligible for inter-country adoption? If it is already difficult, as in some cases in treaty countries, to verify, it’s even much harder in non-treaty countries. I wonder whether we shouldn’t provide the agencies with more tools so they at an earlier moment might say: In this we can’t fulfill according to our own rules. I just ask it once more, because to me this matter is not yet closed.

Mrs. Azough (Green Left): Chairman. I’m dying to know what the investigations exactly involve. So far, the Minister is somewhat vague about it. He also says he doesn't know exactly what has been investigated. Until then, he will keep his mouth shut. I find that a bit strange, because he can very well indicate in which way the investigation was done. He does not need to give the results right away, but I can’t imagine that the methods have not been discussed. The interpretation of the phrase in the letter of the CCAA seems of great importance to me. I may hope that a very specific answer will be given in the letters that the Minister has yet to send the Chamber. Mr. Anker asked a good question: What are the limits of the principle of trust? The Minister did not address this, although this might be the core of this debate. I would be glad to get an answer on it. Legal liability is now understandably playing tricks on the agencies. I would like to see that the Minister of Justice let the Chamber know in a letter or something like that how that exactly works.

Mr. Van der Staaij (SGP): Chairman. I thank the Minister for his answer. It is good that the investigation is running and that we will get further notice shortly. Then we can go into depth based on the Minister’s report and the consequences he attaches to it. Wouldn’t it be good then to come back on how, at signals of abuses, the division of tasks will be between agencies and the Central Authority, particularly in relation to China? I think that is up to now not yet clear enough. So I don’t want to lay it thick, but to focus it on China and the important role the CCAA plays in it. I am curious how the European cooperation will get ground under the feet. The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on private international law has no enforcement competence, says the Minister now quite short. In other words: Not much can be done with it. In the letter of September 10, on China, the Minister wrote, however, that organizations like the Permanent Bureau could play an important role in the handling of possible irregularities. What exactly is the role of the Permanent Bureau? I further have mentioned the prohibition to relinquish and the cash benefits from orphanages. To what extent is there still attention for that and is being tried China to abandon making relinquishments punishable?

Mrs Timmer (PvdA): Chairman. Also thanks on my part to the Minister for answering in the first round. I start with the international supervision and the Permanent Bureau. I understand that the Minister says that the agency is not an enforcing one. I would like it to be different. I myself have suggested to appoint a special envoy to the UN. Apart from Europe this could be an worthwhile option. I understand that this has to be further investigated. Now I’m going to say something very bad. In China they apply double standards. I know that a different ministry released a press report on Chinese who want something concerning trade with the Netherlands. Chinese inspectors are allowed to watch even up to the shop-floor a company that wants to export something to China. If we want something the other way around in China, it is all very sensitive and complicated, and is it about "state-to-state". I want the Minister to send a message about this difference in approach with the delegation which gets the task to have a look over there. I have not gotten an answer on the questions about the broader context of the huge waiting lists we have. It is about 6,000 people and 800 children on average. I don’t want to deter prospective adoptive parents from the idea to adopt, but shouldn’t we provide them with thorough information, and point out to them foster care and other possibilities? Sometimes we have also to protect people who end up on such terrible long waiting lists.

My conclusion about China, Ethiopia and Haiti can only be: This debate will be continued.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): Chairman. I thank the Minister for his answers in the first round. I would like to ask him by all means to keep the finger on the pulse so that the willingness of agencies remains to execute the deelbemiddeling in the United States loyally. Our party is strongly attached to this.

Our party awaits for the results of the investigation in China. We can not require more from the Minister at this point. The adoptions from Ethiopia have been suspended. Therefore I ask the Minister to exercise some energy in this matter. Then the Embassy can play, after all, a much more active role than in China.

Unlike Ms De Pater, I do not think we should cross a line at non-treaty countries concerning more or less checking. Precisely in both China's you see that the non-treaty country, Taiwan, adoptions take place very well, accurately and with full guarantees, and that in the treaty-country China just more is the matter. You can not cross a line between treaty-countries and non-treaty countries. You have to look at it situation by situation.

Mr. Anker (Christian Union): Chairman: Returning to the limits of the principle of trust: I specifically asked to the possible establishment of "Quality Criteria" about the way you are allowed to check whether all is going well in China. The Minister said it very quickly, but I've heard that he thought it to be a good suggestion to make agreements with China concerning checking and investigation on quality criteria. If I have listened well to the Minister, he also said that there is a delegation over there and that a penetrating interview is coming up there. If I understand him correctly, he considers a kind of special treatment for China. So, he does not want to only leave to the agencies, but put the responsibility stronger at the Dutch government. Is the Minister going to discuss this special treatment also with the Chamber? I suspect that he also has to discuss this with the adoption agencies, because it means quite a shift of responsibility. However, this might be necessary in China. I suspect that when they come back from China with that investigation, such conclusions also have to be drawn, although less far-reaching than a moratorium. I absolutely do not want to end up in a "No! Yes!" game between Mrs. Hut and the Minister. Nevertheless, her imputations really were serious. The Minister has to check yet whether it happened or not. It would be good for the relationship if the Minister will distance himself of it, if it happened this way, and says that it was in any case the line of intention. So the air can be cleared about the idea that commercial interests might for instance intervene with the interests of the child.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: Chairman: As several members of the parliamentary committee just said, this is an in-between stage. We are strongly aware of this. There have been occasions, about which has been clearly spoken, to watch again the adoptions from China, but now from a more specific angle. It is also an in-between stage in the sense that we are going, in the mean time, pretty well in the direction with the execution of what I on June 11, promised the committee.

Meanwhile, the NAS is working as the second license holder for the United States. With this is an important objective achieved, which was pronounced by members of the committee in the previous session. China. Mrs. Langkamp pronounced the desire, which I share with her, to get the best possible view of the course of affairs and work methods. The present question about China is not the same as before, but is about alleged abuses in Zhenyuan, reported in messages in July. The situation in China is different from that of Haiti and Ethiopia, because those are not treaty countries. By the way, China has a lot of state initiative and few private initiative. You can not say that the state in Haiti and Ethiopia is clearly present in the various sectors of the society. I try to phrase everything as neutral as possible, but the spokesmen present undoubtedly understand what I mean. Because of this, as a matter of course other divisions of responsibility play off.

Mrs. Azough and Mr. Anker asked what during the conversation was and was not on the agenda, and what was "listened-in". I have already clearly stated that trade interests have not in any way been normative. I want to express this explicitly. Who might have gotten that impression, must know that this impression is incorrect. As one should, I assess the relationship between the services here and there working under Justice - or how the ministries in other countries may be called - that strictly is acted according to the requirements and quality criteria which are in agreement with the intentions of the treaty and our principles of a constitutional state and the transparency going along with it. This goes absolutely together with the notion that there shall not arise any doubt about the identity of the child, where Mrs. De Pater expressly asked for.

Mr. Anker (Christian Union): The director of the "World Children" said that she has been put under pressure and could possibly lose the license if she did her own investigation. On that, the Minister has not yet responded.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: I did not respond because I was not present at that conversation. I can very well imagine that was clearly expressed that it does not fit into the type of relationship with China, namely a relationship ruled by the treaty, that an agency is doing private investigations. The question was whether then something is said about the situation that would arise if it yet would happen despite this warning. I have the impression that Mr. Anker asked if a particular kind of improper pressure came into play. In these conversations, improper forms of pressure should never be allowed, but you can say that certain activities do not belong to what a agency ought to do, knowing that it is about a relationship between two states which should address each other as states.

Ms Langkamp (SP): How does this relate to the quality framework, which precisely says that the agencies have to permanently keep the finger on the pulse, and continue to examine whether their contacts are reliable?

Minister Hirsch Ballin: It is related to it very well. What belongs to the conversations, contacts, reviews, testings, judgments of unequivocal establishing of the origin and descent of the child - that’s all just fine. That is allowed. But the application of practices, under a cloak, belongs to things that do not fit into the quality framework. So therefore one relates to the other. Mr. Van der Staaij asked about the role of the Permanent Bureau. This can certainly play a role in the exchange of information and keeping each other informed, but the Permanent Bureau has no investigation service, no inspection. I understand that this has given rise to misunderstandings, but this is the extent to which the Permanent Bureau can be of significance. As the Permanent Bureau can not do it, we have to rely on different ways of working and investigation.

Mrs Timmer has pointed to the waiting list. I take some distance from the word "waiting list" in this context. This is about a list of parents available to give a safe and loving reception for children awaiting adoption. I find that important.

Mrs Timmer (PvdA): I think that important too and you know that.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: Then it can not do harm that we are careful in the way in which we put one and the other into words. That’s exactly why I said in the previous discussions that I welcome the opportunity to involve more countries than so far in creating a situation where the willingness of the prospective adoptive parents and the needs of a child can meet.

Mr. Anker (Christian Union): There must be a letter to the Chamber with the latest news on the investigation of inspection about what has happened in China, with what has been observed and with the way the Minister himself sees how Hague Adoption Treaty should be maintained in China. We have talked a lot about the question whether one and the other shouldn’t lay more on the side of the government, in this case by our own government. I want the minister to go into this.

Mrs Timmer (PvdA): There are some things left open. That is the aftercare. The Minister of Justice says that the Minister for Youth and Family and the Minister of VWS must take this up. I find that very thin, because that’s just what we have been talking about the entire time. There is a large group of people who like to hear more about it. Neither went the Minister into my suggestion about a special envoy to the UN, or something else than a special envoy, but anyway someone who can globally play a role in it.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: I gladly promise that the Chamber will be informed on the investigation of the inspection and which work methods are being used with it. When necessary, I will clarify what the responsibilities are of the agencies are, and what of others. I apologize if I overlooked the questions of Mrs Timmer. We talked indeed earlier about aftercare. She asked whether that was only the responsibility of other ministries. No, I have, of course, the responsibility for the operation of the adoption system and what follows out of it. Mrs Timmer has also implicitly referred to a point of concern about it. I will have it discussed with the colleagues, and their respective employees. The envoy within the UN framework. I recognize the need to make the international enforcement mechanism stronger. That is not easy. I have already promised in a plenary debate that we will try at that point in the context of the Hague Conference on Private International Law to put something in motion. Now, I have not yet received results to report. I will again inquire as to the progress of the talks in the framework of that Conference and the preparation of a meeting of the conference. I will report the Chamber in writing about it when we have data about it

Mrs Timmer (PvdA): I would remind the Minister of his answer on page 4 (2009Z18045) about lengthening waiting lists of potential adoptive parents, so we use in any case the same terminology.

Minister Hirsch Ballin: From now on I will pay better attention to my own use of words.

Chairman: With these words I close the meeting.

Commitments - The Minister sends further information [to the Chamber] about China, and Ethiopia Haiti when investigations and the inventory are completed. - The minister will also go into the role of the inspection, the consequences of these investigations and the role of the adoption agencies. - The Minister has promised one and the other on the preparation of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

Report of General Consultation, Part One

On November 9, 2009 the minutes of a Parliamentary committee meeting were released to the public. The meeting of representatives of the Dutch Parliament was held to debate the information contained in the report submitted by Ina Hut, the previous director of "World Children", the largest adoption agency in the Netherlands.

In attendance were eight members of the various political factions, namely: Ed Anker (Christian Union--CU), Anja Timmer (Labor Party--PvdA), Cisca Joldersma and Marleen de Pater-van der Meer (Christian Democratic Appeal--CDA), whose respective parties form the Dutch coalition government. Also present were members of the "Opposition" parties: Naima Azough (Green Left--GL), Marianne Langkamp (Socialist Party-SP), Kees van der Staaij (Political Reformed Party--SGP), Fred Teeven (People's Party for Freedom and Democracy-VVD), as well as the Minister of Justice Hirsch Ballin, who was accompanied by several officials of the Ministry of Justice (MVJ). Gaining an understanding of each political faction's view-point will result in a better understanding of their comments and positions in this debate.

In this, the first half of the debate, the discussion primarily involves Marianne Langkamp and Fred Teeven. Ms. Langkamp's Socialist Party is defined by Wiki as a "left-wing [liberal] party. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was a People's Republic of China-supported Maoist party, but in 1991 the SP dropped its communist course, and chose a more independent and less radical socialist course, denouncing Maoism and China." Ms. Langkamp is the most vocal critic of the Chinese adoption program.

Standing in contrast to her in many instances is Fred Teeven of the "People's Party for Freedom and Democracy". Wiki states that "the Volkspartij vor Vrijheid en Democratie (VVD) is a conservative liberal party. It thus attaches great importance to private enterprise and the freedom of the individual in political, social, and economic affairs. The party is generally supportive of European economic integration, but is less supportive of political integration. The VVD is generally seen as the most right wing of the major parties."

Another significant participant in the discussion is Naima Azough, representing the Dutch "Green-Left" party. Ms. Azough's comments were largely supportive of Langkamp's, both of whom advocated for a closure of China's program until an in-depth investigation can be conducted by the Dutch government to insure that adoptions were performed free of incentives and coercion. This conclusion was contested by Mr. Teeven and Mrs. De Pater-van der Meer, representing the more conservative parties.

Thus, the debate centers on political agenda's as much as on a discussion of corruption in China's program. Those from the more liberal parties support an aggressive protection of China's orphans, and seek a moratorium on new adoptions until an investigation by the Dutch government can take place to insure China's compliance with the Hague Convention.

Those from the political right were protective of business and political interests, and placed more emphasis on the Hague Agreement, trusting that the Chinese government is proactive in enforcing its guidelines.

Thus, the following discussion focuses largely on stopping adoptions or continuing, whether corruption is widespread or "incidental", whether the Dutch or the Chinese governments are responsible for policing the orphanages and insuring compliance with Hague principles.

The following are the minutes of the hearing, as released by the Dutch Parliament on November 9, 2009. The meeting minutes run for over 40 pages. For that reason, the first half will be presented here, with the second half being published next week.

_______________________________

The Chairman: Welcome. Each spokesperson should know that they have about five minutes speaking time.

Ms Langkamp (SP): Chairman. For some children, intercountry adoption is ultimately the best solution. It is a fragile process in which it is hoped that nothing should go wrong. The control and supervision of international adoption should therefore be maximized. As the demand for adopted children is far greater than supply, it sometimes becomes a market in which adoptees are sought from parents, rather than the other way around, with all the resulting risks of child trafficking and corruption. In recent years, we have been confronted with incident after incident relating to intercountry adoptions. The Netherlands adopts children form a number of countries, and it can be asked whether it still is justified to continue international adoption. Why should it be left to an adoption agency to actually make the decision of whether or not to adopt from a country? Why does the Dutch State not make this decision? Does the Dutch government want to take a position on this in the future?

Take Ethiopia for example. It was recently announced that in Ethiopia there had been cases of records tampering. Both Dutch adoption agencies have therefore temporarily halted adoptions from Ethiopia. Ethiopia was briefly one of the largest countries in the adoption world, but is a poor country with a poorly developed legal system. The rush to adopt from Ethiopia was wrong, because the financial interests are very large. Is not the extreme growth in the number of adoptions from a poor country in itself not suspicious? Were there not already signs that something was wrong in Ethiopia? An Austrian adoption agency had already ended adoptions from Ethiopia in 2007. Was not that known in the Netherlands?

Another example is Haiti. Following indications of bribery, "World Children" stopped adoptions from Haiti. Other agencies continue to perform adoptions. Why is this not more fully researched?

We come to China. We have all heard of the new scandals about child trafficking in China that have recently come out. The obstruction by the Ministry of Justice for further investigation into these stories by former director of World Children Foundation Ina Hut, was the main reason she resigned and left.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): How does Ms. Langkamp know that Hut was thwarted by the Justice Ministry? What does the Socialist Party mean by "thwarted"? What evidence does the Socialist Party work under?

Ms Langkamp (SP): Ms. Hut herself put forward this argument, that it was what caused her to resign. This is one of the arguments they have used before. If you do not mind, I will now continue with my speech because I would like to say more. Then you might understand what I mean.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): In using such heavy words, I wonder if you know the views of the ministry already?

Ms Langkamp (SP): I know this from answers to written questions submitted by me and Mrs. De Pater-van der Meer. We know their position from the answers we received on this issue from the Ministry of Justice. However, we find those answers insufficient. But as I said, I will now say more about it.

The Quality Framework for agencies participating in inter-country adoption is that it is the duty of an adoption agency to constantly keep a finger on the pulse. However, "World Children" was threatened by the ministry with revocation of their adoption license if they continued in their investigations. I find that incomprehensible. If an adoption agency finds it safe to play (investigate), then the Minister should applaud it, certainly in light of the Quality Framework, not advise against it! I think it is a shame, Mr. Teeven, that the ministry in answering our questions wrote only half truths. What I really do not understand is that a ministry, if there are persistent concerns of an agency on adoptions from a country, does not sound the alarm bells and does not direct a further investigation until the bottom of it is found. With further research, I do not mean simply inquiring of the China Center of Adoption Affairs (CCAA) and then being reassured by them that nothing is wrong. What about that? This fact raises at least the suggestion which Mrs Hut also suggested, that there are other interests at stake which apparently play a larger role. Why does the ministry so docile with the CCAA?

Is this attitude not totally inappropriate in light of continuing reports of abuses in adoptions from China? Should one not look at other critical research that has already been done, such as that done by Brian Stuy in the U.S.? "World Children" continually reported to the ministry that everything was not right. The Ministry thus has this information. Why has nothing happened?

Until it is quite clear that adoption from China have been performed responsibly, we must establish a moratorium: Temporarily no new adoptions from China. Please get a response from the minister. And when will we get an investigation by an international independent regulator.

Mrs. De Pater-van der Meer (CDA): Chairman -- Not long ago we had a much wider consultation on international adoption with much more time than we have now. Now we are back here. The real reason for this consultation is the broadcast "Network" released this summer about possible abuses in adoptions from China. The doubts created by this broadcast were such that the director of "World Children" no longer felt at ease in her position. Now people with regularity are in the news denouncing international adoption practices. Nevertheless, or because of it, the continued opposition to international adoption calls up strong emotions.

At the last consultation on adoption is was explicitly stated that each country that
had ratified the "Convention for the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Inter-country Adoption" (Hague Adoption Convention) should be confident that they themselves are the safeguards of adoption procedures. When in doubt, authorities should be contacted. Can we well know the precise circumstances under which the birth parents have come to the consideration to give up on the care and upbringing of their own child?

Those who surf the Internet can find just about any country that we have adoption relations with - I would stress in all countries - stories of parents who had to decide within 24 hours to surrender their child, or who already had decided before the child was born. They were prepared for the fact that they were not really able to take care of their own child. Sometimes birth parents later regret it, and let it be known through the Internet. We can all take note of these stories. Meanwhile, their child is placed elsewhere.

Adopted children, when they are made aware of their origins, often desire to find their biological parents. What can they know about their file? How long will their information be available? I believe that Ms Langkamp in the previous agreement also explicitly asked this question, but now I come back to it in a different way. Article 8 of the "International Convention on the Rights of the Child" expressly states that a child has a right to their identity. A child has a right to know from whom they are descended. The next question I would like to put expressly to the minister: How can we do more to bridge the distance not just of parents who later wish to see what their child has become, but also vice-versa, with more justice, to help the child find out who his parents were originally?

We have worked in the previous consultation and explicitly mentioned that under the Hague Adoption Convention countries need each other to compare notes on the proceedings. Countries of origin are responsible for the information until it decides to make a child eligible for inter-country adoption. In recipient countries, the correct procedures should be followed from the moment a child enters the country. In this we strongly agreed with each other, but can we justify adoption in order to maintain relationships with countries that refuse, or are totally unable, to meet the requirements of the Hague Adoption Convention standards? Included are those countries that have not ratified the Hague Adoption Convention. I mention them only because recently questions have arisen about Ethiopia, Haiti, Mali, to name a few.

Ms Langkamp (SP): You asked the minister what more we can do to fulfill the right of a child to their identity. What ideas do you yourself have? You hopefully know that I initiated a motion which was adopted to extend the retention period for records. In our opinion, they should be extended to 100 years, but we will come back to this when we discuss the Wobka amendment.

Furthermore, you ask yourself whether we still need to adopt from countries that have signed the Hague Adoption Convention. I have not heard anything from you about China, but they signed and adopted the treaty. Yet there are also countries where repeated abuses have surfaced.

What do you think about this? Is the Hague Adoption Convention a guarantee that everything will go well?

Mrs. De Pater-van der Meer (CDA): To the last question first: the Hague Adoption Convention is not a guarantee. We know that international adoptions have long been at issue. We have only tried to ensure that countries hold each other accountable to the terms of the Hague Adoption Convention if doubts arise as to whether this is true. You can effortlessly find on the Internet all the countries from which children today have come to the Netherlands, find parents who say that procedures were not performed carefully. That you just found. I refer not only to China, you can call them all. But now we can appeal to the authorities on the arrangements. We can not, however, do that if the countries are not willing or able to meet the agreements.

Concerning your first question, you have rightly spoken about storage periods. The International Convention on the Rights of the Child has argued that a child has a right to self-identity. The files of international adoption should, if at any time there is a question about identity, have information that a child from its fifth year does not need about who were the birth parents. I ask whether the minister would respond to this.

Ms Langkamp (SP): I have a supplementary question about the first part of the answer. If countries have signed the Convention, the authorities of each country can appeal to each other, you say. That's right. Do you now find that that is sufficient in all situations like now in China, this is sufficient? I mention this issue also in my own contribution. The Dutch Central Authority has inquired of the CCAA and is reassured, while there are still many indications that abuses occur in China. Do you agree with me that in some cases more could be done, not just a display of another appeal?

Mrs. De Pater-van der Meer (CDA): Of course, other authorities can appeal cases to each other. But I know of no country where we have a relationship with adoption that you do not hear the same doubts and later hear the same concerns of parents, as we see, for example, in China. No one can 100% guarantee. The guarantee we can give is to talk to each other about these matters. If abuses occur regularly, then we must stop these adoption relationships. That has already been agreed up with each other. I also have not read out of the replies of the Minister that he has been reassured. I have read that he had his doubts, and he subsequently appealed to the authorities. He says, however, that we can not give a 100% guarantee.

Ms Azough (GL): The Christian Democratic Appeal party reacts strongly to a weak paper in which trust is central. We are talking about children who are very vulnerable and the interests of children. Is it not important for an adopting country, in this case the Netherlands, that we as the supervisory arm of the authorities of this country do as much as possible to investigate that guarantee as much as possible, even if it is not 100%? The answers of the Minister so far do not give me the assurance that the best research was done.

Mrs. De Pater-van der Meer (CDA): I think that the Minister himself will answer this question. I can not say he has not done everything in his power. I'm wondering whether I talk about a hard reality, but if you just browse the Web one night, you can find that all countries in which adoptive occurs have doubts and questions about them, especially from parents who then have renounced their child. If we do not want to have these issues, there is only one option: no more international adoption. So far we have not chosen that. I am now in the tenth dialogue about adoption over the past years, and I have yet to hear anyone in the House be in favor of that. I am not. Therefore I accept that the program is not 100%, and that you have to do your utmost with the Hague treaty countries to get it as good as possible.

Ms Azough (GL): Is it not crazy that in non-treaty countries, including Ethiopia, there are better opportunities to do a thorough, profound and comprehensive study that we have in treaty countries such as China? There we have to operate in very limited frameworks, taking account of "diplomatic sensitivities".

Mrs. De Pater-van der Meer (CDA): I come back to the consultations that we conducted last summer, when we found that treaty countries should shape their own procedures, since we have to trust those countries. I make no distinction between one country and another's convention, because I have no reason to do that. Ethiopia is not a treaty country. Thus, the receiving country is often bolder in doing its own research, when dealing with non-treaty countries, even stopping adoptions if there are irregularities, because they can not really follow.

Ms Azough (GL): Chairman: Adoption is a sensitive area that very much reflects societal trends. Adoption has many different parties with different interests, and the responsibility for making a careful process and the integrity within procedures is enormous. That it is a loaded and emotional issue is clear. We see it by the e-mails and calls we are all getting. Often critics and supporters of the current adoption policy argue against each other. I believe that is wrong. Everyone should place children in the first place. Birth parents, the authorities, and also the adoptive parents have a vital interest in preventing abuses. This applies to most parties in the discussion, as I see it. Let us not place adoptive parents in the role of people who do not want to an investigation, which tends to be done debates such as these. Precisely adoptive parents want to look at their adopted children in the eye with certainty, not uncertainty, that their children came to the Netherlands in the right way.

I have questions, in the debate we are now holding, on the basis of written questions from the Christian Democratic Appeal and Socialist Party. The resignation of Ms. Hut and the entire context thereof, has brought up many questions. In recent years, not from 2008 or 2007, but since 2003, there have been regular reports on adoption from China. The fact of her departure moves us from a general consultation to core questions. For my party this is a signal that we must have a much deeper and more thorough discussion about adoption from China. Central to my group are concerns and questions about adoption from China. The news accounts of recent years give a picture of trade, market and corruption. How that image corresponds to reality is, for me, still a question. It seems of utmost importance that this be further investigated. The responses so far from the Ministry and the Minister of Justice are still insufficient for my party. Every time that independent researchers and journalists investigate particularly China, gross violations of the Hague Adoption Convention are reported, including one very recent article in the "Los Angeles Times" of September 20. It is reported how local authorities, instead of writing out fines for violating China's population policy, take babies and sell them at a rate of $3,000 per baby. I am very harsh -- maybe too harsh -- but the investigation that the Minister of Justice performed last year by means of a high official delegation to China to speak to the CCAA, came down to this, which is also reflected the answers to written questions:

"We have talked to the CCAA. They indicated that there have been past abuses, but that they were addressed. Now there is an honest and careful procedure. We must rely on the answers of the CCAA, for the Hague Adoption Convention was set up that way. This gives us at present confidence."

You cannot call that research.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): What would the Green-Left party expect the Minister to do if he should respect the legitimate expectations? What kind of research should he have done in China?

Ms Azough (GL): That is a very legitimate question. There has been more than one year's occasion to think about how you can design research in a way that you do justice to the Hague Adoption Convention, while not only needing to rely on what comes out of the CCAA. The Ministry of Justice said to one agency, "World Children": "We simply can't do much more, so it is up to you to do research. But keep in mind that relationships should not be compromised." This is a contradiction in terms, and in some sense also a catch-22 that brings adoption agencies into a very awkward situation, in that it would become their responsibility when mistakes are made. Then it was literally said, "You better warn possible aoptive parents that mistakes may be found later." This makes it almost impossible for an adoption agency who wants to do his job. At the same time, we say that no further investigations can be done. I doubt that is the case. I think there are indeed opportunities. Perhaps you can step on a few toes but if we have the certainty that children come into the Netherlands in an honest way, it seems to me that a very good thing.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): Do you feel, as the Socialist Party does, that the worst case consequence should be that the Netherlands will no longer adopt from China and that we establish a moratorium? Since it benefits other Western European countries, that is the effect. Does the GreenLeft Party conclude that it should be halted?

Ms Azough (GL): Your question reflects my fear: doother countries benefit by this? This shows that you feel there would be a certain "market" at work.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): Try to be honest and clear tonight.

Ms Azough (GL): I'm not finished with my input. If you just wait, you will know what my conclusion will be. Would you wait? Perhaps that is convenient.

My group is concerned that the Hague Adoption Convention is an obstacle by creating a false sense of certainty in the procedures. Because we, as an adopting country, also have a great responsibility, I ask the Minister whether it is possible, following the recent reports, to do further research into the situation in China. Is it also possible to see the positive and possible negative effects the Hague Adoption Convention has specifically in the case of China?

Mrs. De Pater-van der Meer (CDA): I'm listening with increasing amazement. I hear you actually make an indirect call to do away with the whole Hague Adoption Convention, saying it is an obstacle.

Ms Azough (GL): No, I absolutely did not say that. If that is what you heard, you didn't listen closely to my input. I asked whether it could create an illusion. This question is to the Minister of Justice to answer, because that is one concern I have. I can not imagine that you do not have the same concerns. I am not saying that we should denounce the Hague Adoption Convention. On the contrary. I am, however, concerned about possible risks that come with the Convention. Let us not ignore that. It is of utmost importance that we can talk frankly and honestly, and that the Minister of Justice answers honestly.

Mrs. De Pater-van der Meer (CDA): A moment ago you talked about an obstacle, a "stand-in-the-road" in relation to the Hague Adoption Convention. Now you say that it creates an illusion. How would you get the facts on the table?

Ms Azough (GL): If I had had a ready answer, I would made a great speech about how the Justice Department should do its work. You can check out me and say "You have no answer", and decide we should leave the situation as it is today. But that is not my argument. I ask the Justice Ministry from my heart to see how whether further research can be done so we might get better responses than hitherto.

Mrs Timmer (PvdA): In the latter, I can agree, but I am very surprised at your attitude towards the Convention. With that kind of an agreement, it is all based on trust. If you literally called it an obstacle, I wonder which road you want to take? I feel very much which way you want. You literally just said that the Hague Adoption Convention can be an obstacle. These treaties are based on trust. We have extensively debated this in June. I don't find an "obstacle" to be an adequate expression.

Ms Azough (GL): I will not repeat this term. What is important is that the Hague Adoption Convention is based on several criteria, which we all very much support, and which we as the Dutch Government agree should exercise a degree of control. We have regularly called for an international authority to oversee adoptions. Mr van der Staaij there has also filed motions on this topic. I would be very satisfied if we could clothe the Hague Adoption Convention with more power and security. What is important is that we trust and have confidence that we can handle issues appropriately. If that seems a taboo in this room, I wonder why we still perform this kind of debate. Mrs Timmer (PvdA): It is certainly is not taboo. I also have a number of critical questions. I have already made a similar plea. I even suggested something internationally under the UN to do the oversight. That was considered too broad. I also understand that, but if we are careful with each other in each debate, we must choose our words carefully. I do not like treaties to be dismissed as "obstacles". Ms Azough (GL): Mrs Timmer, you know that my party holds international conventions as a very high priority, unlike some other parties in this house. It was not the intention that my words be so construed. The Hague Adoption Convention is a real tiger and not just a paper tiger. This is my conviction, but I have some concerns. I simply want to share some of my concerns. The Chairman: Could you finish your speech?

Ms Azough (GL): There are indications to me that much more information is known to the Chinese authorities on individual foster children, than is currently given to the agencies. This is extremely important in the context of identity and possible investigation of children to determine their own roots. Does the minister also these signals? Did the CCAA send children abroad from the Hunan scandal on false grounds? We have already talked about this question before. At the time the reply from the CCAA was that none of those children have ended up in the Netherlands. OK, very fine. However, according to research from outside - here I am somewhat limited in my resources - that the same answer was given to all countries that received adoptive children from China. This is a very strange state of affairs. Please get a specific answer to this question.

Mr. Van der Staaij (SGP): Chairman -- With adoption the interests of the child is foremost in importance and not the wishes of the adoptive parents. It is not enough to to simply speak this as a mantra in any consideration of adoption, it must also be substantiated in practice. Like Ms Azough, I think that not only the wishes of those who are critical to the practice of adoption should be considered, but also of many adoptive parents who wonder how their children will later look at this. I want this to be seen as a shared value, as the basis of the policy.

Concern about the actual representation of the interests of the child, is the "cri de coeur" (French: "Cry from the Heart"), and is once again sounded very prominently, thanks to the resignation of Mrs. Hut from "World Children". We have always appreciated the efforts of Mrs. Hut for always actively pursuing high standards of quality and ethics. The signals from the commotion and publicity surrounding her departure should be taken seriously. That there are more parents wishing to adopt than there are children available, makes inter-country adoption vulnerable. It especially obliges us to do everything we can to prevent abuses and to address, before it goes terribly wrong, and problems that would turn adoption from a compassionate emergency measure into a serious offense. It can become a "children's trade" when money plays a wrong role.

There are important steps and principles laid out in the Hague Adoption Convention: the subsidiarity of inter-country adoption, the importance of the strict voluntary relinquishment of a child, and that there should be no profit. It is, however, very important that in practice those high standards are also adhered to. We have already, in February 2008, had a debate of some potential change that could be made. One of the two specific issues raised by the resignation of Ms Hut that has again come to the fore, is the issue of mediation in the United States. Is gay emancipation not in the interests of the child? The other issue concerned the troubles in China. Are winning economic and diplomatic interests in the interests of the child? That was the tone that has, in fact, emerged. Is the system as a whole far too vulnerable?

On the question of the United States, this was debated extensively in the debate in June. I have since then expressed my critical feelings about that. I just have a question about this, because it will not the intention to do that debate all over again. Have several other countries stopped their relationship with the U.S.? What about the problem of the lack of transparency of the costs? Mr. Hoksbergen pointed that out in an article in Trouw last August.

On another topic, the potential abuses in China, we hardly discussed them at all in June, although it was presented in a detailed letter on the agenda on September 10, 2008. It was pushed for a later discussion, but that's the part where we should have expanded on. It was indicated by the MVJ what the reaction was to potential problems or abuses in China that were already known. Is there a problem? Yes, as we see when we read that letter. The minister acknowledges that there were irregularities, particularly at the provincial level. He points to the legitimate expectations of the Hague Adoption Convention and sees at the same time positive developments, real will in China to take care of abuses. What strikes me as most important from the guarantees in the Hague Adoption Convention, which China has also signed, is that there is a critically constructive dialogue with China to continue to engage on vulnerabilities that arise.

Then the crucial question is: How promising is this? Can the central government seize on anything that goes wrong in that vast country? What is the role of the European countries in this? There are also many other countries which adopt children from China. How are those contacts done with them? Mrs. Azough again referred to my point of view on a supervising authority. The minister said that this was difficult. But he also talked about closer European cooperation. What do we see of that when it concerns a country like China and its possible abuses?

What is the role of the Hague Conference on this issue in the law? How are the responsibilities divided between the Dutch Central Authority and the agencies? The minister writes in reply at a certain moment that an adoption agency can stop the adoption from a country, but it would be highly undesirable if the same facts caused one agency to cease adoptions, and not another. Shouldn't there be a certain direction, coordination and alignment from the central authority?

One problem that affects us more, is this: That letter about China was on our agenda last time, but we have hardly talked about it because there was such a multitude of documents also on the agenda.

Chairman: Please concentrate on the points you wish to make. Indeed, you must complete your statement.

Mr. Van der Staaij (SGP): This is indeed a good tip.

In China the voluntary relinquishment of children is prohibited. This is particularly important. It has been turned completely into a negative because the proper construction of cases in which the identity of a child is known with information about his biological parents, etc.. What are the prospects to change that? How do we get more visibility on, or more importantly, more improvements regarding the practice of payments of money for children to the orphanages? Doesn't this undermine the safeguards in place?

How to help the subsidiarity principle of the Hague Adoption Convention actually getting hands and feet? These questions are all addressed to China, but also wider to the other countries. I have just mentioned the issue of international monitoring, the motion I put forward, the difficulties the Minister saw and the possibilities for European cooperation. I have thought about it some more. As European cooperation is difficult, then the risk is that in reality the guarantees will fail even if they are beautiful and they actually get form in some countries Can you not promote a further implementation of the best practices by bringing them to everyone's attention? I am talking about the prevention of such things as the transfer of children. What are the possibilities for continued research in China, as colleagues have suggested? In the discussion it was about more than just the question: undercover or not?

Mrs Timmer (PvdA): Chairman -- Adoption is a life-saving solution for a child in a desperate situation. According to UNICEF figures there are expected to be millions of orphans in 2010 due to the AIDS problem alone. It remains difficult, especially since children have no voice at all. They are much too young.

More important is to ensure, even without the possibility of a 100% guarantee - as I am aware - that any act takes place carefully, is transparent, accountable, without financial gain, etc.

That brings me to China. We will not completely address the debate between the Ministry and Mrs. Hut, with all appreciation for the role she has played for years, about the question of whether or not there was an undercover investigation. But we have from the following discussion a number of questions: Does the Minister believe further research is needed? Has he had discussions with the current interim director of "World Children" on other forms of research? If research is needed, it is useful to bring "World Children" and the other adoption organizations to the table in order to see where the bottlenecks are, but especially how we can find a way to identify and solve bottlenecks with the CCAA? I would like to receive a response from the Minister on the assertion of Ms Hut that diplomatic and economic interests prevail over the interests of children in adoption, because that statement goes far. I assume that the minister knows about this statement.

Regarding Ethiopia -- Like others, we wonder whether it is true that records are not correct. We know that Ethiopia is not a treaty country, but if "World Children" discovered this, apparently there is something wrong and we also have to do something about those issues. Has diplomacy been tried in Ethiopia and, if so, what was the outcome? If we have no treaties, we always have bilateral contacts and diplomatic consultations.

Others have already called attention to the slightly wider context. I said earlier today that you sometimes wish we in this house could also have the opportunity for a "leg-on-the-table" session. Since we do not, I realize that, but we still have to deal with the broader context of a waiting list of 6,000 people. Each year an average of 800 children are adopted in the Netherlands. Every day new people are being added to the waiting list. Now I'm not saying that we could not do more, but we have each agreed with the previous debate, including the response to a motion by Mr. Van der Staaij, that there should be more attention to foster care, because we sometimes give people hope while perhaps reality is pretty different. I ask the minister to get not only a response to the motions, but also to examine the broader context.

I am also very curious about a response from the Minister on the role of the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference, which now sits in The Hague. I always had the view that this body could do more things, but apparently not because the people and resources are insufficient. My image of them was false. It would have international significance if it could do more when things are identified that are not right.

There is already talk of international control. I suggested the last time a role to give to the UN. There could be people that are given very specific areas to oversee how it goes in the world. I have not seen any response.

Turning to the response of the Minister on the submitted motions (2009Z18045). The minister does give answers to the problems of adult adoptees that this is in the area of expertise of the "Minister for Youth and Families" and the "Secretary of Health". I am disappointed with that response, so I hope the Minister of Justice will say something about this now.

At the website of "Child and Future Foundation" (Stichting Kind en Toekomst) it states that two contacts in the United States have been terminated. Is the minister aware of this, and does he have an opinion about it? That fact surprised me somewhat.

Ms Langkamp (SP): Getting back to China. You asked the minister whether he believes that more work is needed, but what does the Labor Party think itself?

Mrs Timmer (PvdA): We all know that this is not the first time that we talk about incidents. We have already talked quite extensively about China. The Minister said that people from the ministry and the CCAA already considered incidents. I therefore strongly ask the minister: Have you talked with them again? If those problems continue, then they are probably serious and we have to look what we can do about it. But I would like to wait for the answers from the Minister, in part because it can be about things we already know about. We have to do with the one-child policy in China, and the fact that not all conditions are the same in the Netherlands as in China. That you must take into account.

Ms Langkamp (SP): I can not conceive otherwise than that you say the following: If the Minister believes that no further investigation is needed, then we accept that and so sit down. If he believes that further investigation is desirable, we find it sufficient if he again simply talks with the CCAA, which is then called "research", and if it reassures us, we will be assured also.

Mrs Timmer (PvdA): No, I am not saying that. I want to know from the minister whether any new facts relative to the research that was done last time. I have also asked questions. Mr. Van der Staaij rightly recognized that we have hardly talked about the previous letter. I would, like you, wish we could offer a 100% guarantee, but we just can't. I accept the fact that we do not have a guarantee, but these signals must be addressed. Therefore I asked you, "World Children", the interim director and other adoption organizations to sit down to bring to light the existence of any new things, or whether it simply concerns things which we already knew last year?

Mr. Teeven (VVD): Chairman -- The VVD Party thanks the minister for his letter of yesterday on the implementation of the motions. A lot of clarity was created. As for the U.S., and the part mediation, we are on the right track. Can the minister in a more timely manner, however, address the question of the second adoption agency, namely the Dutch Foundation for Adoption (NAS)? What is the progress on this point now?

The minister said that the "Child Foundation and Future" was given the same financial audit as the other six agencies. When was the last audit of "Child and Future Foundation" before? Was it last year? Was there an unqualified audit opinion? Was there a deviation in the financial statements as seen in other agencies?

The director that resigned from "World Children", Mrs. Hut, has given many of us - I think all of us - information and briefings on her findings. For the VVD party it is certain that in the treaty country China there are irregularities. I agree with Ms De Pater that you can never get 100% guarantee. That money is paid for children my party is also convinced, and also that children were forcibly transferred to orphanages. Further investigation of the minister will not prove much more of it, but that further investigation may be necessary for another reason: namely to investigate whether there is any possibility to prevent it from happening further. Does the minister have any possibilities for research in China?

Still another point is that in the whole discussion about China, it was reported that officials of the Ministry put pressure on the director of "World Children". They reportedly said that the license would be revoked if "World Children" would do its own investigations or other activities. The minister has said something about it in his subsequent replies to the written questions of the House, but now I want to hear it in direct discussion, otherwise it will be left hanging. Is the director of "World Children" of the opinion that the Minister put them under pressure - I think one of them is sitting here tonight - or not? What really happened in that conversation? Can he make it clear in these three words: "Pressure" or "No pressure"? On the one hand I hear, like other speakers at this table, that it happened. On the other hand, the ministry said that it did not happen. This type of situation we cannot have in adoptionland. For my party the conclusion regarding China is that we must consider whether the research opportunities should be increased. Can we do more in that area in the treaty country of China? I am not optimistic, so I ask other speakers. My party has not concluded, as the SP party has, that we should discontinue adoptions, despite the fact that we are convinced that there are things that should not occur, that are not in the interest of the child, that do not meet the quality framework in the Netherlands, and that we do not want. The conclusion that Mrs Langkamp draws, we do not. We believe that for now we should continue adoptions from China, because you would have to do with the principle of trust against a country that has signed this Convention. You have to be able to trust that.

Chairman: A few spokesmen are interrupting. I propose that if the interruptions are similar, we combine them in consideration of the time.

Ms Langkamp (SP): When I hear Mr Teeven correctly, he says: I take the abuses in China for granted, but I think we should continue to adopt from China. Is that correct?

Ms Azough (GL): In a way, Mr Teeven says he has no confidence in the Chinese authorities when it comes to adoption from China. It surprises me somewhat that he doesn't favor a moratorium until follow-up research can be done. He accepts that children are sent to the Netherlands based on robbery and markets?

Mr. Van der Staaij (SGP): If you so specifically acknowledge that there is evidence of irregularities and abuse, when, in the eye of the VVD party, will the moment come when you say (not just about China, but about other countries): With this country we can no longer have an adoption relationship? The VVD party in the past has supported such measures regarding Guatemala. At that time we said, "No, it can't go on anymore, now that we know what is wrong." So when can we do this, and when can't we?

Mr. Teeven (VVD): Mrs Langkamp and Mrs Azough, I say that the VVD party is not in favor of simply playing to the gallery at this table, and then perpetrate symbolic politics with no consequences. You have to clearly express yourselves as a party. Mrs Langkamp has at least done that. That is not my position, but then you know clearly what the point of view is.

We think there are incidents in China. That was even mentioned a little in the letter last September, so I also say what previous speakers and also what Mrs. Hut of "World Children" has said. The question is how big the incidents are, and whether they warrant the termination of the trust that we have with a Convention country in the treaty with China, or whether that trust outweighs the number of incidents. You can, of course, say that if one incident is proven true, we should immediately stop adopting children from China. This is not the position of my party. We are willing to make a trade-off. We also see that things are wrong in places. We do not close our eyes, but we do not, at this moment, believe we all have to stop adopting from China. That moment could come if the Minister is tells us that 60%, 40% or 20% of the cases are wrong. There are certainly things wrong. We do not deny that.

I'd rather there were not abuses, but through the the work and commitment of Mrs. Hut, with whom I often disagree, but not on this point, it is known that there certainly are abuses. Only our party does not come to the same conclusion as she has.

Ms Langkamp (SP): You just ask the minister whether there are possibilities for further research in China. You say frankly that "I do not see that there are, and we should rely only on the CCAA." Is that correct?

Ms Azough (GL): Mr. Teeven does not know how big the scale of the abuses is. That also goes for my party. I therefore call for a follow-up study. If this research can be done, then I call for a moratorium until such conclusions can be drawn. If the minister indicates that there is no further investigation possible, then consider my party in effect saying that for the time being there should be no more adoptions from China. Mr. Teeven does not. He cannot guarantee that there aren't far more incidents of abuse then have been seen so far.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): Madam Azough repeats my own words. No, I do not know. You know nothing. Nobody knows how many incidents have taken place. At this moment I am not positive about the research capabilities of the minister. He must start from the beginning of the standing treaty. But it is a balancing of various interests. My party has weighed the pros and cons which I have expressed this evening. At present there is no reason for my party to say we should stop adopting children from China. We provide clarity. That position may change, but at this moment we provide clarity. But I do have a question for the minister: Does he think that the role of government, in this case the Dutch government when we talk about treaty countries, should be larger and the role of agencies smaller? Should we leave everything to the agencies or should the role of the Government - Mrs Langkamp said this earlier and it may sound strange for a liberal party to say so - having considered all of the problems that exist in these adoptions, be bigger? Perhaps the minister believes that things are going well.

The question of Mr. Van der Staaij on the non-treaty countries I have not answered. For non-treaty countries it is a different situation. In Ethiopia and other states we have never had a relationship of trust. In each country and situation, we always review to see whether we continue to adopt from such countries. For non-treaty countries, there are greater opportunities for both the Dutch government and the agencies to do their own investigations. My question is whether the minister in Ethiopia or other countries that Mrs Langkamp already mentioned, sees possibilities for embassies, consulates and the agencies to conduct research for the Dutch government. Does he also see a more serious role for the Dutch government in the non-treaty countries? These are two different questions.

Ms Langkamp (SP): You just ask the minister whether there are possibilities for further research in China. You say frankly that you do not see that there are, and that we must rely only on the CCAA. Is that correct?

Mr. Teeven (VVD): I can be explicit. You could wonder whether you can make better use of the contacts the various agencies have in the same country. Wouldn't it be better to coordinate these contacts? Shouldn't the Dutch Central Authority cooperate more with the central authorities in other Western European countries, which also have the same ax to grind? How is the situation in other Western European countries? Is it the role of of the government as small as it is in the Netherlands? Can we not coordinate with one another? Can we do something in a European context in treaty countries and non-treaty countries?

In short: such topics will be on the agenda. But that is only addressed if you ask the seven agencies we have now, to work together. Then I'd hope we might do a lot together, maybe not. I'd like to hear that. But maybe they have to use each other's contact and know how, so they can learn the good and bad things from each other. That is my opinion.

Mrs. De Pater-van der Meer (CDA): Your question of whether the role of government should be bigger or smaller is a little trigger for me. There can go into two different directions with that. You can say that the previous government could say to agencies what they can and can not do. If that is so, let me know. But perhaps you think that the Government knows something better than the agencies. If that is the case, I want to hear exactly what you mean.

Chairman: Mr. Teeven, after your answer, you must conclude your speech.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): Chairman, I am only answering questions.

Mrs. Pater mentions two subjects at the same time. First, the Ministry in the case of "World Children" and her research in China said "This far and no further, Mrs. Hut. We do not want you to go do research yourself, because it affects a number of other interests othat than the interests of the child." That assessment was made by the Minister, and we can like that or not. If you leave the government's role more important, than you can step on the brakes earlier and respond to problems. I'd like to hear what the minister thinks about this.

Second, you could wonder if the government should do it herself. Would you be able to do a better job than the officials have now done in China, or that has been done in the framework of the "deel-bemiddeling" in the United States, or by the adoption agencies? Perhaps you would not have to deal with a reluctant "Child Foundation and Future", which in the United States digs their heals in.

Maybe things would run more smoothly if the government would do the mediation part with the United States. I would like to hear that.

We are still a party, so I say now to Mrs. De Pater, who says that we should not close our eyes if it turns out that the government can do it a little bit better.

Mrs. De Pater-van der Meer (CDA): This is about the first time I hear someone from the VVD advocate the idea that the government can do something better. That is a conclusion more than a question for me.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): No way. That remark about the VVD party was made in passing. Our party has also advocated that the taxis in Amsterdam should be in the hands of the Government again. That is, however, a whole other subject.

Chairman: We continue with the topic of this debate.

Mr. Teeven (VVD): That this is the first time we are asking for more government is not true. We do that really! We realize our mistakes, something that your party does not always do.

Mr. Anker (CU): President. We are in an meeting where not much seems to be on the agenda. At the same time, this is a very big subject. The reason is that Mrs. Hut has resigned as a director of "World Children". We are all a bit shocked. I share the respect and appreciation for the work she has done with everyone who said anything about it. It is actually not finished yet, because it allows us again tonight to ask a whole series of questions about international adoption, particularly about China.

The report of the committee Kalsbeek, which we have discussed before, states that the focus has to be on monitoring intercountry adoption to the Netherlands so that the entire chain of partners all actually act in accordance with the principles of the Hague Adoption Convention and the International Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Then we come to the point which we are discussing today: is China acting in accordance with the actual principles of the Hague Adoption Convention or are they just saying that they are, but in actuality the CCAA does not have a grip on what is happening in the country, especially in the provinces?

I have some difficulty in saying that Beijing should get a firmer grip on its provinces, because I'm not in the internal affairs committee of China. But when seen from the interests of the child, the answer should be clear. This also applies to adoptions from Ethiopia, India or any country. The Central Authority cannot say, "Yes, the country is so large that we can't check it all." We should be able to expect from the authorities thaqt they know what is going on in their country.

The picture is clouded by the many signs of abuse that are still coming in about the adoption process. Such signals provide societal unrest. It is very important to be sure that the Minister has sufficient resources to verify the signals, to guarantee the carefulness of the adoption process.

The trust principle is the starting point of the the Hague Adoption Convention. It is a good principle. However, in several countries something has gone wrong. Shouldn't another, perhaps typical Dutch, expression, "Confidence is good, but control is better?" apply here?

Mr. Teeven (VVD): You ask in name of the Christian Union party nice questions, but what is the consequence? Do you think the minister needs to go to China himself and check things out? Or are you saying like Mrs Langkamp: that we should stop adoptions from China? Or are you saying like me: : I see the abuses but shouldn’t we continue for a while?

What is the conclusion of the Christian Union party?

The rest of the debate will be published next week.