House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Dec 1990

Column 454

The enhanced standards of sewage treatment that we now require are consistent with the proposed directive on municipal waste water treatment, which is under active negotiation in the Council of Ministers. We hope and expect that the directive will be adopted in the next few hours. Our commitment to the directive, and to the early implementation of its requirements, is clear.

The Welsh and Wessex water companies are licensed to dispose of treated sewage sludge in the Bristol channel dumping site about 11 miles north of Ilfracombe, as my hon. Friend has explained. The site is one of the most dispersive in United Kingdom coastal waters and regular monitoring by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has shown no significant impact on the local marine environment. At the end of last month, however, the water companies submitted their proposed programmes for diverting the sludge to alternative outlets on land, in accordance with our commitment-- made at the third North sea conference, in March this year--to cease sea disposal as soon as possible. Those submissions are being considered and, as soon as consultations with the companies are completed, details of the national programme will be published. I assure my hon. Friend that that, too, will take place as soon as possible.

The pollution of beaches was recently addressed by the Select Committee on the Environment in its fourth report. One of the issues considered in its wide-ranging and thorough investigation was the evidence concerning the risks to health posed by bathing in sewage-contaminated water. The Committee concluded :

"it is clear that there have been no major outbreaks of serious disease in the United Kingdom associated with sea bathing : and from this we conclude that the risk of contracting such a disease from sea bathing is minimal".

It recommended the continuation of existing research into the relationship between less serious illnesses and bathing.

The Government endorsed that important conclusion in their response to the Committee on 12 December. It lays to rest the more alarmist claims made by some pressure groups, and sensationalised in media reporting. The Government accept that more research is needed into the risks of minor inflammations of the ear, nose and throat and into certain skin irritations and gastro-enteritis. Further research will be commissioned, jointly funded by the Government and the National Rivers Authority.

A further recommendation of the Committee concerned the provision of information on water quality to bathers. The local authority associations have warmly endorsed a proposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) for posters to display easy-to-understand results of monitoring by the NRA at all identified bathing beaches. With the co- operation of the local authorities, the scheme will be in place for the 1991 bathing season.

The blue flag scheme is awarded to beaches that meet the highest standards of cleanliness and management, at which water quality meets European standards and where information on water quality is displayed. This year we have 29 blue flags, but I should like to see many more. Indeed, I should like to see every beach receiving a blue flag. Water quality is not the limiting factor ; 345 of our bathing waters met the directive's standards this year. The next step is for local authorities to bring their beaches up to the necessary high standards and apply for a blue flag. My ambition is to see every beach with a blue flag.

Column 455

Rightly, attention is given to those bathing waters that do not meet European standards. We are taking action to ensure that we make progress as fast as possible. However, as the Prince of Wales reminded us in his recent speech to the Institution of Water and Environmental Management :

"Of more than 400 identified bathing waters' in this country, the majority now do pass the mandatory standards of the European Community directive. This is a real success story and one that deserves more recognition than it has hitherto received."

I very much hope that our success story on bathing water quality will get the recognition it deserves. Let us not forget that over three quarters of our bathing waters already meet European standards. As the House knows, there is a £3 billion investment programme to bring the remainder into compliance. Our commitment to improving water quality is firm and is backed by a record of solid achievement.

Column 456

Romanian Refugees

3.53 am

Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East) : I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak at this hour--just coming up to 4 am. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing him from his bed at such an hour. However, I hope that he feels that the subject of the debate--British consular assistance to Romanian orphans--is worthy of any of us being out of bed at any hour of the night. The purpose of my debate is threefold. The first purpose is to draw attention to the continued plight of orphans in Romania. It is some 12 months since we first learned of the horrors in Romania and I am disturbed to learn from current reports that the position is even worse than was at first suspected. Sarah Ball of Granada Television, who has just returned to this country after a further visit to Romania, says that she thinks that there could be nearer 400,000 rather than 200,000 orphans in those terrible orphanages. It is a damning indictment that a state of affairs which existed before the revolution continues to exist today.

My second purpose is to encourage further aid for Romania direct from the Government, to some extent from the European Community, and from all the voluntary groups, charities and non-government agencies that have done so much to provide direct humanitarian aid in Romania.

My third purpose is to encourage couples considering adopting Romanian children--not only those who are relatively healthy, but the handicapped children whose plight is the worst of all.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is present for this debate, as he intervened in the Adjournment debate that I introduced on 29 October and he has particular points to make about his own constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) also had an Adjournment debate on 15 November on the subject of handicapped children in one of the orphanages.

It is more difficult than it should be to adopt handicapped children in this country, let alone from countries abroad. I recommend that hon. Members read a book by Katherine Macaskill, "Against the Odds", in which she describes the difficulties experienced by couples in this country who wish to adopt handicapped children. They have more success dealing with voluntary agencies than with social services departments of local athorities.

I hope that we shall refer briefly to the plight of children worldwide. The latest report of the United Nations Children's Fund estimates that more than 15 million children die every year. When I was at Harvard university, I had the good fortune to be taught by Professor Roland Christiansen. I remember his stating that, of all the problems that we face, none is worse than the fact that more than 1,000 million people do not get enough to eat every day. Students of Harvard university produce a ranking of their professors twice a year--a practice which we should follow in this country- -and Professor Christiansen came top of the rankings year after year. It was a sign of the quality of his teaching that he felt that that was the foremost problem to which we should address ourselves.

Column 457

In September, the United Nations produced its convention on the rights of the child, which our then Prime Minister signed on behalf of the United Kingdom. However, there are problems in ratifying the convention--there are plenty of fine words, but I am not sure how much action there is.

I am surprised that the latest report from UNICEF, "The State of the World's Children", makes no mention of Romania. There is a page on the children of eastern and central Europe, but Romania is not mentioned. Given the ghastly situation in Romania, it is extraordinary that the report does not refer to it.

It is one year since the revolution, when we began to discover just how bad things were and found that there was no contraception or abortion available for mothers, who were expected to have five children. I should like to draw the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to a particularly good article by Judy Dempsey, which appeared in the Financial Times on Thursday 29 November. It states :

"Mr. Bogdan Marinescu, Romania's health Minister, is a tired and weary man. As he attempts to secure support for a new health system, fresh obstacles stand in his way almost every day. The greatest one is the miserable legacy bequeathed to the ministry from the Ceausescu regime.

Under that regime, the health system was systematically run down. Mr. Nicolae Ceausescu's attempts to pay off at breakneck speed the country's hard currency debts during the 1980s led to a corresponding decline in public expenditure and investments in the health service. But the cutback in health spending went beyond a deterioration in services. It undermined the social fabric.

In the early 1980s, women were obliged to have children after the regime embarked on a public campaign to raise the birth rate. Abortion and contraception was banned.

Despite the campaign to raise the birth rate, there were few incentives to facilitate the programme. Food rationing was introduced in 1981, imports were banned and hospitals were starved of investments. As a result, women were often forced to abandon their children in orphanages, or else resort to illegal abortions and risk infection.

Mr. Ceausescu's obsession with increasing the birth rate coincided with a campaign against the medical profession. Doctors and nurses, always under the watchful eye of the hated Securitate, or secret police, were frequently accused of taking bribes, a common practice in eastern Europe because medical staff were so badly paid. And as its public status deteriorated, it failed to attract the younger generation into the profession.

Child care in nurseries, orphanages and paediatric hospitals bore the brunt of a decline in trained personnel. Mr. Marinescu says that explains why today there are 128,000 children in Child Protection units.'"

that is an underestimate according to other reports

"Of that number, 14,800 children up to the age of three are in orphanages. Another 84,900 children, aged between four and 18 years, and under the supervision of the Ministry of Health and Science, are living in orphanages and educational institutions. The Ministry of Labour is entrusted with looking after 23,000 orphaned and handicapped teenagers.

Recent Western visitors to these institutions have been shocked by the conditions. Children were left unfed, unclothed and uncared for in conditions described by western doctors as medieval.

Mr. Marinescu says such neglect was a result of a combination of factors : inexperienced and poorly-paid staff, public indifference, and society's lack of awareness about the true situation. French and British doctors are more critical.

"Romanians tell us they did not know about the situation" said one British doctor. "If they did, they say they could do nothing to improve conditions. The indifference towards the way orphans and handicapped children were treated, and the

Column 458

public stigma attached to handicapped children, was shocking. It seems to me that Romanians were hostile about knowing the truth, he added.

Doctors and health organisations visiting Romania also comment on how medical supplies sometimes find their way into the black market as a result of the continuing shortages ; that staff in villages remain suspicious and sometimes obstructive towards outside help. This is hardly surprising. For decades, Romanians were banned from speaking to foreigners.

Mr. Marinescu contends every day with these criticisms. The problems are enormous. We have to change the mentality among the population. But to do this, we have to find the resources.' Helped by the World Health Organisation, the Ministry has started to improve medical services. Progress has been steady but slow, largely due to the bureaucratic inertia, the lack of computers, an untrained medical profession and few resources."

The lack of resources appears to be the most immediate problem. The Health Ministry reckons it requires $1.4 million to repair orphanages ; $1.2 million for repairing 10 of the 32 hostels for severely handicapped children (the remainder are not fit for use) ; another $5.9 million for repairing half of the 49 special education units for deficient children. But a shortage of raw materials delays repairs. Feeding the children is another problem. In a recent report the Ministry concluded that the state's monthly food budget of $4.6 million for all the childrens' institutions is inadequate. The improvement of food would require monthly food imports worth $2 million we do not have the money.'

As for medicines, the monthly bill is $900,000, of which $700,000 is spent on imports. Clothing and accommodation for the winter months will cost an additional $2.4 million.

The government's long-term programme to improve childrens' institutions will cost $100 million, while "in order to attain the targets for the next six months, we need $27 million." But Mr. Marinescu knows that the government's coffers are empty.

A visit to any of the pharmacies in Bucharest confirms this. It is still impossible to buy soap, tampons, penicillin, aspirin, nappies, diapers, sanitary towels, baby food, antiseptics, bandages and condoms.

A visit to any hospital confirms the shortages of personnel and medical equipment. In the meantime, Romanians with money, connections and access to the black market continue to by-pass the queues. Hence Mr. Marinescu's plea for concerted international assistance. Without such help, he believes that the health system, or the population's mentality, have little chance of changing for the better."

In addition to newspaper reports, we have had several television reports. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the most dreadful of all the programmes that I have seen--Sky Television's programme on 12 October. It was an unforgettably harrowing video. It showed the orphanages for the handicapped at their worse. They had a death rate of 40 per cent. There were naked children, many horribly deformed, in steel cages. The institutions were behind barbed wire. They were as bad as Auschwitz, except that the people inside were kept alive rather than gassed.

My daughter has just gone over to Romania. I do not know whether she will be able to give me any first-hand accounts of the orphanages. The reports that I have had from her suggest that the Romanian public are kept in ignorance of much of what is happening, so to imagine that the problems can be solved within Romania is clearly to expect more than is possible.

Several voluntary groups from Britain and other countries have gone to Romania to help. It is invidious to mention only a few of them, but the Scottish Flanders Alliance, British Red Cross, the Romanian Orphanage Trust, Mencap, Blue Peter, the Romanian Angels and Save the Children are well-known organisations which have gone there. Also, many local voluntary efforts have

Column 459

been made. From Bolton, and from Lancashire in general, many people have gone over to Romania. Heating engineers from Somerset have gone to put heating equipment into some of the orphanages.

Many Members of Parliament have been involved in voluntary efforts. My hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Torridge and Devon, West have been actively involved. During the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West, the Romanian ambassador was here. When I saw him afterwards, he impressed on me that the country needed help from every possible source. Of course, it has been difficult to provide official aid because the regime is so deficient. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has to say about the difficulties of providing aid officially, either directly from the Government or through the European Community, to the official regime in Romania, where there are dangers of corruption, inefficiencies and all the other difficulties of organisation.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was present for his Adjournment debate on the problems of adopting children from foreign countries and the debate of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). On both occasions, I mentioned that I have constituents who have adopted the only child from Romania from a mental institution who was classified as mentally handicapped. I sent them copies of the debates. Mr. Smith wrote to me and I should like to quote some of the points made, which are relevant to the points that the hon. Gentleman has developed. My constituent said :

"Harry, please try to understand one of the most important tasks any relief organisation has to do first, and that is to find out who is mentally handicapped and who is just socially deprived, or who has been affected by being in an institution and if they are not mentally handicapped.

I am sending you a copy of a letter that the Sheffield Social Services received from the Department of Health with regards to Emese"--

the girl whom the Smiths have adopted. The letter from the Department when into considerable detail about the medical and mental difficulties that she faces and the impairment which results. Mr. Smith went on :

"Emese is now talking a few words of English and putting words together in just 12 weeks. She is bright healthy and very very happy. The point that I am making, Harry, is that the report the Department of Health has written was based on Emese's medical report from Romania by Romanian doctors only six month ago. Miss Nicholson"-- the hon. Members for Torridge and Devon, West--

"also says that the last psychiatrist trained was in 1972. (I can well believe it)".

It now looks as though Emese may not be suffering from all the mental difficulties that she was assumed to have at the time of adoption. My constituent makes a valid point about the direction that the relief organisations should take in solving the problem.

Mr. Thurnham : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His constituents' case is relevant and I received a copy of their letter from him. I commend his constituents for what they have done in adopting both a handicapped child here and a handicapped child from Romania. Some people say that British couples are adopting in Romania simply because they want healthy children. Most people recognise, however, that many Romanian children are suffering from AIDS, hepatitis and TB as well as being

Column 460

handicapped from birth. One of the worst things is that in Romania handicapped children are regarded as criminals. They are looked after dreadfully and need every possible help that can be given to them.

Mr. Harry Barnes : The hon. Gentleman referred to a book called "Against the Odds" and to the difficulty of adopting mentally handicapped children. People who adopt such children do so against the odds. I received a parliamentary answer saying that Emese is the only such child to have been adopted. The Smiths' qualifications and determination and the support that they received were exceptional. Given all the publicity on television and elsewhere, it is hard to believe that the Smiths are the only qualified parents who have been able to adopt a child. There must have been many other appropriate couples who started on the road to adoption but could not overcome the problem of officialdom here and in Romania.

Mr. Thurnham : I mentioned that to Baroness Faithfull, the chairman of the all-party group for children, the other day. She believes that she knows of other cases. The problem is that no one really knows what is going on. A number of children are being brought in without the procedures being followed because of the delays experienced by those trying to observe the procedures who are running into all sorts of red tape and delays. Given the dreadful circumstances of children in Romania, it is a natural humanitarian response for people to wish to adopt them. The National Association for the Childless has received more than 5,000 requests for further information. The United Nations declaration states that the first objective for every child should be to stay with its parents. If that is not possible, it should be possible to make other arrangements within the country of the child's birth. Inter-country adoption should be looked at only as the last possibility, when the other two have been fully explored. Most people would accept that order of priorities. But given the desperate straits of children in Romania and in other countries where children are dying, it is difficult to say that it is in the interests of the child to follow an enormously lengthy procedure. Some parents say that they have been treated like criminals while trying to follow all the procedures. Fourteen parents came to me with a petition, which I took to Downing street in July, concerning problems that they were facing not only with the local authority social services departments, but with the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Department of Health. I helped that group of parents to set up the Campaign for Inter-Country Adoption, led by Barbara Mostyn, formerly of the Association for the Childless. I have received numerous letters and shall refer to a few of them. I received a letter dated 10 December from Mr. and Mrs. Parsons, who live in Dorset, referring to difficulties in Romania. It says : "The point has been made many times, but bears much repeating, that if the British Authorities could have been more helpful, responsive and consistent, all adoptive couples would readily accept 2-4 weeks' delay. It is the indeterminate and uncertain time that causes the distress. The new Vice Consul in Bucharest has arbitrarily and without warning introduced new papers and requirements, which were not in place a few weeks ago. It is both unreasonable to do this without warning, but also demonstrates why there is a well founded perception that the British Authorities are particularly difficult." I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to reply to points such as those.

Column 461

My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that a case is being brought against the Government by Mr. and Mrs. Luff, who, although approved by their local social services, were turned down by the Department of Health because of a previous heart condition of Mr. Luff, although he claims that he is now perfectly healthy and able to bring up a child. When one considers that couples here can have a child naturally without having to have Department of Health approval, one wonders whether some of these procedures are so necessary when we are dealing with children who would otherwise be likely to die in Romania. One must acknowledge that there are difficulties. My hon. Friend may be aware of the case of the Stewarts from Chelmsford in Essex. Mrs. Stewart went to Romania and adopted a child according to Romanian law while her husband, who had remained in this country, unfortunately fell ill and died. She is staying in Romania while she endeavours to get entry clearance to come back with the child. Her sister has gone out to Romania to help her and taken her child out there. The family are therefore in considerable confusion, with half of them in Romania and half of them here trying to get permission for Mrs. Stewart to come back with her child.

I received a long letter from Mrs. Marriott, who, with her husband, has been involved with the Campaign for Inter-Country Adoption, and wrote a three-page letter to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health. I shall refer to that letter because it is based on their experience in Romania and their heartfelt feelings. It states :

"My husband Ian and I run a help and advice line for people attempting to do what we have done, and we have produced a factsheet which has been sent to in excess of 500 couples. A lot of these people get no further than reading and binning it. You need to be of tough material to actually achieve Romanian adoption. The process is long and complicated and designed to deter. However, at least one hundred people we have had dealings with either have achieved it or are in the process of doing so. I know I also speak for most of these people.

There are a number of points I wish to make. I understand that you are initiating, or are in the process of initiating, a fact finding tour of Romanian orphanages. I can only hope that the people who undertake this mission go to the more obscure and out of the way orphanages. The chances are your people will be shown around the showcase ones, or possibly the buildings that the Romanian Orphanage Trust are working in. These places are not a true representation. I believe your attention has been drawn to Sky TV's documentary video of the mentally handicapped orphanages. These children are treated the worst because of what they are, or, I should say, because of what they have been forced to become. There are many, many orphanages just like those shown all over Romania. If you really want to know what it's like, may I suggest you speak to the aid workers and convoy drivers who have spent time there. People like Anne

Alcock--Lancashire's "Woman of the Year", who has put her finger right on it when she describes these places as "Auschwitz for Children". People such as Sarah Ball, one of Granada TV's "This Morning" production team, who has more horror film footage than can be described and admits that she is now obsessed with trying to help these children. Both these women would like to help keep the children in their own country, but confess that this is not a feasible proposition.

Romania's problems are insurmountable in the near future. They are generations away from getting it right. Romanians' future is at home with their parents. The Orphanages (the Romanians call them "Houses of the Children") contain Romanians' past or their scrapheap--unloved, uncared for, very often tortured children who have no future in their own country. Their only hope is overseas adoption, not all of them of course. The estimate that I have

Column 462

is that 400,000 children are in these places throughout Romania. Very few people would want to have a 16 year old physically or mentally handicapped child with Aids, hepatitis B and TB. The actual numbers available for adoption are unknown but what is very apparent is that the healthy children available should be got out while they are still healthy, and certainly before they are three years old, to allow the aid to go where it is most desperately needed, to those who can never escape. This sounds melodramatic I know, but believe me, I am not over- dramatising. The nurses in these places are, for the most part, uneducated peasant women. Cruelty begets cruelty. They have so little themselves, and are expected to raise large families with virtually no money. The pittance that they get for looking after these children does not inspire them to take any care of them. Potty training usually consists of being beaten with a stick. Children are lifted out of their cots by their arms and legs, that's when they are lifted out at all. Babies are changed once a day, with a rag, not a nappy, if they are lucky. I know from first hand experience that even in the better run orphanages, they are only changed when some prospective adopter wants to hold them. One child I saw had 90 per cent. urine burns from shoulder to ankle because she had not been changed for so long. One 16 month old boy (again from first hand experience) was fed twice a day, four ounces of milk at 10 o'clock, four ounces at five o'clock. I could continue giving you these horror stories but that is not the purpose of this letter. This sort of treatment goes on in every orphanage throughout Romania. All the people who we have helped have kept in touch and told us their experiences. It is not an exaggeration to say that these are concentration camp-like conditions and that it is not just Romania's problem, but humanity's.

The orphanage directors themselves estimate that 25 per cent. of the children in hospital will die this winter, and 50 per cent. of the orphanage children. One couple who had waited for months to get entry clearance arrived in Romania last week, with all their completed documents to discover that their child had died of pneumonia three days before. I believe that the Romanian courts will close for Christmas recess from 20 December and will not begin again until mid-January. The Romanian Government have decreed that as from January, the 15 day cooling off period will be extended to 30 days to allow all involved parties even longer to change their minds. In effect that means that unless prospective parents can get to court by 19 December the earliest they can hope to get their child out is mid-February but probably, in reality, the spring. This has led to a number of near hysterical people phoning me asking what on earth they can do as they cannot risk their child's life in this way. My answer has had to be "nothing". I ask you to think seriously about the fact that a number of respectable law abiding people have been quite simply forced into breaking the law to protect their child. Surely this indicates that the law needs looking at ? "The law is an ass" may well apply here. You are a parent and you don't need me to tell you how protective you feel toward your children. If it was a matter of breaking the law to save his or her life, would you even think twice about it ?

A number of families will be split this Christmas. The women are making arrangements to spend the next three months in Romania and getting the guardianship of their children rather than risk their not being there next spring. Their husbands of course have to stay in the United Kingdom to finance it, on occasions doing the nappy and milk run as these commodities are not available in Romania ... With very little effort on the Government's part this whole tragic business could end. If Susan Hodgettes in Bucharest could be authorised to give entry certificates to people who have handed over all the necessary documents for clearance, these families could possibly get their court dates before 19 December. One telephone call could result in a number of people getting home before Christmas. These people feel that they are as much hostages as any to be found in Iraq.

Moving on to the whole process of entry clearance, and the home studies required for them, I have heard and read on more occasions than I care to remember the phrase "the best interest of the child is paramount". On the basis of this letter so far, are the child's best interests served by being assessed for mental competence at age three? i.e. are they potty trained, can they walk, talk and feed themselves, when they have never been out of a cot (often shared by so many other children that

Column 463

their limbs are deformed) and therefore cannot walk or use a toilet when they have had no stimulation and cannot therefore talk and their food has always been given through a bottle and they cannot therefore feed themselves? Are the children's best interests served by leaving them open to Aids, hepatitis B, TB, pneumonia, malnutrition, hypothermia, etc? This list is endless. People who go through mainly to adopt take with them a home study completed by a qualified and experienced social worker who is possibly a private social worker. Social Services insist and the home office appears to agree that the only competent social workers are employed by Social Service. Many other people disagree. They have police reports and medicals. They have proven themselves perfectly acceptable as adopted parents. Yet because the report has not been done by the Social Services this Government will not allow an entry clearance certificate. Is this really in the best interests of the children. Maybe--and I happen to think that this is remote--there are people who adopt from Romania for all the wrong reasons. In an ideal world, it would be absolutely right that parents are carefully vetted, assessed, and counselled. Romanian children are not living in an ideal world. Better in 30 years for a grown man to say to his adopted parents "You adopted me for all the wrong reasons" but (a) he grew to manhood to be able to say it ; and (b) has developed mentally, emotionally and intellectually to be able to articulate it.

If there were cases where children from Romania had to be taken into care, (and if I may say here, that the Social Services who continually point out that they should have a say in the adoption process simply because they have to pick up the pieces when things go wrong, are nit-picking. They have to do that for everyone, it is their job. You don't see social workers doing in-depth reports on couples wanting to have natural families, because they have to pick up the pieces when things go wrong !) I do not believe they would be in care very long. There are approximately 250,000 people wanting to adopt very young children and only about 1,500 babies available each year. Logic says, these children would be snapped up. I have had so many letters from people who ask the cost involved in Romanian adoptions, because even though they have very little money, they could offer a secure, loving home to one of these tragic children. I am paraphrasing, but it is practically word for word from dozens of letters I have received. Let's just take the worst case scenario, maybe a half dozen children would never be placed, and will remain in care for the rest of their childhood ... Why should the majority of excellent prospective adopters be penalised because of the possibility (and it is only that, there are no proven cases that I have heard of) of some couples proving unsuitable ?

My last point, and quite an important one I feel, is that we in Britain are imposing our 20th century morals, values and standards on to a population who are at best Dickensian, and in my view more a medieval people. Life is very cheap in Romania. The Guardian a few weeks ago (13 November) ran an article which was quite honestly ludicrous, as anyone who has ever been to Romania recognises. When are we going to see not through our own eyes, but through the eyes of the peoples concerned that they don't want these babies ? Very few, if any at all, mothers will be distressed in 30 years time. It is possible she will be hard put to remember that she had a child at all. These children are dragging the women down, and when you are at rock bottom, that is an impossible situation. Of course, this isn't true of all the women in Romania, but the fact that 400,000 children have been abandoned in this way speaks volumes for the majority of motherhood.

I have no axe to grind. My two adopted Romanian babies are upstairs asleep in their cots. They are safe, secure, healthy, adored and happy. I am not an hysterical neurotic woman. I am not asking you to relax the immigration regulations for these children, I am begging you. Believe me, the floodgates will not open. There will not be 2 or 3 million people rushing off to bring a child into Britain." That was the letter from Mrs. Marriott dated 4 December 1990. I have already raised with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister some of the points in that letter. I am pleased to see that one of the voluntary agencies in Britain, Childlink, proposes to set up an international resource centre to provide at least a helpline and information service to couples who wish to adopt. I hope that the

Column 464

Government will help to fund that and encourage voluntary donations towards the cost. Childlink has already undertaken to carry out home studies for some local authorities and quoted a cost of £2,500, which is higher than most people had had previously. I hope that most local authorities will feel that they do not always need to pass on those costs, so that couples who are not able to pay such high fees can still consider adopting children from Romania and elsewhere. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister may be aware of early-day motion 168 on handicapped Romanian orphans. I am pleased to say that there are now 46 signatures to that motion. There was an amendment in the name of the hon. Minister for Eccles (Miss Lestor), in which she states that

"Romania can care for its future rather than having children adopted abroad"

Only one hon. Member has signed the amendment and I do not think that it reflects the feelings of the public or of most hon. Members. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will consider the Hague conference, which is to be held in 1993, on inter-country adoption. I hope that we shall play a full part, although we are the only leading western country not to have an agency or organisation that will help with inter-country adoption. We need to have much better facilities to help people who, for the best of reasons, wish to provide children who would otherwise die with a secure and loving home, in place of those desperate orphanages where the children are denied any human contact.

I am glad that we have been able to have this debate to draw attention to the plight of children in need all round the world as well as in Romania. The wish of the British people to supply humanitarian aid to Romania and to offer adoption is a good response, but the adoption should be done properly. The baby should come into this country through the front rather than the back door. Half the children who have come from Romania have come through the back door, but all should come through the front door. I hope that the Government and as many other people as possible will give resources so that an international resource centre can be set up through the agency of Childlink, so that things can be done properly and help can be provided in the best possible way.

4.31 am

Mr George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr Thurnham) on obtaining a place in the debate. We know that he is assiduous and sincere in pursuing the issue. I am not so delighted that the debate is taking place at this hour of the morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr Robertson) said earlier, and it applies even more now, that to have debates at such an hour is a primitive, unproductive and uncivilised way to conduct the affairs of Parliament. I hope that eventually we shall grasp the nettle of reform and start having all our debates at a civilised hour. When I say "a civilised hour", I mean an earlier hour, because it is not always a civilised debate. The Minister and I have often clashed across the Chamber. Little did we know that we might be in greater agreement at this early hour of the morning. We shall see. I think that we all share the concern and the horror of the situation described by the hon. Member for Bolton,

Column 465

North-East. We were all appalled at the revelations of the terror and barbarity of the Ceausescu regime, including the aspect that has created the problem to which the hon. Member referred-- the use of women as breeding machines, in some case to produce programmed people for the Securitate. We are also concerned about the plight of those who are described as orphans. Many of them, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, still have live parents. Perhaps more than 80 per cent. of those described as orphans still have parents, although living in poor circumstances. We must take account of that when considering how to deal with the matter.

I know that the plight of these children has touched the hearts of many people, particularly in the United Kingdom, and many have risen to the challenge of trying to help in many ways. The hon. Gentleman mentioned hon. Members on both sides of the House who had taken a particular interest in this, and the media, television and the general public have all taken an interest. I was made aware of the way that "Blue Peter" has got the message across when last Friday I saw five, six and seven-year-olds in Bellsbank primary school in Dolmellington in my constituency. It is one of the poorest areas in what is a relatively poor constituency compared with those of many Conservative Members.

The arrangements had been made by "Blue Peter" and the children had been organised by the school. That shows how far interest in Romanian children has extended. We must all be concerned about the terrible plight of the children--there is no difference between us on that--but we should remember that our first priority must be to help children to be able to remain in their own country. Perhaps that was not stressed strongly by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East. We should not attempt to whisk them away from their country to a strange one.

The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East may have read an article in The Observer last Sunday that described some of the work being done to enable Romanian children to remain in their own country by raising money for projects in Romania. Part of the article read : "The idea of flying out to adopt a child and bring it back is not always tempered with the realisation that many of them still have parents who want to keep in touch with their children."

That must be taken into account. The article then describes some of the work that is being done. Greater emphasis should be placed on that by the Romanian Orphanage Trust and the many other organisations to enable them to raise money to keep Romanian children in Romania in better circumstances than the appalling ones described by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Thurnham : The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to the need to do everything possible in Romania. The death rate is high in that country and the risk to the health of the children who do not die immediately is a real one. If a few children are adopted here, it will enable more help to be given to the children who remain. Only relatively few will be adopted here. Obviously the majority will be there. If a few children come to this country, fewer will have to use the limited resources that are available in Romania.

Mr. Foulkes : I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says.

Column 466

The frustration that is felt by the hon. Gentleman and those like him, some of whom he quoted, is understandable. It is the result of impatience and genuine compassion. We appreciate that. It is essential, however, for the long-term good of the children that the proper procedures are followed and accepted. They are designed to protect the interests of the child and that is our top priority. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the rules for adoption should be no less stringent in Romania than in the United Kingdom. We know that the adoption procedures here can be a lengthy process. Bearing in mind the possible dangers and the long-term implications of uprooting a young child from its country and the culture of its birth, there is extra justification for full and thorough examination of each case. Various procedures must be followed.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Home Office has to agree to allow the child in. Before entry clearance is granted, various things have to be checked. It has to be clear, for example, that a complete transfer of parental responsibility from the child's parents to the intending adopters has already taken place or is genuinely intended to take place. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that must be tested, clarified and confirmed. If it is not, difficulties will arise.

Mr. Thurnham : The hon. Gentleman is in danger of slight over- simplification. In this country, so few children are available for adoption that sometimes criteria can be used that I think are not necessary when considering the plight of the children in Romania. For instance, is it right that the age of 35 should be used as a strict cut-off for couples who wish to adopt? Is it right that if a couple who wish to adopt have a dog, they will not be allowed to adopt? Those criteria are used in this country where few children are available for adoption and many people wish to adopt. The hon. Gentleman is over-simplifying the case by saying that everything should be done according to the procedures.

Mr. Foulkes : I thought that I was over-complicating the case, but I accept that I might have been over-simplifying it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a review of adoption procedures, including inter-country adoption. I presume that he is making those points to the review. I believe that all Departments are involved in it. If it is appropriate to have different criteria--I am not saying more liberal criteria--for inter- country adoption, that point can be made to the review.

There is an argument for scrupulous examination of those who wish to adopt. The children from Romania are bound to face further hurdles as they grow up. We all agree that their interests are paramount and we do not wish to risk harming them with misplaced kindness if we cut corners. What some genuine, well-meaning couples may view as heartless bureaucracy can, in reality, be something put in place to protect the children.

There is a case in my constituency--not related to inter-country adoption, but to adoption within the United Kingdom--of a natural mother who has changed her mind. The adoption procedures have been completed, so it is a fait accompli. People do change their minds, so it is important that the procedures are followed to ensure that there is a genuine desire, acceptance and a concurrence by

Column 467

the natural parents that an adoption should take place. If they change their minds, it is only after they have had many opportunities to consider and reconsider.

The hon. Gentleman, rather than reading from so many letters, might have said more about Foreign Office responsibility. Much of what he said related to other Departments, especially the Department of Health and the Home Office. I shall touch on the Foreign Office aspects as I am an Opposition Foreign Office spokesman, and a Foreign Office Minister is to reply to the debate. I do not want unduly to criticise the Foreign Office. I love to do it when there are good reasons for doing so, but I do not want to do it without reason. The embassy in Bucharest must be facing many problems and be very stretched. We must bear in mind all the other matters for which it has responsibility.

We welcome the appointment of a new vice-consul with particular responsibility for adoption. Although we believe that the correct procedure must be fully adhered to, it is equally important that no unnecessary obstacles are placed in the way of those who seek to adopt. It is the role of British diplomats in Romania to help people who wish to give a home to those children and not deliberately to discourage them without good reason.

We recognise that the Foreign Office is not an adoption agency, as one vice -consul was quoted as saying. The need for comprehensive regulations makes all the greater the need for constructive and helpful guidance for couples to find their way through the complicated but necessary paperwork. Patience is needed on both sides. What can be done is to improve co-operation between our officials and the Romanian authorities. We hope that recent parliamentary and governmental delegations to Romania to examine the problem will result in some constructive suggestions.

To strike a cautionary note, on 8 November The Times said : "Whitehall officials are counting the days before a Romanian mother alleges that her child has been stolen by a British couple". That is a real and genuine fear among officials. The media have been active in putting one point of view forcefully and effectively and they might sensationalise things in a rather different way if such a situation arose. The Foreign Office and other officials concerned must take that into account.

Mr. Thurnham : Fears of baby trafficking, which have been the cause of Britain not having an inter-country adoption service, should not stand in the way of those couples who genuinely wish to help. There may be isolated cases of such trafficking, but they should not be used as a reason for not doing anything to help the vast majority of couples who wish to help for the best of reasons.

Mr. Foulkes : The hon. Gentleman has been genuinely helpful to me because I am about to come to that point. Before I do, I should say that there is a balance to be struck between those who believe that adoption should be used to assist childless couples whose only hope of parenthood is a baby from overseas--whose case the hon. Gentleman seemed to be arguing strongly--and those whose rigorous professional vetting of couples is seen as a barrier to adoption.

The last thing that we all want is these poor children treated as some commercial commodity, which is what the hon. Gentleman was just referring to. This is not just a

Column 468

scare ; it is a real danger. Stories of children being sold and traded and brought in illegally are most disturbing. This must not be allowed to happen. It is an undesirable and evil trade.

For some time now my colleagues and I have been concerned about the growing illegal trade in babies and small children--the result of parents living in appalling poverty and manipulated by greedy entrepreneurs who have spotted an expanding market. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) has raised that matter particularly.

Only last month two women from a South American country arrived at a European airport with three small babies, one of whom died en route from dehydration and malnutrition. Those babies were on offer to European would- be parents for adoption. I am told that the going rate for the purchase of such a baby averages £10,000.

That is an evil trade which must be stamped out and the hon. Gentleman must remember that, although, as he said, only a small number of people is involved, and they are in no way representative of the vast majority that he described, it is something about which we must be cautious. It makes it more important that Britain at least plays it by the book. A blind eye must not be turned to illegal entries, which must be stopped if huge problems are not to be stored up for the future. Children abandoned because of poverty in Romania should not become teenagers left in care in Britain because they were illegally adopted by unsuitable parents.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that a large majority of the children are not orphans. Many were abandoned simply because of the great poverty that the hon. Gentleman described. That forces us to recognise the root cause of the problem in Romania and to realise that, just as those children are innocent victims, so are their natural parents. That has implications for the adoption procedures. It is necessary to find parents and to explain the situation to them. It also makes long-term adjustment more difficult for the children, knowing that they were reluctantly surrendered by the real parents. That makes it essential that, if they are adopted, they are with the best possible people.

I emphasise that there is sympathy with would-be adopters, most of whom are obviously well-intentioned, compassionate people. Also, there is sympathy among Opposition Members for the hon. Gentlemen's sentiments. The question is not whether to help the children, but what is the best way to do so. Emotional issues must be put to one side in the long-term interests of the child.

Various Government Departments are examining that issue as part of their review of adoption and the kind of hands-on policy now publicly advocated must continue. We must not allow a laissez-faire approach to develop once the children actually arrive. The problem is not confined to Romania. There is the much broader issue of inter-country adoption, as the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East said. While we sympathise with his position to the extent that adopting children from other countries may be the best solution in individual cases, one must question what sort of countries are prepared to give up the children who are their future. In reality, it is countries experiencing great poverty which are forced to do that. We should help them to develop their economies and eliminate that poverty, and to ensure that they will be able to offer their children a secure and positive future.

Next Section

Home Page