| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.23 am
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford): I, too, support the Bill. Indeed, I have yet to hear anyone speak against it. I hope that other hon. Members will co-operate in giving it a speedy passage. Much as we want to speak at length on the important principles raised by the Bill, it is necessary that the House moves on.
It is appropriate that the Bill is proposed in the10th anniversary year of the United Nations declaration on the rights of the child. I know that the Bill has strong support from the United Nations Children's Fund. As UNICEF said in its literature supporting the Bill, it was only after the second world war that intercountry adoption took off and UNICEF was formed.
It is worth bearing in mind the rationale for intercountry adoption. In India, which has the largest child population of any country in the world, there is a presumption that local adoption is preferable. I am sure that that is right. It should not be assumed that, because intercountry adoption might provide a child with a wealthier family in a wealthier country, that would be better for the child.
I welcome the principles in the Hague convention. Articles 4 and 5 get to the heart of the matter. The first points out that the decision to adopt intercountry should be governed by the best interests of the child, and specifically excludes any monetary consideration.
Article 5 deals with the suitability of parents. We must face some hard truths. Some parents may be suitable, but not as suitable as others. They may not succeed in applying to adopt of a child in this country, but they may, nevertheless, meet basic standards on their ability as parents. It may be appropriate, therefore, to consider them in relation to the adoption of children from other countries. Why may that be so?
Mr. Dawson:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. St. Aubyn:
Let me develop my point.
In common with many thousands of school leavers, I worked for a year as a volunteer in a children's home in the third world. Children cared for in an institution in
a developing country may face a far better prospect in life if they are taken out of the institution and given a home life by a family in this country. Although some parents may not be regarded as suitable for a British child, such a family could provide a warm, home environment.
None of us can claim to be perfect parents. Local authorities, on which the Bill places a responsibility, must be given clear and unequivocal guidelines by the Department so that they understand that they have a remit to provide not only the very best families for adopted children, but a wide range of families who meet clear, minimum standards, rather than harder tests. Some local authorities impose unreasonable tests. They may involve questions about the life style or the health of the family which perhaps do not test the ability to provide proper parenting.
Mr. Dawson:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to respond to his extraordinary comments. I should like him to develop the idea that he seems to have that there are some qualities that families adopting British children need to have that are not required of families who adopt children from abroad. What are those qualities? If he cannot give me a clear answer, he is taking a naive and extremely dangerous course.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
That intervention shows why we must listen carefully to what each other says. That is not what I said. I was picking up the comment of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who said that potential parents who were wrong for adoption of a child from this country were also not suitable to adopt a child from another country. I am sure that we all agree on that. Equally, those who are unequivocally right for adoption of children in this country would also be right for adoption of children from another country. But there is a third group of parents who are up to the mark for adoption in this country, but who are not as good as some of the other parents wanting to adopt the limited number of children available for adoption here. That third group should be taken into account by local authorities.
Mr. Oaten:
This is an important point, and the House is in danger of misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman. Is he suggesting that there is a class A and a class B set of parents? If so, that would certainly lead us down a dangerous path.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
The word "class" left the hon. Gentleman's lips, not mine. I do not think that any class element is involved in the performance of parents, or in any other aspect of the Bill. The process of adoption is a selection process, and in every selection process choices must be made.
The hon. Gentleman may consider this politically incorrect, but the fact is that, although many couples in this country are capable of becoming very good parents, not all of them will have the opportunity to adopt a British child, because a limited number are available for adoption. Every year, however, 20,000 children are adopted intercountry, and such parents may be able to provide excellent homes for some of them, although they might not be the first choice of their local authorities if a child became available in their area. That is worlds apart from thinking in terms of different classes of parent for
different classes of child. We regard the rights of the child as universal: that is the point of the Hague convention, and that is why we shall support the Bill.
Mr. Dawson:
With the greatest respect, no one who regards the rights of the child as universal can argue that adopters of lesser quality, who do not meet the standards required for the adoption of British children, are suitable to adopt children from other countries. That is racist.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of being caught out by his emotions. He should view the matter in a more detached way.
We must bear in mind the interests of a child reared in an institution in a developing country. Having worked in such an institution, I can say that such a child has nothing like the life style and opportunities that a caring family home can provide, even one in a country foreign to the child. In this country, the demand among childless couples is far greater than the supply of children suitable for adoption. Local authorities must be very conscious of that in the running of their systems and the drawing up of lists of adopters.
Dr. Gibson:
Are not differences between life chances in this country as great as the difference between the place where the hon. Gentleman worked and somewhere in this country? Every day, we read of differentials between groups in this country, and the differing opportunities for young people and, indeed, people of all ages. People have different backgrounds and different life chances depending on where they live. How does the hon. Gentleman measure differences between two countries as against differences between the north and the south of England?
Mr. St. Aubyn:
That is well beyond the remit of the Bill. All we can say is that children in unfortunate circumstances have an even more pressing need for a good family home. In this country, few children are in institutional care, which creates a different balance between supply and demand.
I am sorry that the Bill does not provide better guidance in one regard. I am thinking of cases in which, after the proper procedures have taken place and a child has been adopted in this country in the belief that his or her family are deceased, a family member comes to light. There was such a case a few years ago: a child from the former Yugoslavia was adopted in this country, and it was then discovered that she had a grandfather living in Switzerland.
Under the Bill, if a competent court determines that there are reasons for an adoption order to be cancelled, it will be cancelled. What is to be done if a competent court in this country decides that an order should not be cancelled, while an equally competent court in the country where the family member resides--which is also signed up to the convention as a participating state--decides that it should be cancelled, and that the child should return to live with its natural relations? The case to which I referred earlier caused great difficulty. The eventual judgment showed the wisdom of Solomon and managed to balance all the interests involved, but that was a specific case. How, in general terms, is a conflict between two competent courts to be resolved?
Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre):
I am grateful for the chance to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) both on his good fortune--although I suppose that we should not congratulate people on having had good luck, especially when we have lost out--and on having the wisdom to take on such an important Bill. I listened with great interest to his excellent speech. As a member of the ex-social workers' fraternity--but not because of that--I also wish to associate myself with another excellent speech, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey).
While I am in congratulatory mode, let me congratulate the Government, and the Minister in particular. The Bill, which is long overdue, is another example of the Government's commitment to children. Last week, we considered the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, which enshrines crucial parts of the Pigot report, published 10 years ago, and tremendous work is being done for children who must be looked after. Moreover, the Prime Minister has made a personal commitment to ending child poverty early in the next century.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |