| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11.2 am
Mr. Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale, East): I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on introducing the Bill. I do not know him well, but his choice of Bill, having been fortunate enough to obtain such a prominent position in the ballot, says much about his priorities and values. If the Bill is passed, it will bring down the curtain on 10 years of detailed consultation and debate, helping to put in place a legal framework for this important issue. Adoption law is governed mainly by the Adoption Act 1976. At that time, intercountry adoption was not the issue that it is today.
Several hon. Members have said that this is not a contentious issue, but it is a complex one, not only inUK law, but because the measures have to work internationally. The Bill will affect relatively few children and families, but it should still be a priority for the House, because the children involved are in a particularly vulnerable position and they are a growing group. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) gave some figures earlier. I believe that the number of children involved has increased from around 100 in 1993 to 300 now. In the region that my hon. Friend and I represent, the number of children involved has increased dramatically from six to 38 during that time. We have to get the procedures right for all those children.
Getting the procedures right is not easy. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), I confess to being a member of the honourable band of ex-social workers who now occupy the Labour Benches. Much of my 15 years as a social worker was spent in residential social work. For several years I was the officer in charge of a residential assessment centre. I was responsible for managing the reception of children into care. Sometimes that was done in a planned way, but often it was done in an unplanned way in the middle of the night or after emergency court proceedings. That could be distressing for all concerned. I managed the team that assessed the needs of particular children. I worked with colleagues in evaluating the options available for the children and then initiating and
supporting placements for them. Sometimes, happily, those placements would be back at home with their own family. On other occasions, they would be foster placements and on others they would rightly be in another form of residential care.
I risk stating the obvious when I say that I learned two things in particular during those years in residential social work. First, every child is unique. Each child has their own history, their own personality and their own talents. The interplay of nature and nurture, the impact of deprivation and abuse and the response of each child to interest, love and support are different in every case. That individuality can be even more pronounced and important in cases of intercountry adoption.
Secondly, I learned what I might call the golden rule of child care, which is that the welfare of the child must always be paramount. That is a key issue in family placements, be they foster placements or adoptions. The child needs shelter, warmth, security and love. The family also needs to love and to be loved. They want to provide physically and emotionally for the child in their care and to find the unique fulfilment that parenthood brings. I do not agree with those who argue that that should all be done only for altruistic reasons. The needs of the adopting or fostering family must be recognised, because family placements are successful only with such a two-way relationship. However, the welfare of the child must always take precedence over any other interests. I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members who have been involved in social work remember couples who were excellent and had much to offer, but who were not suitable for particular children to whom they may have been introduced. We cannot afford to get that wrong with adoption, because the process creates a permanent legal relationship between the child and the adoptive parents and severs all legal ties with the birth parents. It is the most significant decision that anybody can take about a child.
We have heard that intercountry adoption is agrowing issue. Ease of travel makes it simpler and telecommunications also play a part. We regularly see distressing and moving images on television of children in desperate situations--in Romanian orphanages, the child victims in Bosnia, the street children of Latin America or the displaced refugee children from Kosovo. However, the issue cannot be left to emotion and personal decision. We need a properly regulated process and institutions that can judge the fitness of families and the appropriateness of a child being placed for adoption. Our institutions and procedures should be able to speed up the process when necessary, but they also need to be able to stop the process if it is not correct.
In preparing for the debate, I have looked at several cases of intercountry adoption on which the High Court has been asked to rule. They prove beyond doubt the need for clear procedures and regulation. The first case is that of a British couple who adopted a child in El Salvador. The couple were too old to adopt children in the United Kingdom and went to El Salvador where they paid a lawyer £5,000 to effect the adoption of the child. The child was adopted under that country's law. I make no judgment about the couple--I do not know them and have never met them. The House will be interested to know that the judge ruled in favour of adoption, in the best interests of the child. However, even a cursory glance at the case would show hon. Members that it was a far from satisfactory way for a child to be adopted.
The second case involves a Bosnian baby, whose family was attacked in 1992 and whose mother and various family members were killed. The father went missing and the child was placed in an orphanage and, while there, was introduced to a British couple. They brought the child to England to receive medical attention. In December 1993, they applied to adopt the child. Incredibly, no guardian ad litem was appointed; it was publicly known--so the court would have known--that the Red Cross was opposed to the adoption of war orphans; and the court had no proof that the child was free for adoption. Incredibly, nevertheless, in January 1994, an adoption order was made. Later that year, members of that little girl's family began to re-emerge. They applied to the court for a contact order and, eventually, appealed against the adoption order. The outcome was that the girl was made a ward of court and placed with the couple as foster parents. However, again, we observe a system and a procedure that, I argue, is deeply flawed.
The third case is that of a couple in Pakistan who made a gift of their unborn child to a childless Pakistani couple living in the UK. When the child was born, the childless couple went to live in Pakistan, staying there for three years. They then returned to England bringing the child with them; the child was an illegal entrant to this country. They applied for adoption, but were turned down. The judge ruled that public policy took priority over the child's needs. The couple appealed and won because, ultimately, the decision and the final judgment was that the child's welfare came first--one might argue that that was right--and was best served by being placed with that family.
I bring those cases to the attention of the House because it shows that even the procedures and processes that are in place in the 1990s are not acceptable. The hon. Member for Winchester referred to the growing number of cases of children involved in intercountry adoptions that begin under the cover of darkness--I think he gave the number as 100. It is probably impossible to estimate how many such cases there are, because we simply do not know; it would not surprise me if the number was greater than 100. Children are being bought and sold, and relationships are being initiated and maintained in a wholly illegal way. It is vital that there are proper procedures and regulations; we must have competent authorities and organisations, and effective law.
Some argue that this is all red tape--busy social workers, lawyers and others getting in the way of human contact in this important human process. However, I argue strongly that we need proper regulation of these matters because, ultimately, we are dealing with the protection of vulnerable children. We must carry that out properly.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
I am listening carefully and with great interest to the hon. Gentleman, who obviously has extensive knowledge of the subject. In relation to the first case that he mentioned--the couple who would have been too old to adopt under UK regulations--is he implying that, in all cases, if a couple is too old, in the judgment of a local authority, to adopt a British child, they are too
Mr. Goggins:
That echoes some of the earlier exchanges in the debate. We cannot have one rule for children in this country and another for children from other countries. There must be one rule for one and all. Indeed, we have a universal declaration relating to that matter. That important point needs to be emphasised and I welcome the opportunity to underline it.
As many hon. Members have already pointed out, the Bill would enable the Government to ratify the 1993 Hague convention on international adoption. As has also been pointed out, the UK helped to draw up the convention and we have signed it, but are unable to ratify it because of the current legal position. If the Bill becomes law, we will be able to ratify it, which will be welcome.
The convention appears to me to combine high principle with common sense. It underlines several important points. It stresses that a child's development takes place best in a family where he or she can experience "happiness, love and understanding"--in the words of the convention. It states that everything should be done to support a child within his or her own family. It is important that such statements should be included in the convention, but obviously it focuses mainly on intercountry adoption.
The convention formalises the responsibilities of central authorities, in both the state of origin of the child and the receiving country, and charges them with some important responsibilities. The first is that they ensure that the child is adoptable. Secondly, they must ensure that a placement in the state of origin has already been considered. Thirdly, they must ensure that if a placement outside the country of origin is being considered, it is in the best interests of the child. Fourthly, they must ensure that consent is given to the adoption procedure and that, when the child is of a sufficient age, the child's consent is also given. That important point has not been strongly made in the debate so far. Fifthly--and crucially--they must ensure that no consideration other than the child's welfare should be taken into account and that financial considerations should certainly not be involved.
I want briefly to draw the House's attention to two clauses in the Bill. The first is clause 11. If intercountry adoption is not carried out by an adoption agency, there is a requirement of 12 months residency before the adoption can take place. The clause reduces that period to six months, when adoption agencies are involved. I have made some inquiries about that matter, because the House needs to ensure that the reduction from 12 to six months is satisfactory. The evidence that I have received shows that six months is sufficient to ensure both that due care and attention is given and that there is no undue delay in the process, so that the adoption can go ahead as swiftly as possible.
Clause 14 toughens the law on action against those who do not follow the regulations, so that, if a person is habitually resident in the UK and brings into this country a child who is habitually resident in another state, that person has committed a criminal offence. The time period for summary proceedings to be brought will be six months from the time that sufficient evidence comes to the attention of the prosecutor--not six months from the time
that the alleged offence took place. That is most important; it is not enough to dodge for six months--the relevant time will be six months from the time when the evidence comes to light. We must emphasise that it is wrong to act outside the scope of the law. Whatever the motivation of would-be adoptive parents, those who do wrong should be penalised. That is an important aspect of the Bill.
I want to make two final points. All of us, even hon. Members, become extremely emotional about the welfare of children--especially deprived children. Many of us are aware that our constituents regularly donate money, toys and clothes and respond to appeals--especially the recent appeals of the international aid agencies. We try to do what we can to use our resources to support children in need.
During my research for today's debate, I came across a letter published in The Guardian in July 1994 from a woman who had adopted a child from a Romanian orphanage. Her letter evokes the understandable emotion that we all feel when faced with such cases, stating:
"Those of us who adopted from Romania cry with rage at the attitude of the British adoption professionals, and of the British and Romanian governments, towards inter-country adoption.
That is a heartfelt plea, but the needs of the child are paramount, and children in desperate situations are in special need of our protection. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned the UN convention on the rights of the child, article 21 of which states that intercountry adoption should be considered only
We've only rescued a handful of children. We can never, ever, forget the children we left behind, and the conditions in which we left them. Please can't some of them be adopted into families?
Please?"
"If the child cannot . . . in any suitable manner be cared for in the child's country of origin".
Emotion is not enough.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |