| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that that is so. When repeating the Statement, I believe that I made it clear that we do not regard war as a solution. I hope that I also made it clear that we are of the view that it is important for us to deal in a measured way with the situation as we find it at present; that is the core of our strategy.
I thank my noble friend for his kind comments about my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and about the work of our High Commissioner in India. I should like to express my thanks for the work accomplished by our High Commissioner in Pakistan. Indeed, both our High Commissioners have done an excellent job.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I endorse what my noble friend Lord Paul said about the work of the British High Commissioner in Delhi. I was with two very senior members of the Indian legal profession last night. I mentioned that a Statement was likely to be made today. They, too, said how much the work of the High Commissioner is appreciated in India. Is my noble friend the Minister able to confirm that the advice to British nationals will be kept under more or less constant review? If the situation changes for the better, as we all hope, can she confirm that that advice will be modified? Clearly, it is having a very serious effect on the Indian economy; and, indeed, will have an even more serious effect if it continues for any length of time.
Baroness Amos: Yes, my Lords; I can confirm that our advice is under constant review. As I said earlier, we have already changed the advice three times since 23rd May. Foreign Office staff are engaged in daily discussions with our staff working in the region. This has been a difficult time for our staff. I thank noble Lords for recognising that and the hard work that has been put in.
Adoption and Children Bill
5.3 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, like other noble Lords, and the adoption agencies, I very much welcome this Bill. At the moment, there are something like 60,000 children in care of whom only about 5,000 were adopted last year. Anything that can responsibly be done to increase the number of children in care who are adopted is to be fully supported.
The Churches have long experience in adoption matters. There was a time when virtually every diocese engaged in this work. Eight dioceses still do so, and, collectively, this group, the Diocesan Agencies Group, represents about one quarter of the voluntary agency provision in this country.
The purpose of the Bill is so important, and its key principle—that the welfare of the child be the paramount consideration for courts and adoption agencies—is so crucial, that I very much hope the debate about the unmarried couples' eligibility to adopt will not detract from this. As we know, a child can now be adopted by a single person, whatever his or her sexual orientation, if this is judged to be in the best interests of the child. I agree with the Children's Society that it seems somewhat arbitrary to deny to
couples what is allowed to a single person just because the couple is not married. It seems strange that the child should be denied the opportunity of two legal parents when it might be in his best interests and would normally be in his best interests if that relationship were judged to be a stable and enduring one.As we know, most of the children now waiting in local authority care, usually in foster care, are over the age of one and many of them are over the age of five. They have nearly always had a number of difficulties in their early lives, including health problems or learning difficulties. The British Association for Adoption and Fostering brings out a magazine Be My Parent, which many of us have seen. It shows pictures of children waiting for adoption. Unfortunately, recent analysis shows that half the boys featured aged between five and 10 receive no inquiries at all from prospective adopters. As it is likely that the number of people cohabiting will continue to rise, it seems a pity to discourage such couples from adopting, if they are otherwise suitable. For it seems clear that at least some unmarried couples do not come forward because at the moment only one of them has the legal right to adopt.
The Church of England is fully committed to the institution of marriage. No one is more eloquent than the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her defence of marriage. However, I have to ask both sincerely and seriously whether we really support the institution of marriage by making adoption more difficult for unmarried couples who are otherwise judged suitable to adopt. It must surely be in the best interests of those children in care at present to be brought up in a stable, loving relationship, even if the adoptive parents are not married, than continue in care. In the case of a particular child, that could be the only other option available. Indeed, in the judgment of the court, it could be the best option available to the child at that particular time.
Of course, both the adoption agency and, finally, the courts are legally required to make a thorough assessment of the stability and, therefore, the suitability of all would-be adopters. It is, quite rightly, a searching and thorough process that would-be adopters have to go through. Clause 139(4) talks about "an enduring family relationship". No doubt that could be defined in many different ways. But surely a court will make a sober and serious judgment about any family relationship as to whether or not it really is "enduring".
As far as concerns same sex couples, again it must be emphasised that a single lesbian or gay person is already in a position to adopt, if it is judged to be in the best interests of a particular child that he or she should become an adoptive parent. This has been tested in the courts. The question is simply whether a couple should be denied this opportunity if it is judged to be in the best interests of the child to be adopted by a couple. The results of research are hardly surprising. I quote the conclusions of some research:
- "Existing findings seem to suggest that aspects of family structure such as genetic relatedness, number of parents and the mother's sexual orientation may matter less for children's psychological adjustment than warm and supportive relationships with parents in a positive family environment".
So while I do not think that we should get this issue out of proportion, if there is a desperate need—as there is—to place more children with suitable parents and the interests of the child are always to be paramount, surely it would be wrong to make it impossible in principle for suitable couples, whether heterosexual, gay or lesbian, to adopt.
What particularly concerns the adoption agencies is not this issue but the serious under-funding of adoption support services, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, stated so powerfully. Most of the children placed by adoption agencies have particular complex social, emotional or learning difficulties; others bring with them a legacy of despair as a result of abuse and other problems. In order to continue to provide a satisfactory adoption support service for adopters and children placed for adoption, resources need to be expended on agencies carrying out this work, including voluntary adoption agencies.
There is recognition in the Bill that the issue of on-going support for families taking on older children from the care system does need to be appropriately funded and there is a recognition that these children's needs should be assessed; but there is silence as to what should happen next and who should fund it. The Bill as drafted enables the adopted child and his or her adopters to have a full assessment of their support needs—which could be very significant for children who have suffered early neglect and abuse and who may have moved a number of times while in care. However, no duty is imposed on the local authority to provide those services. If as a society we are serious about helping these children to develop into mature adults who will live useful lives, we cannot avoid the fact that some, perhaps many, of them are likely to need serious post-adoption support.
The purpose behind the Bill—to increase the number of children in care who are adopted—is highly worth while. There seems to be agreement that most of the detailed provision in the Bill is to be supported. If we are to make that laudable purpose a reality, we must encourage, not discourage, a wide range of people who are able to offer long-term loving care to come forward as adoptive parents. They must be reassured that, in adopting children who will sometimes still suffer the effects of early neglect or abuse, they will receive all the post-adoptive support that they need.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, like other speakers, I believe that it has been a tragedy for far too long, and for far too many children, that there
has been no reform of the adoption laws for over 25 years—despite growing concern about the performance of the service. Credit must be given to the Prime Minister and to the Government for acting so promptly in response to the Waterhouse report. The crux of the Bill is making the child's interest paramount, bringing it in line with the Children Act 1989. That should be the test that guides all our deliberations.In spite of there being some increase in the number of adopters, of the 58,000 children in care—62 per cent of whom are in care for reasons of neglect and/or abuse—only 3,000 were placed for adoption. Yet children who grow up in care are four times more likely to be unemployed and 60 times more likely to be homeless, and they make up one in four of the prison population—a situation which I am sure everyone wishes to change.
My right honourable friend Alan Milburn was right to emphasise that that was not a failure of the children in care but of the system of care. However, a key factor in reducing the number of children in care must be to cut unnecessary delay. The measures taken by the Government to establish a statutory national adoption register to supplement local authority matches has to be welcomed. Along with the provision for the courts to draw up timetables to which it must adhere, the measures should go some way to reducing the frustration of would be adopters and the delay in placements.
Although I agree that it is right that all agencies must give due consideration to the child's background and to religious, race and cultural issues, it is not right that they should be allowed to cause delay such as to prejudice the child's welfare. Children should not have to wait for an average of nearly three years before being adopted—during which time they often suffer further psychological damage from multiple foster placements and moves.
Unlike many other speakers in this debate, my awareness of and my interest in adoption are recent and I do not profess to have their experience or knowledge. My interest, however, was stimulated by being asked to chair a symposium organised by the Adoption Forum. I was staggered to learn at that symposium that, typically, a child moves about 10 times while in care, and that 30 to 40 moves are not uncommon. One case was cited of a child who had 235 moves. This is not only costly—ranging from £2,500 for a simple move to £20,000 for a more complex move—but, more importantly, it must be detrimental to the child.
Of equal concern must be the number of children who disappear in the system because there are no centrally held records. The Government are anxious to avoid children "drifting" in care; but it can be avoided only if there is a national and effective tracking system, so that records can travel easily between local authorities. I raise these points to illustrate the problems. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that both of these problems will be resolved within the Bill's provisions.
It had been expected that the introduction of placement orders would help in keeping track of children for whom the plan is adoption. But under the 1976 Act, a child can be freed for adoption with parental agreement, even if there is no certainty of a placement. As a consequence, if that placement breaks down before an adoption is made, a child may be left without a family.
I make this point to the Minister. Surely a placement order should mean just that—it should be a means of placing a child with a specific family via the courts. The present position can also create a misunderstanding on the part of birth parents who believe that they are agreeing to specific prospective parents and then find that that is not the case.
On the question of widening the pool of adopters, I accept what the Minister tells us; namely, that matters are improving. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, says about the bureaucracy that surrounds adoption. But I still believe that the pool of potential parents has to be extended. That is why I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young—although I am pleased to see in her place today. The provision for unmarried and same sex couples to adopt does just that.
Under the present law, no one is legally excluded from the right to adopt. Recent polling has shown that 41 per cent of unmarried couples would adopt, but only 6 per cent do so. That is mainly, as the right reverend Prelate said, because only one of them can become the legal guardian, while the other partner is downgraded to second-class status. It cannot be in the interests of a child for only one parent to be able to make decisions about his or her welfare.
I reiterate: it seems completely illogical that there is no requirement for foster carers to be married. Both partners are responsible for the child. However, should they wish to adopt, only one foster parent can in law become the adoptive parent. Any such change can have only a destabilising effect on the child. Surely, it makes sense, where two people in a secure relationship have been assessed by the agency and the court as suitable to care jointly for a child, for that child to have the legal commitment of two parents.
Too many adoptions fail because families feel unable to cope and the support that they receive is limited. Post-adoption support is crucial. While local authorities have a duty to assess need for post-adoption support, there is no duty to provide such support, even if a need is established. The majority of children adopted from care are very needy children with deeply difficult histories.
It has been said that there is no precedent for being able to do this, but it is contrary to the case of a child with an educational statement of needs who has to be provided with help. There should be a clear duty to provide such services. To do so would reassure potential adopters, more of whom would be likely to come forward.
Local authorities have a very difficult job to do, involving issues that are often complex and emotionally fraught. Standards vary between local
authorities. The new national standards are long overdue. Social workers are the gateway to adoption, and their attitudes are crucial. It is therefore essential that they have the best possible information and skills with which to carry out their complex and sensitive job. I believe that the Government are making available £47.5 million for social care training. Will the Minister indicate how much of that money will be used specifically for the training of adoption workers? Equally, will the £66 million promised over the next two to three years be sufficient, given the requirements for extra intervention, support, assessment, inspection and registration?Recent research suggests that single applicants and families on low incomes are under-represented among approved adopters. The adoption allowance system—which, again, varies from authority to authority—may affect whether they would consider adoption. Will the Minister clarify how the review of the system is to be conducted and what implications there might be for tax and benefits?
There are many other issues that will be raised as the Bill proceeds—many of which have been referred to by other speakers—that I do not have time to deal with today. However, I wish to mention briefly the issue of contact between children and abusive parents. If the theme of the Bill is that the interests of the child are paramount, we cannot ignore the vital issue of child protection. Of course it is right that the child maintains contact with both parents following separation wherever possible. However, the existing legal system fails to protect children from abusers who are known to them. There is something wrong when 15 children have been killed as a result of contact arrangements. A survey of 130 parents in 1999 found that a staggering 76 per cent of their children were abused during contact visits ordered by the courts.
The amendments introduced by the Government to extend the definition of harm are welcome, but they do not protect the child from direct abuse, neglect or abduction. As a survey by Women's Aid shows, regrettably, the good practice guidelines for judges, which are not mandatory, have not reduced the problem. I am sure that there will be much more detailed discussion on that and other subjects as the Bill goes through the process of scrutiny.
Despite the qualifications that I have mentioned, the Bill makes many important and worthwhile changes to improve the system for those families and the adopted child. I am sure that the Bill will be improved even further as we take it through the House. It is long overdue and very welcome and I hope that it will enjoy the support of the House.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Adebowale: My Lords, many important contributions have already been made to this important debate. I felt that it was important that my first speech following my maiden speech earlier this year should be on a subject that is dear to my heart and to my experiences as the chief executive of the
homelessness organisation Centrepoint and as a director of the Alcohol Recovery Project, many of whose clients were children and young people who had been in care.The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to the role of the state in replicating the family through adoption and fostering legislation. I suggest that only a loving relationship created by close involvement with responsible adults can do that. The state creates the framework, through this Bill, in which such a relationship might thrive. That is a matter of fine judgment on the part of professionals and, in the case of the Bill, by this House.
However, the state does provide a family substitute through the care system. Although I welcome the increase in the number of young children adopted and fostered from care, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, there is still a great deal to be done. At Centrepoint, one young person in five has been in touch with the care system. You only have to experience the sight of children too old for their years, who have been in placement after placement, often ending up on the streets because of the failures of the system, to realise that the Bill is critical in providing the support that will prevent many of those young people ending up on our streets. A young person to whom I talked on many occasions when I was at Centrepoint pointed out that there is an alternative to adoption and fostering—and it is often the streets.
I agree with much of the thrust of what the Government propose. It is correct and consistent with their manifesto commitments and is long overdue. However, the proposals do not go far enough to ensure that the pool of potential parents is maximised. Specific duties should be placed on local authorities to follow through post-assessment care with the necessary support services.
The Bill would be improved if adoptive families had a clear entitlement to support services after adoption, subject to proper assessment as to their necessity. Under the current proposals, the adopted child and the adopters will be entitled only to a full assessment of their support needs. We know that this can be very significant for children who have suffered early neglect and abuse. Many have moved a number of times while in care. Such children can present very challenging and demanding behaviour to their new family and may also have a range of unmet health and educational needs. As the chief executive of BAAF Adoption and Fostering said to me, to allow those children a full assessment of the services that they require and then not to impose a duty on the local authority to provide those services is a little like taking your car for an MOT, receiving an estimate of the work that needs to be done and then deciding that you will not bother or cannot afford it. A clear duty to provide services is essential. That will not only support new adopted children and their families where help is needed, but also reassure potential adopters, most of whom will then feel more encouraged to come forward.
On expanding the pool, even if we were increasing rapidly the number of children taken into adoption and fostering from care, we would have a duty to
increase the number of children who have the opportunity of a close and loving relationship with responsible adults. That is one of the main thrusts of the Bill. I would be very concerned if the debate disintegrated into a discussion on whether we can turn back the clock on our judgments about the validity of marriage or same-sex relationships. It is a fact, like gravity, that the clock cannot be turned back. We have to deal with situations as we see them now. The credibility of politics and of this House is enhanced if we deal with the facts as they are now rather than as we would wish them to be.It is already a fact that unmarried couples and those in same-sex relationships can adopt. I have yet to hear a credible argument for removing that fact. However, as has already been said, only one partner in such a relationship can currently adopt legally. That needs to be put right. It can only be good for the child for both partners to have a legal responsibility and for the child to have the benefit of the considerations of both partners in this respect.
I find it difficult to accept an argument that same-sex relationships and lesbian and gay individuals and couples are somehow second-rate families or provide second-rate advice and support to children. I know from the children and families whom I have met professionally and personally that that is not the case. This House should show them the respect of understanding that in many cases such families can provide a very supportive environment, particularly for those young people who may find, through their own understanding of themselves, that they are lesbian or gay. This is not a matter of personal choice or of personal views or prejudices; this is a matter of fact and of how we can support those young people who are faced with very difficult choices in their lives and require the support of this House and of society at large rather than to be condemned, however lightly, to be considered as second-rate citizens, either individually or through the families who choose to support them.
I hope that this House will move forward and support the advice that has been given to me by many professional organisations, such as BAAF Adoption and Fostering, Barnardo's and NCH Action for Children. These organisations have many decades of experience with young children and have helped hundreds of thousands of children in this respect. I hope that the House will support the Government's proposals for unmarried couples and those of same-sex relationships to have the same rights.
On very few occasions does this House have the opportunity to make and support decisions that truly affect the lives of our young people. I respectfully say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others that it is a very difficult judgment, and I respect the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in making her case. However, we have to understand that these are very complex issues affecting the lives of individuals. We cannot legislate in a manner reflecting our personal prejudices. We have to deal with the facts
and give all children the opportunity to live in a supportive environment which supports them as they are, not as we should like them to be.5.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this Bill is welcome, as is the speech of the Minister as to its purpose and effect. However—to set this speech in context with those already made—may it be said shortly that I agree with the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who established the true background against which we have to consider adoption, laying emphasis on the effect of delay, the current inadequacy of the process, and the need which other noble Lords have mentioned for post-adoption support as an entitlement.
I agree with part of the speech of my noble friend Lady Young, who identified the needs of those who do not have to return home from care and the need for change of the endemic attitude, as she put it, of social workers. However, as at present advised, I am not able to support an outright prohibition on homosexual couples as prospective adopters. Party policy is made neither from the speeches from the Privy Council Benches nor from those from these Back Benches. I agree that there must be a free vote to ascertain the true sense of this House and that it should be, whether in Committee or at any subsequent stage, on the Floor of the House.
To introduce what I have to say—which is in the interests only of clarification and implementation—I should like to advance some propositions. They are as follows. Under this Bill, the judiciary in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction within the statutory framework remains the putative ultimate arbiter of the interests of each and every child. Decisions of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House which establish the two principles as applicable to Clauses 1 and 46 should not be affected by amendment to this Bill. On procedural aspects of implementation of Clause 1, a rigorous assessment should be introduced of general application which does not discriminate against homosexual couples as such as prospective adopters; and this Bill may not be amended to afford discrimination incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The rigorous assessment will be included with other proposed procedural provisions in implementation of Clause 1 to be tabled at Committee stage concerning the exercise of the powers of the court and the adoption agencies.
As to the two principles, they were established many years ago under statutory provisions substantially similar to those in Clauses 1 and 46 in two cases in which I appeared as leading counsel on behalf of the appellants before your Lordships' Appellate Committee. In the first of such cases, I acted for adoptive parents whose adoption order had been set aside by the Court of Appeal on the application of the mother that her consent should not have been dispensed with. The Appellate Committee quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal and reinstated the adoption order. The reasoning established the
principles on which the court may dispense with parental consent to adoption under Clause 46(2)(c) of this Bill. That case was In Re W (An Infant) 1971 Appeal Cases and has ever since stood as commanding authority.In the second case, I was acting for the Lewisham Borough Council. The Appellate Committee concluded that a Court of Appeal authority had been wrongly decided and established that local authority care does not terminate on the request of the parent to take over care of the child. That has an indirect putative effect on adoption. That case was decided in 1979 and has stood the test of time as well.
As to disposing with parental consent to adoption, it has been proposed to amend the Bill to introduce a new test which is not well conceived: that unless a balance of advantage to the child is tilted in favour of adoption against an alternative provision, then the consent of the natural parent to adoption may not be dispensed with. However, such mandatory provision is inflexible and could work against the interests of the child. What about the Borough of Lewisham case? Is it not in conflict with Clause 1(2) and 1(6) of the Bill? Would it not conflict with the reasoning in In Re W as introducing a derivative of the "blood tie" argument which was accepted by a majority of the Court of Appeal but unanimously rejected by the five noble and learned Lords sitting on your Lordships' Appellate Committee? It was a unanimous decision. Would it not ignore the opinion of the editors of current Halsbury's Laws in that In Re W tells a judge all he needs to know and that previous decisions are unhelpful?
As to the procedural amendment to be introduced as a probing amendment in implementation of Clause 1 as to the exercise of the powers of the court and the adoption agency, it is proposed that the child should be told, if of sufficient understanding, of prospective adoption and should meet the prospective adopters, and that at all stages of the process of adoption should be entitled to be heard and have independent qualified representation.
An entitlement to support services on adoption, referred to by more than one noble Lord, should be established. No adoption order should be made unless a legal commitment as an enforceable obligation has been approved by the court and the adoption agencies have been enjoined to provide a uniform service to parents and relatives who seek assurance as to the welfare of the child.
Before concluding I refer to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I agree unreservedly with everything that he said. I agree that there is a lack of prospective adopters. I agree with what he said about unmarried couples. I agree with what he said about the provisions being sufficiently flexible to be applied by the court and that it is wrong to ban homosexual couples. The right reverend Prelate put this whole matter in its true and correct perspective. That is my personal opinion.
In conclusion, albeit that the process of adoption will continue to suffer a sea change, and has done so since 1971, the principle embodied in the leading case
of In Re W has not and, for example, would extend to apply to circumstances which did not arise in that case, such as those embodied in Clause 1(4)(e) and 1(5) of the Bill. Ought not that decision, which broke the mould of outworn precedent and pre-empted the Children Act of 1995 on the interests of the child—expressly acknowledged in Clause 1(2) of the Bill—to continue to tell the judge all that he needs to know?5.42 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I do not intend to go into points of detail on the Bill but I should like to put down a marker that I shall, if I can, at later stages of the Bill, try to address the problem that today children are adopted much too late.
I wish briefly to examine the background against which we have to consider the Bill. Those of your Lordships who, like me, spent most of last Monday and Tuesday watching the jubilee festivities on television will have seen thousands of happy families and thousands of happy, secure and well loved children. Those, of course, are the majority. But there is, and always has been, a minority of the nation's children who, through no fault of their own, are born into families who simply cannot cope and who are not able to give their children the love, security and support they need. Being a good parent today is probably more difficult than it has ever been. For that reason too many children are inevitably being short-changed. They are not getting the security, love and support that they need to develop to their full potential.
Why does that matter so much? It matters so much for two reasons: first, because those children are being denied equality of opportunity for the whole of their lives; and, secondly, because it adversely affects our society as a whole. Although at any one time children comprise 20 per cent of the population, as has often been said, they comprise 100 per cent of the nation's future. It is today's children who will pay our pensions in a very few years' time. Functional families play a key role in the nurture of the nation's children. It may be too fanciful to suggest that the evolution of the human race has depended upon stable committed families. Homo sapiens is the only higher primate whose juveniles take 15 years or more to reach mental and physical maturity. Is it a coincidence that it is the human brain which has developed so much further than that of any other primate and that at the same time it is the human species which has developed social structures to protect and educate its juveniles during the first 15 years of their lives?
Statistics show that children who grow up in a stable, protective, loving family have better life chances measured against a whole range of factors—mental and physical health, educational achievement, employment and so forth, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. For those children whose birth family cannot provide that kind of care there is self-evidently a need for surrogate families. The importance of the Bill is that it is about one kind of surrogate family which can do that job. The Bill is about mobilising a resource which is under-utilised in
our society today—that reserve of good will, potential parenting ability and love which already exists in our society among many of those who cannot have children themselves or are prepared to take on more as well as their own.We live in a society which believes in the diversity of family structures. Adoption contributes to that diversity. There is solid research evidence to show that some structures tend to work better than others. Carefully arranged and well supported adoption has a high success rate. Incidentally, statistically, it probably succeeds better than either single parent families or step families but that may be a contentious issue. That is why the Bill is important and that is why I hope that your Lordships will support it however much we have to do to improve it as it goes through this House.
I wish to make one more general point. Let us not be afraid to use the word "love". Because the word "love" is used so often by the tabloids to describe romantic love or sexual gratification, child professionals and others today prefer to talk of "caring", "relationships" and "attachment". Unselfish, dependable, forgiving love includes all those but it is also much more. Not long ago in response to a question of mine, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out that you cannot make a law that a father must love his son. Without doubt, that is true, but it is also without doubt that a child nurtured in a supportive, loving, functional family will tend to have a head start in life and that a child nurtured without love will tend to be at a disadvantage for life.
If we can get it right, this Bill should mean that significantly more of the nation's children will be able to grow up in the sort of family environment which will help them to develop to their full potential.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, first, I apologise to the House as I shall have to be absent from the Chamber for about an hour later due to a prior commitment.
The Bill is welcome and much needed. Many issues and statistics have been raised already. The Bill emphasises that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration relating to adoption—a point that has been made many times. It places new duties and rights on those providing adoption services. It sets up review mechanisms. It suggests improved information systems and incorporates several useful amendments to the Children Act 1989. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with the Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, when he said last year that
- "society shares a responsibility to ensure that each child's life circumstances do not then limit their life chances. A kind and loving family is the rock on which society discharges that responsibility".
I shall not go into what we might mean by "family"; kindness and lovingness are more important than debates about what constitutes a family.
I hope that debates in your Lordships' House will not become over-focused on the issue of whether unmarried couples should or should not be able to
adopt. I recognise that there are strong feelings but I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, made a powerful case, based on his own experience, for recognising the facts, including the fact that our duties to children are paramount, too. Some of those children are in dire circumstances.There are other issues in the Bill that are more important than that one. I shall raise one of them—it concerns listening to children and establishing the views of the child on adoption and care. Before I discuss that issue, I must declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children. I also want to pay tribute to the dedication and dynamism of the many voluntary organisations that work on behalf of children. They are unfailingly knowledgeable and helpful in their support and are active in making legislation for children more effective.
I move on to listening to children. More than 2.5 million children are now growing up as part of a step family and more than 1.5 million children visit a parent at the weekend and during holidays. The Children Act 1989 does not always ensure child safety when courts are considering the granting of residence and contact orders in private proceedings. That Act brought together public and private law provision. However, in public law cases, children have a guardian and a solicitor to listen to them and to present their interests in court but in private law disputes, the emphasis is on achieving an agreement between the adults concerned.
In November 2001, an amendment to Clause 1 was considered in a Special Standing Committee on the Bill. It sought to require courts or adoption agencies to speak to a child to ascertain his or her views regarding an adoption, where appropriate. Adopting at the moment can take place without any consultation with the child. The Minister of State at the Department of Health, Jacqui Smith, had sympathy with the amendment; she is well known for her concern for children's rights. Regulations and guidance were envisaged that would clarify how children might be involved in the decision-making process. I wonder whether the Minister would update the House on progress with such guidance and on how the Government will support the involvement of children. That issue should go across all legislation and I, for one, will continue to highlight the need to consult children on matters that affect them. Numerous surveys show that children want to be consulted and have clear opinions on what is best for them. We do them, and our system, a disfavour by not learning from their views.
The present system is based on two assumptions. The first is that, provided the parents agree, the arrangements will be in the best interest of the child. The second assumption is that parents will act reasonably and always in the best interest of the child. Those assumptions are not always correct and can have dangerous consequences. Some children may be forced to maintain contact with a violent or abusive parent—that was discussed by my noble friend Lady Gould. Another assumption may be that the child's mind may have been poisoned by the other parent.
Courts may not be able to identify children at risk because independent evidence on a child's behalf is lacking. In the majority of cases—provided that parents agree—there is no objective scrutiny of proposed arrangements for children or any consultation on their wishes. Judges are dependent on the written statement of arrangements or parenting plan documents that are compiled by the adult parties—the parents. Parenting plans are useful but they perhaps underestimate the acrimony and distress that can accompany divorce or separation.During the passage of the Family Law Act 1996, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, expressed the view of the committee when he said that it would be desirable that the interests of children have representation in some way. Section 64 recognised the possible conflict that could arise between parents and children in private proceedings. Much of that Act, including Section 64, was shelved.
This Bill gives us the possibility of ensuring provision that is child centred and which can identify children at risk and provide courts with criteria for independent representation of their interests. There have been cases in which children have been murdered during unsupervised or unsuitable contact. Many others have been put at risk from domestic violence or warring parents. No child should be or wants to be in that position, but their views are denied.
Criteria for separate representation for children could be drawn up. They could include: cases in which parents are quarrelling and creating a situation that is not conducive to a child's best interest; where there is a history of violence; where contact with a non-violent parent is being denied; where a court accepts the need for medical or psychological reports on a child; where there is a conflict of interest between one or both parents, which could include conflicts arising in future as a result of the child disagreeing with court-approved arrangements that were made when the child was very young; and where the child is the subject of divorce proceedings for the second time or for subsequent times.
There are anomalies in our current system. Vulnerable children are at risk. That is inequitable and questionable in relation to the human rights of the child. The law must be clear and unequivocal about blocking that loophole and must include, in my view, the children's right to be heard. I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurance that the Bill will improve the situation and ensure that the best interests of the child are served even better by listening to those most affected—the children themselves.
5.56 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I have two very positive reasons for supporting adoption. First, both my husband and I each have a very special cousin who has come into the family through adoption. Secondly, during my 33 years on the Bench, the most rewarding times were when I had the privilege of being involved in the adoption process.
One of the most enlightening pieces of legislation on the statute book is that which gives children who have suffered a trauma of some magnitude the opportunity of a new loving beginning and which gives to the adopting parents the precious gift for which they have longed. That may sound very simplistic but in the majority of cases that is how it is.
I welcome the Bill and its intention to make the needs of children paramount and at the heart of the whole process. I am glad that it had its origins in my party's review that took place in 1992. I am grateful to my honourable friend Mrs Caroline Spelman, who highlighted the issue of adoption and got it on to the agenda.
Over the years, the situation has changed. Far fewer adoptions take place—only 4,000 per year now, compared with 20,000 30 years ago. The proportion of children adopted from care has increased from 7 per cent to around 50 per cent over the same period. Thirty years ago, most were babies but now two-thirds are under five and 5 per cent are 10 or over.
I am also pleased that in 2000, the Prime Minister took the initiative of having a review of the adoption of looked-after children in care. In his personal introduction to the report, the Prime Minister commented on an anti-adoption culture within social work. He said:
- "Too often in the past adoption has been seen as a last resort. Too many local authorities have performed poorly in helping children out of care and into adoption. Too many prospective parents have been confused, or put off by the process of applying to adopt, and the time the whole process takes".
In a case study that came to light in May this year, a married couple took two-and-a-half years successfully to adopt a girl aged four. They found the process,
- "a total nightmare. It was too painful. There is too much incompetence, too much thoughtlessness and too much political correctness. Some of it defies reason".
- "Some are turned down for good reason, but many perfectly good candidates just give up half way, humiliated and wrung dry by the long, drawn-out process".
Ninety-five per cent of adoptions are carried out by married people, and I believe that that should remain the case. The Office for National Statistics figures show that cohabiting couples are six-and-a-half times more likely than a married couple to split up within five years of the birth of a child. Adoption requires a commitment for life, but cohabiting couples seem unable to give that to each other. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that they could make that life commitment to a child.
Current legislation reflects the unique place of marriage in society. There is no doubt that marriage and the legal commitment that the couple have made to each other gives them the stability that is essential. Children in care have suffered enough and are often already the casualties of broken relationships. They need constancy and the security of life on an even keel. After all, it seems to me that, if unmarried applicants are keen enough to accept the responsibility of a child for life, it is not asking much of them to go through a form of marriage.
The other 5 per cent of adoptions are carried out by single people. Again, I hope that that situation will continue. I accept that children develop best when they have both male and female role models in the home. I understand that as I grew up without the benefit of my father, who died when I was 10. Single-parent families can work well. Indeed, in some cases, a child might gain from having just one caring parent.
I know of one case where a married couple with two sons adopted a daughter. Before the final procedure was completed, the husband was drowned but the wife went ahead with the adoption on her own. The daughter brought as great a joy to her mother and brothers as they brought to her.
In another place, an amendment was accepted to allow children to be adopted jointly by cohabiting same-sex couples. I have listened and wrestled with the arguments that that form of adoption does not disadvantage children. I respect other views, but I know that I could never support an Act legalising such a practice. I hope that this House will reverse the decision of another place and ask honourable Members to think again.
This is an important Bill and I am certain that your Lordships will give it the closest scrutiny. One thing is certain: I am sure that it will leave this House having had the utmost care that it and the children it will serve definitely deserve.
6.4 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I give a very warm welcome to the Bill. It is a quarter of a century since the last Adoption Bill. If one considers the enormous
changes in society and in attitudes over those years, the Bill is overdue. In fact, it completes a lot of the work that went into the Children Act 1989. That was a good Act and I am proud to have played a part when it was going through this House. One aim of the present Bill is to bring it into line with that Act. Clause 1(2) states that the paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the welfare of the child throughout his life, as is the case in the Children Act.There have been huge changes in the adoption scene. In 1971, 21,495 children were adopted. In 2001, the figure was 5,500. For babies under 12 months old in 2000, 2,200 were in care and only 200 were adopted. So we can understand the Government's concern and why they aim to increase adoption by 40 per cent by 2005. I am sure that, with listening Ministers, we shall have an interesting and satisfactory Committee stage, as, indeed, was had in the Commons. I hope that the concerns that some of us have about certain aspects of the Bill can be sorted out and the Bill improved.
One of those concerns is about support for adopters after and, indeed, before adoption. The Minister mentioned that, as did many other people. As the Bill stands, adopters have the right only to an assessment of their needs. Those may be very significant if the children have experienced neglect and abuse. They may well have educational and health needs. They may have been moved a great number of times, either in care or in foster homes. But assessment alone is no help.
There should be a duty on local authorities to provide services, and there must be funding to pay for them. So far as I can see, there is no statement in the Bill about its financial implications. We know that certain moneys have been promised but we do not know exactly whether they will be enough. The Bill will give rise to huge financial implications and I hope that there will be sufficient to pay for training, which will be extremely necessary. Having read the Bill, I believe that the situation will be complicated, and social workers will have much work to do to get round it. Perhaps, in responding, the Minister will say something about the financial implications. I hope that he will also say when the Bill will be implemented as it is not clear to me when that will be.
I turn to another aspect—information and transparency. The situation is much better than it used to be, but surely a child's history should be available at the time of matching and should not be left until he moves in with the adoptive family when a placement order is made.
The Bill contains some excellent provisions which will allow birth parents and other birth relatives to be assisted in initiating contact with their adult adopted children. That will take place through the provision of an intermediary service by the adoption agencies or local authorities. Of course, most children now have clear memories of their birth families. But—this is important—these provisions will apply only to adoptions that take place after the Bill comes into force.
A generation of women who gave up their children between 1945 and 1980 have made repeated efforts, without success, to find out about their adopted children. Are they still alive? What have they made of their lives? Would contact perhaps be helpful? Those birth parents have no wish to interfere but they want to be there should they be wanted. That right should be made retrospective. Some agencies provide such a service, but not all. Surely this is a basic human right. What possible reason can there be for not giving that basic right?
I now want to mention a few points which are of concern to a consortium of adoption and associated agencies. I believe that the manner in which they have got together is very good. About 20 agencies have met and agreed what they want to do to change and improve the Bill. Therefore, it is important that we take note of their points. These matters were in fact the subject of amendments in the Commons but, unfortunately, due to the guillotine, there was insufficient time for them to be discussed. The issues remain live and, although they are too technical to raise in this debate, it would be helpful if the Government would, at this stage, give a preliminary response to the following questions.
First, how is the proposed wording for dispensing with consent in Clause 51(1)(b) compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998? The concern is that the simple welfare test in that clause will be in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention because it is no different from the ground for any other Children Act order, such as a residence or special guardianship order. Yet, given that adoption is irrevocable, European case law suggests that there need to be exceptional circumstances to justify the state overturning parental consent.
My second question is whether the Government are willing to consider introducing a placement order in every case, including consent cases. That would be fairer to all parties because it would give greater clarity and certainty to the adopters that once the placement order is made there is little chance of turning back. That would give them greater confidence to invest emotionally in a child placed with them without the fear that the mother might change her mind and ask for the child to be returned. It would make clear to a consenting parent that once an order is made there is very little chance of reversing the placement. It would also ensure that members of the wider family have sufficient opportunity to make representations and come forward as potential carers before it is too late. While that might raise initial fears that it will increase expense and delay, there are compelling reasons for doing that, not least that the very complicated provisions concerning restrictions on removal in Clauses 29 to 34 could be simplified. If those points are ignored, it is likely that there may be a number of time-consuming and expensive appeals, which in themselves may cause detrimental delay to children in need of placement.
My third question is whether parents and children will be parties to adoption proceedings as opposed to placement order proceedings. If they are not, the court will not have the opportunity to canvass their views about contact issues and will hear evidence from only the adopters and the adoption agencies about whether adoption, as opposed to any other option, is best for the child. Given the finality of adoption, it does not seem right for the court to be presented with a partial view. My noble friend Lady Massey spoke of the importance of hearing the views of children.
My last question on this issue is what will be the role of the CAFCASS officer? Will it include investigative functions in consensual as well as non-consensual cases? It would be helpful to hear the Government's views on those matters in order to inform the work of the Committee in considering which amendments to table.
My final point concerns intercountry adoption. The Minister told us of some of the safeguards which have been put in place, which are welcome. However, I am anxious about our reputation abroad. Some countries—India, for example—refuse to deal with us. Chile, Costa Rica, the Ukraine, Russia and Vietnam are all unhappy with the United Kingdom procedures and would like to see proper agencies in the UK with which they can deal.
There are also concerns among many countries about the UK's attitude to immigration requirements and nationality. They want to see guarantees that those will be fulfilled easily and properly for the child rather than left to the discretion of officials at the time of entry. There is also the question of the ratification of the Hague convention on intercountry adoption, which Britain signed in 1994. Both that convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child state that intercountry adoption is a legitimate solution for children who have no chance of family life in their native country. The Department of Health recently said that ratification would yet again be delayed until next year. I appreciate, of course, that overseas adoptions may not be a burning issue for the Government at this moment when they are encouraging an increase in our own adoptions by 40 per cent.
This is a good Bill but I think that it can be improved. I look forward to Committee stage. I know that we have a number of interested Ministers who care about what we do.
6.14 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, along with my colleagues, I welcome the Adoption and Children Bill, which reflects the Government's determination to complete the overhaul of adoption services to ensure that children have successful, lasting placements with positive outcomes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, reminded us how complex childcare matters are. Adoption procedures are even more difficult and complex. There is one simple principle, set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which we can all follow and hold central and which has
been repeated throughout this debate; that is, to ensure that the needs of children remain paramount throughout every consideration. It is not a question of balance. Adoption is not about finding children to meet adult needs to form a family; nor about dogma around what constitutes a family. It is about finding the right placement for children to grow up with love and security. More than that, it establishes the right of children to know their origins, having the opportunity to build bridges between the past and the present.It was therefore with some relief that one found that the surprise proposal to remove the rights of adopted people to access identifying information about their birth parents had been dropped. I ask for reassurance from the Minister that that will not be reintroduced. Indeed, I hope that we can look to retrospective legislation so that more people can find out about the origins and the fate of their children.
There is no doubt that when it works adoption is the best answer for children left without a family, particularly children who have had the insecurity of growing up in care. But that security is lost in many and varied situations. I have spent most of my life working in social services or social care. It has always been clear to me that most—not all—children would prefer to retain contact with their birth family. That is why I am concerned about the dispensation wording in the Bill. It is easy in many circumstances to be convinced that the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with. It is much more difficult to meet the test that adoption would be so significantly better for the child than any other option as to justify overriding the parents' wishes. That should be added to the welfare checklist, which includes the consideration that alternatives to adoption have been adequately explored and eliminated.
As a social worker—I feel I need to speak up for social workers in this debate—I declare an interest because that is my profession, of which I am immensely proud. I remind noble Lords that matching children in families is an extraordinarily difficult process. There have been delays in the past. Social workers have been confused by the instructions of their local authorities. Some authorities are very pressurising about continuing to protect a child's family home and then have a different instruction about meeting targets for adoption. Consistency for social workers has given them the context in which they have been able to move forward and we have seen the results outlined in statistics, which I shall not repeat.
However, we must not become sentimental about placement. A small percentage of children are extraordinarily difficult to place. Anecdotally, perhaps I may say that I spent some weeks recently supporting two friends as they watched their adopted child die in hospital. She was the result of a difficult background. She was one of two adopted children, one who has succeeded the other. That has had a devastating effect on the rest of the family. These are very real, difficult situations.
There are provisions for time checks and targets in the Bill, recognising that speed is essential in the lives of children. However, it is also essential that real, deep, proper assessments are made. We should remind ourselves that large numbers of adoptions break down. I would ask the Minister that during this time when we are trying to speed up placement, we undertake enough research to understand what element it is within that placement that leads to breakdown.
In welcoming this legislation, and generally the good concern and protection it affords for children, I turn briefly to two other aspects. As I have said, most children are best placed with their birth family, and, when that is not possible, with an adoptive family. We all agree on that. But it is not true for all children. There is a substantial concern that the existing legal system fails to protect children from abusers who are known to them.
One of my colleagues mentioned that in recent years 15 children have been killed in England and Wales as a result of contact arrangements. Many more have suffered abuse and trauma. When I was chief executive of Childline, we undertook a survey in order to find out how many children called to complain that their mothers were forcing them to make false allegations about their fathers. Children call Childline about every conceivable situation, but we could not find one case—not one case—in that category. What we found were frightened, angry and, often, sobbing children, begging us to explain why they had to go to see an abusive, often sexually offending father and why no one could do anything about it.
Contrast that with the care with which we aim to ensure the placement of adopted children. If it is known that there is a violent offender in an adoptive home the placement simply will not take place. But, as yet, the Government do not ensure that contact or residence arrangements are safe for a child. While welcoming the Government's intention to extend the definition of "harm" in the Children Act to include witnessing domestic violence, it is essential that there is an assessment of risk in private law, contact or residence proceedings.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said, we pay much lip service to listening to children, but what prevents us from listening to those children in those circumstances? There is something incoherent about law which requires the court to set a higher standard of proof in cases involving more serious allegations, where the views of children who do not want contact with a non-resident parent are dismissed, and where there is no representation for the child. Just as adoption secures as safe as possible a home for a child, so we must ensure that contact or residence orders are safe for children.
We do not hear these children because there is no independent representation on their behalf. Childline, Barnardo's, the NSPCC, the Children's Society, the national youth advocacy scheme and Women's Aid hear these children's cries, but who speaks for them?
There is no direct social work reporting into the system and children have no entitlement to legal representation.I support the British Agency for Adoption and Fostering and other adoption agencies in pressing for the last minute amendment which allows unmarried couples jointly to adopt. We are in a changing world. Every day 650 children see their parents divorce or separate; 300,000 children have parents who have been married before to other people; and over 2.5 million children are growing up as part of a stepfamily. Family patterns are changing. Many children seeking new adoptive families would face an alternative of care with all the uncertainty that that brings.
I hope that this part of the debate will not become focused on issues around gay adoption—they are so few—but on finding the right placement for the child. Children's needs vary. It is the child's needs that are important. To quote the leader of The Times:
- "Laws which prevent responsible citizens providing love for the most vulnerable in our society are laws ripe for reform".
I have spent most of my life involved with vulnerable, difficult and high-need children. They deserve the best individual assessment to meet their individual needs. They deserve a family to fit their needs, not to reinforce any lifestyle—married or unmarried—but to give them love and stability.
As the debate progresses, let us keep the children at the front of the debate, listen to them and ensure that they are represented, and, in appropriate circumstances, properly supported and protected.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page