| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Andrews: It is such a relief to have someone else being quizzed on their amendment. Speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Gould, I thank the noble Earl very much for that description of how the subsection might be improved. I am hesitant to abandon my speaking notes because they go further than the proposed new clause.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that he mentioned an interesting matter. We know more about the brain now. We have learned more about the brain in the past five years than in the past 50 years. There is some extremely interesting research on childhood development which emphasises the importance of getting these processes absolutely right with due regard both to the welfare of the mother, but particularly to the welfare of the child.
It has been a thoughtful and moving debate. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for giving us the opportunity to have such a debate. I am sorry to hear that children are still being abandoned on the steps of the Temple Church. That is a matter for grave reflection.
I turn to the impact of the amendment. Let me stress that absolutely nothing divides Members on any side of the Committee as regards the motivation to make the safe care, placement and adoption of very small babies as speedy and as secure as possible. That is definitely the intent of the Bill. It is an exceptionally important issue, despite the fact that the Bill has been devised to modify adoption requirements. That need has arisen due to the difficulty of placing older children who are in care, and due to changes in society which have resulted in there being fewer younger children available for adoption. However, that does not mean that they are any less important, far from it.
The proposed new clause addresses that issue. Indeed, in the other place, the Government also tabled amendments to make provision for the cases we are discussing. If I may, I will explain how we have already strengthened the Bill in that respect in relation to some of the noble Earl's concerns.
I want to demonstrate that the Bill's provisions allow, in a genuinely appropriate manner, bearing in mind the range of interventions that are possible, for the placement of a child after adoption. We do not know how many small children are voluntarily relinquished at birth for adoption. However, we do know that there is a change in attitude towards single motherhood and that numbers are fewer.
- "Any consent given by the mother to the making of an adoption order is ineffective if it is given less than six weeks after the child's birth".
However, like the noble Earl, we believe that it is very important to enable babies to be placed for adoption when very young, as securely as possible, when it is in the best interests of the child. We are already taking action under current legislation to try to ensure that that happens. The National Adoption Standards set a clear timetable for finding a new family for a child under six months where a parent has requested that he or she be placed for adoption. That is a significant advance.
We have also stated that a match with suitable prospective adopters should be identified and approved by the adoption panel within three months of the agency agreeing that adoption is in the child's best interests. It is a short timetable but, given the number of families that are looking to adopt small babies, a realistic one. The Government have made it clear to local authorities that we expect those timetables to be met by 1st April next year.
We expect the majority of children to be matched more quickly than that. It inevitably takes longer to find an appropriate match for a child with specialist needs or a mental or physical disability. However, for other children, we expect a great deal of work to be done with the birth parent before the birth of the child. That is how it should be and that is what we expect. The draft practice guidance to support the National Adoption Standards encourages as much counselling and support as possible to be given to the birth parent before the birth. That will obviously raise questions as to whether there are people within the wider family who can adopt the child. It will ensure that the mother will know all the options and will not feel that she is being pushed into a corner where there is only one choice.
It is important that the new legislation does what it can to support the rapid placement for adoption where that is in the child's best interest. That is exactly what the proposed new clause and the Bill's provisions seek to achieve.
The proposed new clause seeks to tackle two situations: first, to enable baby placements where the parents consent; and, secondly, to allow for placement where there is no consent. Let me set out how we propose to address both those options. As to the first situation, we entirely agree that, notwithstanding what I said earlier about the six-week time limit for giving formal consent, it is important to provide a route for rapid placement where the parents agree and the agency agrees that it is in the interests of the child.
Clause 17(1) allows adoption agencies to place a child under six weeks for adoption without the formal consent given under Clause 18 for the reasons I have given. They will do so with the agreement of the parents. The arrangements for securing the agreement will be set out in regulations and guidance. As to in-depth counselling and so on, we will be able to consult with the agencies on the nature of those consultations.
These provisions will allow young babies to be placed for adoption quickly, within that critical six-week period, provided that all the safeguards have been met. Once the six-week period is up, however, the agency has to secure formal consent and if it fails to do so the authority to place will cease unless the agency is a local authority and feels that a placement order would be justified—and there is no parental consent.
In the meantime, such placements have to be entirely voluntary and the provisions in Clauses 25 and 26 for securing contact apply to those placements as they do in all others under Chapter 3. Adoption agencies are under the same duties in respect of these young placements as they are for everything else. The only major difference, which is a safeguard again for the birth parent, is that during that critical six weeks before formal consent is obtained, parental responsibility is not shared with the agency or with the prospective adoptive parents. We believe that it is not appropriate for that major decision of giving parental consent away in any sense to take place before the six-week period. In a way, that reinforces our problem with the present construction of subsection (2) of the new clause.
Clauses 29 and 30 provide that the parents can request the return of the baby at any time and the agency must return the child within seven days of any request unless a placement order has been applied for. What we have tried to achieve, therefore, is both speed in terms of the situation of the child and also safeguards on the rights of the parents not to be harassed, to have the right support and to make the right decision. However, after six weeks, the proper consent has to be obtained. In the meantime, that young mother is entirely responsible for her child.
This brings me to the second situation, which, as Members of the Committee have already indicated, is where there are considerable issues and I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. As I read it, local authorities can place children for adoptions without parents' consent where they are satisfied it should be dispensed with, pending the resolution of a later application. That cuts across the principle set out in the Children Act, that there needs to be a clear threshold before the state intervenes in family life; before it takes such a drastic step. That should be sanctioned by a court, not left to an administrative decision. Even if it is for a short time, it still needs to be done with the sanction of the court and those processes need to be followed.
The noble Earl's clause would enable placement against the parents' wishes purely as a result of an administrative decision by a local authority with court sanction, though there would be no guarantee that the
court would not reverse the authority's judgment in that. The combination of the Bill's provision and the Children Act, therefore, already provides an appropriate route in those unfortunate cases where the local authority genuinely believes that it has to take rapid action for the safety of the child after birth. Where it feels that a child is at risk, it can apply immediately for emergency protection orders, for an interim care order, and it could after six weeks, and with the consent of the parent, apply for a placement order to follow on shortly.In such cases, it be aware in advance that there was a potential threat to the child. Social workers know these cases, by and large. They know the family history, the situation of siblings and the relationship, so they would, in the great majority of cases, know the situation that they were dealing with—often, sadly, because of what has happened to other children in the family. They ought therefore to be able to assemble much of their case. If they have to make an application shortly after the child is born, I know that the courts will be making every effort to resolve those issues quickly for all the reasons that Members of the Committee have given.
I believe that the noble Earl's proposal goes too far in these cases at the moment. In addition, there may not always be an appropriate family available so we need flexibility to allow for initial short-term foster care. I was however very struck by the evidence about the frequent movement of those children, which is obviously not something that we want to see. It also allows time for the adoptive parents to be found—and that may take longer.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for his offer to reconsider the clause in the light of what has been said. There is additional help available to plan concurrently for these situations, which makes it clear with very young birth parents and prospective adopters that there are parallel ways of looking at what might be done. If Members of the Committee would like further information about that, I would be very happy to provide it. I hope that under the circumstances the noble Earl will feel happy to withdraw the amendment and I am grateful to those who have spoken in this debate.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to ask for absolute clarification on one point. Does this mean that under Clause 51(3) in no circumstances could a child be placed in a home with a view to adoption under six weeks? I think of the situations described by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, where there may be another court order under the Children Act; for example, where a mother may have failed to protect previous children from significant harm and there is a real danger for the child. Surely we would then want to prevent that child being moved from one place to another and there are
adoptive placements for babies under six weeks. There are very few counties where there is not a waiting list for small children.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |