Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I think all Members of the House will agree with me when I say how greatly we all appreciate how the noble Baroness always listens to worried criticisms and really investigates the case that is being made. I have felt very much indebted to her in the past and I think we all do tonight for the way she always deals with us in this House.
I welcome the opportunity to ask one short question, which came to my mind when I first read the Bill and the Explanatory Notes. I refer to contact with grandparents. This has been a very real issue in many cases. I could not help wondering, because all the way through we have been talking about parents, as do the Explanatory Notes, whether anything in front of us is intended to affect the right of grandparents to have access to their grandchildren?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Baroness is extremely kind in her remarks about my work. It is always a delight to work with the noble Baroness. In our previous discussions we talked about grandparents. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise the issue. Grandparents often provide the linchpin between parents in dispute. I recognise and value very much the work that so many grandparents do, and I have been very fortunate to listen to grandparents describing that. They of course can make application to the court, and they will be listened to, about their rights to have access to their grandchildrenagain always on the basis of the child's interests being paramount and in the vast majority of cases it would be in their interests to see their grandparents.
I hope the noble Baroness will look back on some of the debates we have had. I completely agree with her that grandparents play a vital role, and we are very keen to ensure that they have the Government's support in being able to work with their grandchildren. I apologise only that I did not make that important point clearer in my final remarks.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I agree with everything that my noble friend said. She has been a passionate advocate for grandparents throughout the passage of the Bill. I thank the Minister for her customary detailed and thoughtful reply, and I am most grateful for the way in which she has listened. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, have gone to a great deal of trouble to keep us informed and for that I thank them. Although I am not supposed to, I also thank the Bill team. I am pleased that the Minister is commissioning research on contact and look forward to reading the
29 Nov 2005 : Column 203
conclusions. That will be very interesting. I do not doubt for one moment her commitment to ensuring that parents have a good, strong relationship with their children and for accepting that work needs to be done.
In my Second Reading speech I said that the current arrangements risk the downgrading of the family and, above all, of fatherhood, and that we allow that at peril to future generations. Those are still my sentiments. Notwithstanding what the Government are doing, we still feel strongly that the best way to resolve disputes between warring parents and to protect the right of the child to a proper relationship with both parents is through presumption of co-parenting, reasonable contact, early intervention, mandatory dispute resolution and mediation and parenting time plans. However, I will not test the opinion of the House and I am sure that all this will be picked up in conversation when the Bill goes to another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 5:
"( ) In section 85 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (restriction on taking children out), in subsection (2) after paragraph (a) insert
"(aa) the High Court has given leave for the child to leave the United Kingdom to be placed with the prospective adopters pending the issue of an application under section 84,""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall take just a little time to deal with some issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, when we discussed the matter at Report. He raised some important questions that I would like to address before the Bill finally leaves this House. The restrictions in adoption legislation on taking children abroad for the purposes of adoption are there to protect and provide safeguards. The point of trying to amend those provisions is not to reduce those safeguards but to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility so that a placement that is deemed to be in the best interest of the child is possible.
Previously, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked what would happen if the placement did not work outhow would we in the United Kingdom know that things were not working well? There are two possible responses to that. The first is that if the country in which the adoption was being completed was a convention country, a country that is party to the 1993 Hague Convention, there would be a central authority and that central authority would be in contact with the central authority here. That central authority could arrange another placement in that country, if that were appropriate, or return the child to this country, or its country of origin. The convention also provides that the views of the child must be taken into account and his or her consent be obtained before any new placement where that is appropriate.
If the country were not a convention country, it would be more problematic. Under the provisions of the Adoption and Children Act, if they are
29 Nov 2005 : Column 204
unamended, the child will be subject to an order under Section 84, giving the prospective adopters parental responsibility. Under English law, no one else would have parental responsibility. If the adoption had been arranged by an adoption agencymost probably, a local authorityand the adopters requested it, the local authority concerned would probably be willing to receive a child back.
It may be possible to consider enabling the child to leave the country with the prospective adopters while subject to a placement order. That would mean that the local authority would share parental responsibility with the adopters and would have a continuing responsibility for the child. There may be some difficulties in that, but it is possible that that system could work to the child's advantage. I think that I am right in saying that, since 1991, the courts have sanctioned children leaving the country under care orders. Those are two possible ways of ensuring that, when a child is in another country, oversight of the arrangements continues.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, talked about relatives. We noted that since the passage of the 2002 Act the position of relatives had changed and that it might be possible to make changes here. It depends on what definition of "relative" the Government come up with. It would have to be sufficiently wide to allow people who have adopted one of a sibling group and who are the prospective adopters of another one of that group to be considered parents. I am not sure whether they would be under the current definition.
It is incumbent on me to say why the provision is important and worth banging on about at this late hour. There are two reasons. First, anyone who has read about the history of inter-country adoption will know that what happened in the last century to children who went abroad from this country was perhaps one of the most shameful acts of social policy in which the country has ever been involved. Nobody on these Benches has any wish to replicate any of that or to set up legal loopholes. But, at times, people become, quite rightly, extremely emotional and perhaps sometimes unreasonable about inter-country adoption, whether to or from this country. If the law does not work in the best interests of children, people will be tempted to try to circumvent it. That is why it is important that we consider allowing flexibility, even in cases that have been to court and have been assessed.
When we last discussed the issue, the Minister asked me how prevalent such cases are. Only a few children are affected; the number is still very small but I have reason to believe that it is growing. It is therefore worth taking time to see whether the law can be made to work in their best interests. I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, speaks with passion on this subject. The amendment gives the courts the flexibility to make an order that best meets the needs of the child. Although our names are not attached to this
29 Nov 2005 : Column 205
amendment, we have supported the noble Baroness throughout the passage of the Bill and continue to do so.
Lord Adonis: My Lords, before coming into the House, my noble friend Lady Ashton gave me a stern lecture that apparently it is now outside the normal practice of the House to end by thanking noble Lords for how they have conducted themselves during debates. I will not do that but briefly thank them for the great forbearance they have shown me on the first Bill that I have taken through and for the very good-natured way in which debates have been conducted, even on very difficult issuesnone was more difficult than arrangements for the protection of children after relationships have broken down. The Government are very grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for the care and attention that they have taken in raising those matters with us.
It seems to have fallen to the noble Baroness and me to end the proceedings in Committee, on Report and now at Third Reading by discussing the difficult and important issue of children adopted from the UK. I am glad that the noble Baroness has now met my honourable friend Maria Eagle, the Minister responsible for this policy area, and that they had a very fruitful discussion. My honourable friend has indicated to the noble Baroness that we will look further at this issue with a view to seeing whether it is possible for the Government to introduce on Report amendments that would deal with the points that she has raised about the need for suitable flexibility to deal in particular with cases relating to relations of children proposed for adoption where a less bureaucratic procedure would be in the best interests of the children concerned, and cases that would not cause unnecessary disruption to the family life of the child and the relativewhere it is a relative seeking to adopt themand that would be consistent with the child safety concerns paramount in making provisions in this area.
As the noble Baroness said, the issues are complex. I will not rehearse them all. However, before we can move further we need to satisfy ourselves that we have ironed out the difficulties, particularly as regards securityeven where relatives are the adoptersin
29 Nov 2005 : Column 206
the country where the adoption is being undertaken and should arrangements break down. The noble Baroness raised the convention and the obligations that it places on the countries that are signatories to it. Her points are well taken. It may be that there are adequate safeguards in those countries.
However, we should not lightly expose children to the risk of disruption that might be caused if arrangements do not work out in the country to which they are being taken. I am told that we are aware of children being sent back on their own after breakdowns have occurred. Situations like that are very grave and serious for the children concerned. We need to be sure that even where relatives are involved, and therefore reasonably strong securities can be given for the well being of the child, there are nevertheless robust arrangements for overseeing a trial period in the country to which they are to go, and for dealing with a situation if a breakdown occurs and full adoption and residence does not follow.
The noble Baroness has raised an issue which we are prepared to look at further. I hope that we are able to meet her legitimate concerns about the need to ensure flexibility and the best interests of the children concerned. But we believe that there are still some issues that need to be ironed out. We will undertake further consultations, including with the noble Baroness, with a view to seeing whether we can move on this issue in the other place. On that basis, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |