Adoption and Children Bill

Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2001.

Special Standing Committee

Examination of Witnesses - Memorandum from the Department of Health - KEY CHANGES

Right to an assessment for adoption support services (clause 4)

Registration of adoption support providers (clause 8)

Placement Orders (clause 20)

Access to Information (clauses 53 to 62)

Intercountry Adoption (clauses 80 and 83)

Clause 110 -Support for Special Guardianship Placements

Devolution (clauses 113, 115 to 119 and 120)

ANNEX A - Access to information about a person's adoption - Introduction

Current position

The Adoption and Children Bill, March 2001

New provisions on the disclosure of information

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I welcome you, colleagues, to this first evidence session for the Adoption and Children Bill, and in particular I welcome our witnesses.

As you will appreciate, the time available is very constrained. We have an hour and a half in which—hopefully—to get through our business, with a further hour and a half for dealing with other witnesses. I will therefore be grateful if witnesses keep their answers crisp and brief, and I hope that my colleagues will ask their questions in a similar fashion.

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

I start with the issue of placement orders, parental consent and consistency with the Children Act 1989. The adoption law review has suggested that wording should be included in the Bill stating that parental consent to adoption should not be dispensed with unless the benefits to the child of being adopted are so significantly better as to justify dispensing with parental consent. If such a provision were included in the Bill, what issues would arise and what would be the likely effect?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

To ask an overall point, I would like to address the provisions relating to dispensing with parental consent. There have been many cases, including that of a nice young lady from care who told me that she would have liked to be adopted but because her mum refused—a mum whom she did not subsequently see for 10 years—she could not be adopted. Are you satisfied that the Bill will remove the ability of birth parents who are basically out of the equation to delay the process endlessly?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I have two points, Mr. Paton. The first is in response to your point about whether courts would be able to decide what ``significantly better'' meant, and what factors would be used. Surely courts are familiar with such debates because they have to consider similar matters when weighing up whether to make a care order. They must decide whether all the right conditions exist for a care order, whether it is in the child's interest and whether it will make a significant material difference. What is the difference here?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

That is not the case. One might be dealing with significant harm, but the decision that must be made—explicitly—is whether making a care order would be better than making no order at all.

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

To ask a very brief question, in what percentage of cases are orders likely to be made without parental consent, and how does that compare to the current situation on adoption orders?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

There is no provision in the Bill for children—we are examining the adoption of older children here—to give explicit consent to being adopted, nor does there seem to be any mention of the separate representation of children throughout adoption proceedings.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

May we turn to adoption support services? There has been a widespread welcome for support services being made available and extended to a wider constituency. There is a duty on local authorities to carry out assessments. Can the Department of Health officials explain how those assessments will work? They could be seen as delaying and hindering support services coming in and taking effect when they are needed. What are the mechanics of the process?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The trouble is, of course, that we are looking at the Bill now: it will have passed through Parliament by the time the regulations are published, let alone by the time the results of the consultation emerge.

What will happen if a local authority refuses to provide an assessment? We all recognise that there is an acute shortage of social workers, particularly in the child care field; if they are all focused on providing assessments, who will be left to provide services? How is the process to be resourced?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Will that money be ring-fenced? What happens when social services departments do not provide an assessment, or their subsequent support services are not up to scratch? What onus is there on them to provide, and what is the penalty if they do not?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Although I can see that we have the framework to say, ``You are not doing properly what you are supposed to be doing'', how will failure be judged? Will there be a time limit by which an assessment must be made, and a further time limit by which the support services that that assessment deems are necessary come into effect? Will such time limits be included in the regulations that are to be issued in spring?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

On intermediary services, do you agree that they have a valuable role to play, and has consideration been given to making them a statutory obligation?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Mr. Brazier, you have a question on the registration of adoption support providers.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

There is concern that the provision could kill off small self-help groups. Looking at the exemptions in the relevant clause, the one that seems to be missing is groups that are run wholly or mainly by adopters. Are the Government planning to force little groups of adoptive parents, who get together in the same way as other groups of parents get together, to register?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

We have a problem throughout the Bill because, for reasons that one can well understand, we are establishing in clause after clause a framework for regulations. The real business will be contained in statutory instruments, which may go through on the nod or be considered very briefly in Standing Committee. It is crucial that clause 8, which includes six groups of exemptions, should have a seventh—a paragraph (g) should be added to cover groups that wholly or mainly meet in people's own homes and are wholly or mainly organised by adopters themselves.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

That would be good. It would be nice if the issue could be covered in the Bill, rather than considered in a Standing Committee at a later stage by a group of people with a rubber stamp.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I hope that that is not a suggestion that parliamentarians would merely rubber-stamp something. Mr. Brazier: Minister, I stand reproached.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

To turn to clauses 53 to 62 covering access to information, I am interested in what appears to be a change of tack on the rights of adopted people to gain access to their birth certificates. We have received, as you are probably aware, significant evidence expressing concern about that issue. I recognise that there has always been a problem with balancing the rights of an adoptive child with those of the birth parents. During the last Session, when we looked at the child migrant issue--you are probably familiar with it, Mr. Paton--we met people who were denied any knowledge of their birth and natural parents, and I am concerned that we seem to be going over the same ground now. The National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents, for example, said that it was appalled at the changes made to the Bill; I wonder what your response is to such concerns. Why are the changes being introduced now?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

If you could do so briefly, please.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Is the change based on evidence of problems arising from birth families being upset by being contacted? Have you had representations about that?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Do you not think that you are taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I should like briefly to look at the matter in an historical context. The regime that people are talking about was introduced in 1975-76, but adoption started in the 1920s. My concern is constancy, and you said, Mr. Paton, that that is an important part of what you are attempting to achieve in the Bill. When we moved to the current regime, what changed from the pre-1976 regime?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The point is that after 1975, one adopted a child on the basis that at some point the child would find out—whereas before they would not have found out.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Before 1975, the deal was that the adoptee would not know, and after 1975 that they would know.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I just make the point because it is relevant in terms of pre-1975 adoptions. We should not assume that people under the old regime should be treated the same as those post-1975, because the situation under which they adopted was very different.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

The restrictions have been introduced to safeguard a small number of birth parents who may be put in danger.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

So, what is your take on NORCAP's suggestion that there should be no restrictions, but that in cases of concern the adoptee should absolutely undertake not to make contact with their birth parents? Are you happy with that suggestion?

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

I agree; I thought that it was an interesting suggestion, but I was unsure whether it would safeguard birth parents in the situation that you outlined.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The proposals are, of course, looking forward; this is not retrospective. Adoption based on a certain framework in the past holds good. We are looking to what we want to do in future, which is an important point.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

It is an important point, although it is also important to reflect on the fact that there have been massive social changes since the deal was done. Many birth parents feel no sense of shame in relation to adoption, and take a different view in later life about contact than that they might have held at the time of the adoption. The point about adopted adults contacting birth parents has been well pressed. Does the Bill do anything to enhance the rights of birth parents to contact adopted children in adulthood, and what principles have you applied in considering that issue?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

May I press that point a little further? The information exchange requires the registration of both parties, but there are cases—those that have just been mentioned might be examples—in which an adopted child might have an incorrect belief about its birth parents and the reasons why it was adopted. For example, an adopted child might believe improperly that it was abused by its birth parents, rather than by somebody in the care system. I know of such a case. Under those circumstances, is there any provision for the birth parent to signal actively through a third party their desire to make contact, rather than having to rely on the adopted child seeking information in adulthood by registering?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

What criminal offences in the past 25 years have been committed by adopted people against their birth parents?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Should not that information be absolutely seminal to a decision, given that a step is being taken that could cut across what many would regard as a fundamental human right: to have knowledge of one's origins?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

These issues are full of emotional pain and difficulties, worries and anxieties, but what real evidence is there that the legislation since 1975 has been harmful to anyone?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Did the adopted person actually harm the birth parent in those cases? Were the police involved, or did the matter just not come to anything? Is there any case in which someone has actually committed a criminal offence against their birth parent?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and, indeed, yours, Mr. Chairman. It seems an extraordinary use of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, messing up an arrangement that has worked very well for 25-odd years in order to protect one or two alleged abusers who are in danger.

I return to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) said. The Bill is absolutely right to hold the line on information to birth parents. We can all exchange stories about that. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre nodding. Through my constituency postbag I heard about a couple who adopted an unconnected boy and girl of a young age who had both had a terrible time prior to being taken into care. The boy turned out very successfully and has a good university degree; the girl was all set until age 15, when the birth mother managed to discover where she was living. From then on, she went rapidly downhill and is now a prostitute in London. Countries such as Australia, which have allowed birth parents access to information in most adoption cases, have seen a collapse in adoption, because potential adoptive parents know that it does not work. I am sorry: that was a point rather than a question.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

It was a very interesting point.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I was talking about contact in adulthood, not during the process.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The damage that could be caused to a recipient of information is not just physical damage, which is all that has been mentioned so far. It could be the result of moral pressures, someone wanting financial support, or, in relation to a pre-1975 adoption, the child not even knowing that it was adopted—pre-1975, people often changed first names. There are many issues other than whether someone is going to be physically attacked, including emotional and financial matters.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I am conscious that we are in debate rather than asking questions, but do you want to respond briefly to that, Mr. Paton, before we move on?

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

Before we move on, I want to ask Mr. Paton a question about the independent review mechanism. A great deal is being left to regulations in terms of procedures and which decisions will be taken, yet the mechanism is supposed to create confidence in the system. Can you outline the independent review mechanism and how it will operate?

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

To follow that point up, I have been told that there has been a mixed reception to the proposal. The main concerns appear to relate to the costs and how they will be attributed. Can you comment on that at this stage, after consultation?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Have the Government given any more thought to the difficulties, which I have mentioned in previous parliamentary debates, associated with turning down those who apply to adopt children? Giving the reasons for turning down such people can prove extremely destructive to their personal lives. I was given no clear answers before. Are we any clearer on that point?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I have a brief question. I should like to declare an interest. My wife and I are parents of an adopted child aged two and a bit and so could benefit from the Bill. With your permission, Mr. Hinchliffe, rather than mention this every time that I speak, I shall mention it now to put it on record. Let me put this question to you, Mr. Paton: should prospective adoptive families have access to information about a child's history?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Can you comment specifically on medical histories and their relevance?

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

We have had several conversations about that issue and I do not propose to go back over old ground because it is on record. On record last time, Mr. Paton, you said that an expert group was developing a code of practice around the issue of disclosure of information during the prospective adoption period. How has that developed?

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

So what is the time frame for the consultation?

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

That was the first point that I wanted to check. Secondly, I asked you a question about the difference in performance between authorities in terms of successful adoption rates. One issue that you identified as being key was the quality of record keeping, which still remains the case. Obviously, one needs good record keeping to support the disclosure of information, so I wonder where we are on that. I know of the taskforce that is going around and driving up best practice, but my understanding is that it has not, in the first instance, specifically targeted authorities that do not have such a good record. Perhaps, it should have done so because by targeting authorities with less success in this area, driving up their practice will happen more quickly. Will you make some comments on that?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Amanda Finlay, I am sorry to put you on the spot, but I asked you a question on 24 April in Committee, and you promised to come back to me in writing. I shall therefore ask it to you again, although I know that we have had a little thing called a general election in between. To quote Sir Ronald Waterhouse:

``the Law Commission should inquire into the position of local authorities in relation to the publication of reports commissioned by them with a view to strengthening the defence of qualified privilege (or widening it) and giving guidance at least on their relationship with their insurers''.

The point that I made then which underlies this is that it is not a legal requirement for local authorities to tell the truth, which astonished me when I discovered it but in fact it never has been. Furthermore, local authorities told us off the record that in some cases they can be required by their insurers to lie, and they can be in breach of their insurance policies if they do not do so. I see the hon. Member for Cardiff, West nodding. We are dealing with damaged children, and although one can see where the local authorities are coming from it is by any standards unsatisfactory that that should be the position.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Thank you very much.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

May I come back to the updating and review of records to which Mr. Ferrero referred. Is this being catered for within the remit of the £66 million that has been allocated? Given the enormous shortages in personnel in child welfare departments, are you convinced that that will be a meaningful updating of records that will provide a standard benchmark for all local authorities across the country in time for the new legislation?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

With respect, recruiting, if it works, and when it eventually brings on stream new social workers, is entirely irrelevant to information on children in care now, which you said you are updating and reviewing. How many children in care are we talking about on average per authority? The money is being stretched to pay for this review, as well as all manner of other things. It sounds like the right thing to do, but I am concerned that nothing like the detail that is needed will be available by the time the legislation comes into force and all the new extra responsibilities are placed on local authorities.

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

I have two brief questions on intercountry adoption. First, in what way will it tighten up the issue of the countries from which children can be adopted?

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

Will you clarify what the Bill means in terms of which of those people who wish to adopt from abroad will be able to undertake home studies?

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

The Bill makes it quite clear that only married couples can adopt jointly, and I am concerned that, ultimately, the best place might not be found for some children. What would be the repercussions of allowing unmarried couples to adopt jointly, and why was the decision taken against providing for that in the Bill?

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

It occurs to me that we review this legislation once in a lifetime, and it will be a long time before we will be able to review it easily.

We now have the Human Rights Act 1998, which we have to take into consideration. Are you confident that the Bill's provisions are acceptable according to article 8 of the Human Rights Act?

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

Are you confident? You said the Secretary of State had signed it; you did not actually say whether you were confident.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Can you say that again, Mr. Paton?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I raised this question in the debate in the last Parliament in terms of the conflict between the provision and the welfare principle in terms of the child's best interests, whereby if it was in the child's best interests to be adopted by an unmarried couple, it could not happen.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

That is not quite the answer, though, is it?

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

Precisely on that point, looked-after children can be placed with foster parents who are unmarried. The child may then be in a situation that everyone agrees should be made more permanent. The Bill would allow for a special guardianship order, but it would not allow for the child to be adopted. Is that not a problem in terms of promoting permanency? For some children, being adopted is what will promote their feelings of stability and permanency.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

May I ask about the legal arrangements in dissolution following an adoption? Statistically, it is much more likely that an unmarried union will dissolve than a married couple will divorce, but there is clear provision in divorce courts for what happens to children, property and so on. What will be the arrangements concerning the parting of an unmarried couple who have either adopted or chosen the new special guardianship order, as they will be allowed to do? That will surely be very complicated; divorce law cannot simply be picked off the shelf under such circumstances.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

To focus on the last point, will not complicated questions arise on the dissolution of an unmarried partnership in which both partners had jointly entered into a special guardianship of a child?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

It seems that we are putting another layer of legal complexity on to a child who has already had a lot of that in their life.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I accept that last point, but do not such situations arise all the time anyway with children born to unmarried couples who subsequently part? I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that the children are already going through a lot of legal processes, but the provision does not introduce totally insurmountable or unfamiliar problems.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

How strenuous is the vetting system for the unmarried partner of an adopter? If you are not proposing to change the status quo in the Bill, are there any proposals to tighten it up? It is often the unmarried partner who is the threat where abuse of a child is concerned. Are you satisfied that provisions are strenuous enough at the moment?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is nothing new; you are going back to 1983. What has changed in the past few years, or has nothing changed?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Yes, but everyone living in the household must be checked at the moment; we know that. I am saying that there is a case for making more strenuous checks of the unmarried partner. If both are not open to the initial vetting process because both cannot be the unmarried adoptive parent, are you going to balance that by making more rigorous vetting of the unmarried partner who cannot be the adopter because you are keeping the status quo in the Bill?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Mr. Dawson, do you want to ask a question?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

My point has been answered.

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

Surely you have shown the nonsense, Mr. Paton, of not going ahead with allowing unmarried couples to adopt. Current practice is--I was following it until a year ago--that both partners are assessed in exactly the same way as if they were both adopting. By not putting the provision in the Bill, we are denying the presence of proper legal safeguards and the ability for us to be sure that that is so.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Given that view, is there not a gross inconsistency in special guardianship, which confers parental responsibility and is, therefore, a significant option for permanency, being open to unmarried couples?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

One thing that has come out of this exchange is that I am slightly concerned that we do not know what special guardianship involves in the round. The matter arose in relation to inheritance law, for instance. Might it not be helpful if a paper were prepared identifying the different areas that must be considered? We could then consider whether it is appropriate that inheritance, for example, should be addressed in the provisions. We do not really know. This is a whole new area.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Do you want to respond to that point, Mr. Paton? Is it possible to give further information to the Committee on that area—by Friday, perhaps?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

We should be very grateful.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

On the registration of private fostering, is the Department satisfied that schedule 7 of the Children Act provides satisfactory protection to children who are privately fostered?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

The Department of Health does not know how many children are privately fostered—it is estimated at 8,000 to 10,000—so we do not know where they are or where they are living.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

The key test for legislation is whether it works. From what you have said, from the evidence that we have received and from my experience of working in a social services department, existing legislation does not work. Would you agree with that?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

It is not just BAAF that makes such comments; Sir William Utting's report and Lord Laming's report—in 1993, I think—on the social services inspectorate say that also. The proposals are not new. On whether people would register if there were registration, as is proposed, one could ask the same about childminders. Has the Department considered the fact that we require childminders to register with Ofsted, but we do not have the same registration scheme for private fosterers? Children are looked after for part of the day by a childminder; privately fostered children are cared for for years, and nobody knows where they are.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

But that simply has not happened. I know that there have been publicity campaigns, such as a leaflet, but we have not seen an improvement. We are talking about a vulnerable group of children, so the issue must be about private foster carers notifying the local authority, which is not happening. Surely the state should be coming at this matter from the other way, too; it does so for childminding and day care, but not for private foster carers. Have you had a discussion with the Local Government Association about the mechanics of setting up a registration scheme?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Could you explain the problem to me? It seems that we are not talking about a vast number of children. Childminders are registered and the very informal arrangements of the past for looking after children have been brought under statutory requirements. What is the problem over private fostering?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I am conscious that this is an important area, and there will be opportunities to pursue it later in Committee. May I thank our witnesses for their contributions, which have been most helpful? Mr. Paton, would you mind remaining at the Table, as last time, because, as you know, we like your company and appreciate your advice on technical points. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

The witnesses withdrew.

Memorandum from the British Agencies for AdoptionAnd Fostering - 1. INTRODUCTION

2. CHANGES TO THE ADOPTION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK—CLAUSES 2 - 4 AND 8

3. PLACEMENT ORDERS AND DISPENSATION WITH PARENTAL CONSENT - a) Conditions for grant of placement orders

b) Dispensation with parental consent

4. ADOPTION BY MARRIED COUPLES OR SINGLE PEOPLE

5. REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE FOSTERING

6. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ABOUT A PERSON'S ADOPTION CLAUSES 53 - 62 AND 76

7. THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT REGISTER

8. INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION

9. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

Annex 2 - A VERY PRIVATE PRACTICE - AN INVESTIGATION INTO PRIVATE FOSTERING

Executive summary

A programme for reform - ACTION FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

Action by Local Authorities/Social Services Departments

Annex 3 - INCONSISTENCY WITH THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

a) Adoption Placements by Consent

b) Parental Responsibility

c) Decision to apply for placement order

d) Foster Carers

Memorandum from the Association of the Directors of Social Services - 1. INTRODUCTION

2. ADOPTION SUPPORT FRAMEWORK

3. ADOPTION BY MARRIED COUPLES OR SINGLE PEOPLE

4. DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION ABOUT A PERSON'S ADOPTION

5. INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION

6. REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE FOSTERING

7. RESOURCES

Memorandum from the Local Government Association

CHANGES FROM THE EARLIER BILL

KEY ISSUES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT - Clause 1 Family Support and balance of rights

Clause 3 Maintenance of adoption services

Clause 4 A new duty to assess for and provide adoption support services

Support from health, education and housing services

Clause 12 Independent review mechanism

Clauses 17 to 28 Provisions for Placement for Adoption and Placement Orders

Clause 47 Adoption by Married Couples or Single People

Clauses 53 to 62

Clauses 80 to 87

Clause 115 Adoption and Children Register

Registration of Private Foster Carers

Funding

EXAMPLE OF CONCURRENT PLANNING: BURY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

Further information

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I welcome all the witnesses to the Committee.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Can I ask in what way the provisions in the Bill relating to placement orders and parental consent need to be amended?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Briefly, Ms. Cullen. We know that you are a lawyer.

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

Specifically on that point, I understand that BAAF favoured the form of words suggested by the adoption law review team, which was about adoption being ``so significantly better'' for a child than any other option. Were you not reassured—I assume you were in the room, although I am not sure—by what the Department of Health said about clause 1(4), which sets out the whole range of issues that must be taken into account?

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

On that point, is there not a danger that lawyers could spend a lot of time arguing over what ``significantly'' means?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Can we talk about support services and, in particular, address questions to the representatives of the Association of Directors of Social Services and of the Local Government Association? Obviously, a lot more responsibilities and activities will be placed on local authorities; we have heard about assessments being a requirement, followed up by support services. What are your thoughts on the resourcing requirements of those? Will assessments delay the putting into effect of the support services that are deemed to be required later? If someone is in need of help, they are in need of help now; they are not in need of booking an appointment for an assessment that will tell somebody that they are in need of help, and perhaps getting that help a few months later. Practically, what will be the impact of this, and how prepared are you for it?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I think the Minister is listening.

Do you think that there should be a statutory duty to provide an assessment? Do you think that there are circumstances under which you should refuse an assessment? If there is to be an assessment, should there be some time limit on when it should be brought in and, if necessary, followed by the support services?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

In terms of consistency of approach among authorities around the country, is there an enormous gap between good practice and not-so-good practice? What is happening to disseminate best practice to those authorities that are under-performing; indeed, how does one judge that they are under-performing? As a rider to that, on Second Reading we talked about raising the levels in terms of the numbers of adoptions. That begs the question whether there will be targets for local authorities. If so, how will they respond to having targets, or raw numbers, imposed on them?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Finally, is there any trend of poorer performance? Does it relate to more deprived areas, such as inner-city areas, where the statistics tend not to be so impressive, or is that not a leader at all and you judge performance on completely different factors?

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

I was going to ask a question, but the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has just asked it.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Can we move on to disclosure of information? Sticking with you, Ms Gibb, you probably heard us discuss this point in the earlier session. Your organisation clearly supports the Bill's provisions in respect of disclosure of information. You are probably aware of the criticism of that position; how do you defend your corner?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I was asking Ms Gibb. I shall come to you in a moment, Miss Collier. I know that you were up very early this morning.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I welcome your frankness. You are reconsidering the initial position; that is helpful.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I welcome that, too. In the evidence given this morning, we were given the extreme example of a case of an individual who was abused in childhood and then sought out their birth parent with murderous intent. It seems completely illogical that an individual who had been abused but had not been adopted would presumably have the right to know who their abuser was, but someone who had been adopted would not have the right to know. Where is the logic and justice in that? I was going to put that question to you in light of your evidence, but since you are withdrawing it, you have rather removed the need. Should not the fundamental human right of people to know as much as possible about their origins should outweigh all other considerations? Should not other mechanisms deal with threats to the physical safety of parents?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Just to finish the point, I appreciate that clause 1(2) is at the heart of the Bill and that the paramount consideration should be the child's welfare throughout his life. I know that, in that initial sense, that refers only to the adoption decision, but is it not logical that the continuum of adoption beyond childhood should also be a consideration?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Miss Collier, would you like to come in on that point?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

If, as you have rightly said, the only source of information should be through an adoption agency, what is your view about the fact that it would be possible to sidetrack that route to get direct access to a birth certificate without protection being available?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Right. So what you are saying is that you would not accept a situation in which the only access to identifying information about birth parents would be through an adoption agency. Would you still argue that there need to be other routes that are unmediated in the way in which you have just described?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Could you never envisage a situation in which a birth parent might have the right not to be identified?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I did not ask the question the other way. Could you never envisage a situation in which a birth parent might have the right not to be identified?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I agree, but could you never envisage a situation in which there might be a right for a birth parent? You think that there is an absolute right in every circumstance for a child or adopted adult to have identifying information about their birth parents.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

I have been reading the submission of the Association of Directors of Social Services and I apologise to Ms Gibb if my referring to it proves slightly embarrassing under the circumstances. My question relates to the following sentence:

``However it is important to recognise that the majority of children now being placed for adoption come through the court arena, many of whom have been physically, emotionally or sexually abused or neglected, or a combination of all of these factors, which suggests that the potential for similar extreme examples is likely to increase in the future.''

Do members of the panel other than representatives of the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering—it is perhaps not appropriate to ask this of them in the light of their earlier answer—think an increase in such cases will be a factor? If so, how do we deal with the small number of cases where that major problem is likely to arise?

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

But you accept that that is an increasing problem.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Councillor Rutter, do you have a view on this area?

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

I am sorry to interrupt, but there is always a time constraint. I do not think that the Committee is looking for those answers, so the question is, if the situation is increasing, should we recognise that that may well be a factor in the disclosure of information in a small number of cases?

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

Moving on to intercountry adoption, there seems to be general support for the tightening up that is envisaged in the Bill. However, I want to ask a specific question about agencies, particularly voluntary adoption agencies, that approve the adoption of people from other countries. Do you have a view on whether they should supervise subsequent placements, or would it be preferable for them to be supervised by the local authority in the area in which they live?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

We come now to the issue of unmarried couples adopting.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I should like to ask Felicity Collier about the survey that she has kindly enclosed in her submission.

I find myself in agreement with your last remarks that a few hard cases should not cause us to change a situation that has worked very well for 30 years. I am a little puzzled, however, as to what your polling material is supposed to suggest. Obviously, the general public might have views on the issue, but are you suggesting that because they feel that unmarried couples should have an equal entitlement to adopt to married ones, Parliament should somehow take the view that the welfare of the child is best served in that way?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Could we stay on the survey for a moment, before getting on to another issue?

I read the article, and you had a good splash in the press on both points. Before you can say that it demonstrates anything, the crucial question is, was it sized for age? The age profile of unmarried couples is very different from that of married couples.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am sorry, Felicity, but could I put the question again? I think that you may have misheard me. What I asked was whether, given the huge difference between the average age of unmarried couples and married couples, the question about whether couples were considering adoption was sized for age as was your poll on attitudes. Otherwise, the disparity that you suggested on willingness to adopt could be accounted for by age.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I would be interested to see it. It is not in the pack that you sent us, but if you have it, it would be nice if it could be circulated afterwards.

The argument put forward by the officials from the Department of Health concerned the fact that the parents have entered into a legal commitment to each other and that must be of benefit from the child's point of view. Does it not worry you at all that successive surveys have shown that there is a huge difference between the likelihood of the breakdown of an unmarried relationship where there is a child and that of a married relationship? The last Office for National Statistics survey in 1997 showed that there was an 81 per cent. chance of a married relationship still existing after 10 years and a 15 per cent. chance of an unmarried relationship still existing.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Could we bring in Meg Staples, who is near the ground on this issue?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

One final question, just to you, Meg Staples. Why should a couple who are willing jointly to enter into the legal obligations involved in their both adopting a child refuse the legal obligations of entering into a marriage, with all the consequences that that entails in terms of property inheritance and many other things? One does not have to take a religious view to get married. There is a perfectly good civil marriage system that has been around for a century or so. Why should people want to enter into a joint relationship of adoption, which would not be a legal commitment in that sense, with regard to a child who has had enough legal and other problems in past?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Could I come in on a practical point? In a previous session, I raised the issue of the welfare principle with regard to this issue. I want to ask Miss Staples and Mr. Christie—who have practical, hands-on, day-to-day experience of this area—whether they see a problem in matching up the underlying principles of the Bill, which we all support and welcome, with this particular area, which would not allow an unmarried couple to jointly adopt in these circumstances. Mr. Christie, do you want to come in on this point?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

My point was answered by Felicity Collier, but I make the general point that we are not talking about anybody's right to adopt. We are talking about people's right to be assessed as adoptive parents.

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

On the issue of the availability of adopters, may I ask Meg Staples and Moira Gibb how important it is for people who wish to adopt to have had a range of life experiences that have not necessarily been smooth and straightforward?

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

What are the important factors in promoting stability for children in placements?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

The hon. Lady used to be a social worker.

Meg Munn (Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley)

Perhaps I should say at this point that Meg Staples actually supervised my first assessment of my first home study. [Laughter.] This is very embarrassing.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I presume, Miss Gibb, that you have not been involved in Ms Munn's career at any point.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I wish to return to the rights of non-married couples to adopt, and to the points made by you, Mr. Chairman, by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and by Andrew Christie. We should consider—and not just in respect of inheritance—that where an unmarried couple are not allowed to adopt and, sadly, their relationship breaks up, the child is denied the right to express a preference as to which parent to stay with. Is that not a further denial of the right of the adopted child?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I want to bring us back to the issue of private fostering. First, I have a question for BAAF. At the beginning of Terry Philpott's report there is a dedication to Victoria Climbie, of whose tragic case we are all doubtless aware. It states:

``This tragic case may yet provoke a change in the law to offer greater protection to all those children who find themselves similarly cared for.''

Is it not true that the problem was not just that Victoria was privately fostered, but that, as the inquiry revealed, the services failed? Is not to attribute the problem to private fostering alone to play on the emotions of the issue?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

So what Victoria's parents could have done, had there been a registration scheme, was ring up the local authority and say, ``Are these people okay? We've never heard of them and they could be paedophiles for all we know.'' How would a registration scheme work?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

You are a British organisation so you cover all countries in the UK. I understand that in Scotland, under the parallel Bill to the Care Standards Act 2000, the Scottish Parliament made provisions to register private foster carers.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Can you tell the Committee how that is working? Is it social services or the national—

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Parliament provides social services departments with the enormous task of implementing various legislation. If this legislation were passed, do you, Mr. Christie, see the measure requiring social services departments to set up a register as insurmountable?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Is that your view, or that of the ADSS?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Do you believe that, if there were penalties there, you would have had a much bigger response than you got to the advertisements?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Does the ADSS have a view?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Has the ADSS had any discussion with the Department of Health since 1993 that you are aware of? Lord Laming was the chief inspector at that time. Has there been any further discussion about the possibility of a registration scheme, how it would work and who should do it?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I think that there is a general consensus that this is a problem that needs addressing. Where there may not be consensus is on what will make a practical difference. Referring back to our earlier evidence, a fundamental question is, why, in your experience, do people not notify about private fostering arrangements, despite the extra attempts that have been made to raise awareness? What can we do differently, in terms of registration, that would make people more likely to notify? There is a problem if we do not know where people are, and part of the argument is whether people are willing to register. What must happen to make people more willing to notify and then to comply with the registration scheme?

We have talked about enforcement and penalty. Presumably, one reason why people do not notify is that, in an unregulated system, they are rightly concerned about what will happen if they come to the authorities' attention. Is there a risk that if we regulated the system and enforced it in the way that you mentioned, it might make people less willing to come forward? How would we overcome that?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

A woman came to see me in my constituency surgery the other day. As a good member of the community, she had taken in her son's 15-year-old friend, whose parents had said, ``Out you go.'' If a registration scheme and enforcement such as you describe had already been introduced, do you think she should have registered in advance, and that she should have been punished for not registering in advance of taking that person in?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

May I make a point from the edge on the 80-20 principle of how to achieve something for least effort? My local police have been running a campaign for a long time and are pressing the Home Office on the issue of children sent to placements for a few weeks on school exchanges--we have a lot of that in east Kent. A voluntary scheme has been set up in east Kent to which I believe every school now subscribes. Of the first 12 providers on which police checks were made, six turned out to have convictions for serious criminal offences, or were found to be well known to social services as unsuitable for handling children. It seems that, at least in matters that are dealt with commercially, a sort of ``heads-up'' checking that picks up the worst cases fairly quickly is possible.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Is it not the case that the average disgruntled 15-year-old can sometimes place themselves with the most appalling people? They can also place themselves with unlikely people whom further assessment can reveal to be providing a decent and sensible placement after all, thus allaying all sorts of anxieties.

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

Can I come back to Mr. Christie? I may be misinterpreting, but the impression that I get from your answers is that you think that the difference between the current notification scheme and a registration scheme, in terms of people taking it up, is that it would have to have a sanction attached. Are you saying that to be successful, the registration scheme has to have a sanction?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Some work has been done. If you are saying that the LGA has not considered the matter, that may be indicative of the fact that your member authorities are not that concerned about it. I am rather surprised about that, because this has been a big issue for a long time, certainly in Parliament.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

We have to conclude the sitting by 1 o'clock and I am conscious that there are several areas that we have not covered. One of those is the appeals mechanism, which we have not touched on during this second part of the sitting. The witnesses presumably heard the earlier discussion about the current proposals, and of course, in a previous Parliament, we had some concerns about how they would work. I would be interested to hear the views of Meg Staples, from a practical point of view.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Do you think that it will be possible to satisfy individuals in circumstances in which, as we heard earlier on, it might not be possible to tell them why they are being turned down because of confidentiality?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Looking at what is proposed in the Bill, do you think that, in practical terms, people will be given more information than has been the case up till now?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I have one or two colleagues indicating that they want to ask questions. Could they please do so briefly?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Mr. Paton made an interesting and welcome announcement, if I heard him right, when he referred to a memorandum on this issue. The main memorandum that has been circulated does not refer to it. Could that be circulated for tomorrow's meeting, when, hopefully, he will again be on standby?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I was going to make a similar point. This is, again, a question for Mr. Paton. Is clause 12 the only appeals procedure clause in the Bill?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

What sort of things will be subject to appeal under clause 12?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Could the provisions be extended? For example, they do not currently cover support.

James Paton: They have the potential to be extended, but that is not the Government's intention at this point.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

We heard from Mr. Paton that the question of children giving consent to adoption was in the review of the 1996 Bill and that a lot of feeling was expressed against it. I would like to test Felicity's feelings on that.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I thank witnesses for their evidence. Under Standing Order No. 91, governing the practice of Special Standing Committees, I must bring this sitting to a close.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee.

Adjourned till Wednesday 21 November at Ten o'clock.