Adoption and Children Bill

Public Bill Committee, 21 November 2001.

Special Standing Committee

Memorandum from Norwood Jewish Adoption Society - PART 1 - Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 6

PART 2

PART 3 - Chapter 1

Memorandum from Jim Richards, the Catholic Children's Society (Westminster) - INTRODUCTION

1. THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN BILL IN GENERAL

2. THREE KEY ISSUES

3.1 POST ADOPTION SUPPORT

3.2 ACCESS TO INFORMATION

3.3 ELIGIBILITY TO ADOPT WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO MARRIAGE

Memorandum from the Catholic Children's Society, Nottingham

CLAUSES 3 AND 4: MAINTENANCE OF ADOPTION SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT FOR ADOPTION SUPPORT SERVICES

CLAUSE 5: LOCAL AUTHORITY PLANS FOR ADOPTION SERVICES

CLAUSE 10: MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCT OF AGENCIES - CLAUSE 14: DEFAULT POWER OF APPROPRIATE MINISTER

CLAUSE 11: FEES

CLAUSE 17: PLACEMENT FOR ADOPTION BY AGENCIES

CLAUSE 20: PLACEMENT ORDERS

CLAUSE 23: REVOKING PLACEMENT ORDERS

CLAUSE 24: PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

CLAUSE 49: ADOPTION BY ONE PERSON

CLAUSE 57: DISCLOSING INFORMATION TO ADOPTERS

CLAUSE 58: DISCLOSING INFORMATION TO ADOPTED ADULTS - CLAUSE 59: DISCLOSING PROTECTED INFORMATION IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES - CLAUSE 60: COUNSELLING - CLAUSE 61: OTHER PROVISIONS TO BE MADE BY REGULATIONS

CLAUSE 80: RESTRICTION ON BRINGING CHILDREN IN - CLAUSE 83: OVERSEAS ADOPTION

CLAUSE 104: AVOIDING DELAY

CLAUSE 110: SPECIAL GUARDIANSHIP ORDERS

CLAUSE 115: ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT REGISTER

SIBLING PLACEMENTS

THE CONTRIBUTION OF VOLUNTARY ADOPTION AGENCIES

Examination of Witnesses

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Good morning, colleagues. I welcome everyone to the sitting. I welcome, in particular, the witnesses and wish to thank them for their co-operation and willingness to come here today. I ask them to introduce themselves briefly to the Committee.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

The sitting is time limited, which causes us difficulties. I hope that my colleagues will be brief when asking questions and that witnesses will also be brief and to the point in their answers. I ask everyone to speak up as people are not easy to hear in this large room.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I wish to ask the representatives of the two branches of the Catholic Children's Society and Norwood Ravenswood about adoption support services. The provision of support services is an important part of the Bill, and one of its clauses deals with assessment. We have expressed our interest in whether the assessments are necessary. Surely support services are far more essential at an early stage. Will the witnesses give brief descriptions of the support services in which they are involved and explain their relationships with local authorities?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

What are your solutions? What would you do about trans-border services and inter-agency working?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Can you elaborate a little on working with local authorities? The Catholic Children's Society stresses the importance of voluntary agencies in the whole process. If anything, that needs to be talked up in the Bill. You have cited your adoption and quality option research. How will that develop under the new legislation? I am particularly keen to get to the bottom of the issue. There is a lot about assessment and the right to assessment. If adopters cry for help, they usually need help. There are few cases when it is not required. You now have a right to an assessment process. You will be told that you can have an assessment in a few weeks' time. The assessment will take place and at the end of it you might receive a recommendation, but there is no guarantee that the support services are coming through. Will not all the work of those in social services, in which there are many vacancies, be concentrated on carrying out the assessment rather than supplying the services that are so desperately need? Will that work?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am interested in what Mr. Richards said earlier. He said that even after needs assessments, some needs will not be met. Those are large questions in a fairly substantial subject. In a few words, could you elaborate on that, please?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

What will be the effect of the extension of local authorities' duties to carry out assessments? What difference will that make in practice? Is it simply a matter of resources?

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

You mentioned that, currently, the role of voluntary organisations is often to broker the resources that are available from local authorities, and that the situation becomes more difficult if a child is on the books of one local authority but placed with another. However, you must also be aware, in your line of work, that some local authorities have better practice than others. I am interested in the differences that we keep seeing in the figures between the practices of local authorities. What have you learned about the best performing local authorities, in terms of providing appropriate and swift support when it is needed?

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

Will the Bill's framework and the taskforce be helpful in achieving a more integrated approach across all authorities?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

According to the evidence that we have, an aspect of the Bill that has caused some anxiety relates to access to birth certificates. Mr. Richards, your evidence suggests that you have reservations about the changes that have been made. Why do you believe that those changes have been made? Presumably the Government have experienced some difficulties with the current system. Are you aware of those problems?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Presumably in expressing that anxiety you are speaking on behalf of other agencies to which you have spoken.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I have a great deal of sympathy with all the points that have been made. However, do you believe—I am playing devil's advocate—that a compromise might be reached whereby people have access to that information on condition that they do not make contact, as one agency suggested in evidence to us?

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

So you think that people would bypass and circumvent the system anyway?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That is a very interesting point. Can you envisage a situation in which it would be either inappropriate or dangerous for an adopted adult to be able directly to contact their birth parents?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

So what could we do to prevent that?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

But is it not the case that, at the moment, you would not have to use an agency, because you could access your birth certificate without going through an adoption agency?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

So, it would not be possible to institute the sort of system that you are talking about—and which you think might be the best way to deal with a very small number of cases where there might be a problem—if people could bypass the adoption agency and obtain their birth certificate in a different way?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Yes, but is it not the case that they would only get counselling if they came to an adoption agency?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

So, it would be possible for them not to come to an adoption agency, and to get that information in a different way?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Do you agree with that, Ms Gordon? We need your answer to be on the record.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I wish to follow up that point by playing devil's advocate slightly. You are asking, why should somebody who has been adopted not have the right to contact their parent, whatever the background of their case? However, because of the nature of adoption these days, you are likely to be dealing with a higher proportion of damaged individuals—and many of them might have been damaged by their parents. Therefore, to play devil's advocate, is there any merit at all in the proposal to give further protection to birth parents, as is envisaged in the Bill?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Do you think that the proportions are likely to rise because of the nature of adoption these days, compared with when the previous legislation was introduced 25 years ago?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I was going to make a similar point to that which was made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). It is always possible to hire a private eye to find out information, and that has been done. However, we must look at the statutory format, rather than at what people could get up to, and I would be interested to hear your views about situations in which people are asked to sign pieces of paper that say that they will not make contact—even, perhaps, in limited circumstances. Even though it is not binding, when push came to shove it would give the recipient of the piece of paper something with which to go to the court and obtain a non-contract injunction of some sort, which would make that process easier. What do you think about that?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

What if people do not want to be counselled? You are assuming that people will want to contact each other, which the statistics show is normally the case. However, what is the position when they do not want to do so?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Do you think that that should be your decision?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

But at the moment there is no statutory obligation for the adoption agency to contact both parties to see if they are happy with information being released. Do you think that there should be such an obligation?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Margaret Dight, would you like to say something?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

No, but at the same time if the amount of adoption increases, it is likely that the number of problem cases will significantly increase.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

The process of people being adopted and tracing their birth relatives is bound to be full of emotion, anxiety and difficulties. It is obvious from the evidence given yesterday that there is no evidence for including the proposal in this part of the Bill. From your extensive experience in this respect; are you aware of a single instance in which an adopted person has committed a criminal offence against a birth parent?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

You are therefore saying that structures are already in place to deal with those issues.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I want to pose the question again in respect of inter-country adoptions, where there are difficulties because of the distances involved. Mr. Hinchliffe, you and I took part in an inquiry three years ago on the largest living cohort of intercountry adoptees, the child migrants to Australia, who spent many years trying to trace their roots. Should we consider providing more assistance to those who are subject to inter-country adoption to trace their birth records?

Andrew Love (Labour/Co-operative, Edmonton)

I am a little confused. All of you seem to recognise that there are, or could be, occasions when it would not be appropriate to put the adopted person in contact with their birth family. Although that has been disputed, it was not disputed yesterday. There has been an increase in relationship difficulties in the past 25 years. What would your organisation, or other groups, suggest to deal with the small number of difficult cases? Does anyone have any views on that issue? I am still not clear about it.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Can you estimate the impact upon individuals who have been adopted but are prevented from having this basic information about their origins?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I agree, but would it not be easier to get the injunction on the basis of a piece of paper if someone has broken an agreement not to make contact?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Would not the court have to be party to the first agreement?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Let us move on to a slightly different issue.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The evidence from the Catholic Children's Society says that before a placement, adopters need to have information about the child that will be placed with them to help them to plan and decide. Likewise, the Adoption Forum says that one of the root causes of disruption in a placement is a lack of information about the child's history. Do you feel that adoptive families should have access to information about their child's history?

Margaret Dight: I do. I feel very strongly about this. Over the years, I have seen confused children, who have had very difficult life experiences, placed with adoptive parents who have little or no active knowledge about those children's backgrounds, life experiences and, most important, the impact of those experiences on the children. Providing information after the granting of an adoption order is absolutely and fundamentally unacceptable. Let me make an analogy. None of us would enter into a permanent relationship with a total stranger. We certainly would not marry someone to whom we had been introduced that morning. That would be very unusual—[Interruption.] I take that back; perhaps some of us would.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

There are some odd people in this place.[Laughter.]

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Are you arguing that the Bill should go further than it does?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

You put the point so well. We raised this yesterday and, in the interests of time, I will not pursue it further, except to say that we need to change this point. Having this opportunity makes the whole Special Standing Committee process worth while.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

The Minister asked the exact question that I was going to ask. I became involved with the Bill on Second Reading because of the experience of a couple in my constituency who came up against inaccurate and very thin information, which led to a dreadful experience. They felt themselves to be a failure for asking for the information. There are implications in terms of good and up-to-date record-keeping in this process.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Can we move on to inter-country adoptions?

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

May I ask Naomi Angell to tell us about her organisation and what it does?

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

You obviously will be aware of the interest provoked by one case in the media. Does your organisation support the provisions in the Bill that make it an offence to bring into the UK a child adopted abroad in the previous six months if the prescribed conditions have not been met?

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

You are saying that there is an additional clause.

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

It would be an additional improvement.

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

Does your organisation support the proposals to clarify the criteria by which countries will be included on a designated list of countries where adoption goes through proper processes?

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

On the relationship between voluntary agencies and local authorities when people's home studies are done and approved, and the subsequent monitoring when a child first comes into the country, what does your organisation feel about the current arrangements? Should they change?

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

Are there any other issues about inter-country adoption that you do not feel have been tackled by the proposals?

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

To bring that into line.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

We have two other areas to cover before we conclude, but there is another question from Mr. Bellingham.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

May I go back to the pre-adoption situation? You mentioned home studies. I have been briefed in detail by the director of social services in Norfolk, whose department experiences a great deal of pressure on resources, manning and so on. Taking over home studies in the country of adoption would be an additional strain. On the one hand, there is that situation; on the other hand, there are independent, experienced social workers, who have been doing private home studies. How do you harness that resource? Do you do it through a voluntary agency, through a consortium, or do the social workers work for local authorities? Are they licensed by local authorities? Would you comment on that?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Do you agree with the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering regarding placement orders? It has said that if the parents do not consent, the Bill should use the words

``adoption would be so significantly better for the child than any other option as to justify overriding the parents' wishes.''

Will the Bill make it too easy for placement orders to be made against parents' wishes?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

During any court appearance surrounding placement orders, should children of sufficient age and understanding have the ability to refuse consent to adoption?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I congratulate Norwood Ravenswood on gaining the contract to run the national register. It is good news that an experienced voluntary adoption agency has won that contract. Is the organisation satisfied that the Bill has a sufficient element of compulsion to ensure that it creates a true national register? Some local authorities—I do not want to pick out individual ones—have a poor adoption record.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Are you satisfied that authorities will give you all the names that they should, and that children will not be lost in the system? Parents who have passed may not be pushed forward. Often, agencies have a financial interest in keeping parents to themselves in order to take an expensive child off their hands.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Thank you. I move on to another subject that all three groups may want to comment on. Yesterday, we had a long session with the Local Government Association and Department of Health officials to discuss the regulation of small self-help groups, which several of us are concerned about. Do you have any views on that? Margaret Dight mentioned the idea of sending people for counselling to a self-help group run by doctors. The Bill will regulate all but a small group of people who are active in the adoption field. Can we exempt from legislation groups that are wholly or mainly run by doctors?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

That is clear. My final question is for Mr. Richards. You expressed some strong views in your memorandum on the possibility of extending adoption to unmarried couples. Do you want to say something about that?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I put it to you, Mr. Richards, that there could be a situation in which the child welfare principle, which Parliament has long accepted, is best served by the adoption of that child by an unmarried couple. Is that not a factor?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

You would accept that that could happen, which presumably contradicts your view.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

This is quite a contentious area and we have only a few minutes left. I appeal to my colleagues and the witnesses to be brief.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

To paraphrase what you said regarding placement orders, is putting marriage at a higher threshold than the child's interest the right thing to do? From what we heard yesterday, it is important to compare like with like. Your figures on the differing levels of break ups between cohabiting and married couples are one thing, but we should look at those who are being assessed for adoption, which is a different situation.

You could be assessing a married couple who might have split up or divorced half a dozen times, and a couple who have been cohabiting for 10, 11, 12 or 13 years. We have heard a lot about quality assessment this morning; the assessment must be based on stability of the relationship. Those, rather than a piece of paper, are the issues for a social worker. Do you not agree?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

We could debate this all day, as you will appreciate.

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

I shall be brief and give an example. A child is placed with foster parents who are not married. That placement becomes stable, and adoption is deemed to be in the long-term interest of the child. The adoption is by both parents in order to ensure a legal relationship to both parents. Under current practice, one parent would adopt the child and the other would seek parental responsibility. At the moment, people effectively go round the law to achieve the desired outcome for the child. Would it not be more honest to allow people a proper legal route?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

It is interesting to hear the differences.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

That is helpful. Hilton, do you wish to intervene?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

No, I am happy. I rest my case.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Are there are further points from my colleagues? If not, I thank the witnesses for a most helpful session. We are grateful to you all. Thank you very much.

The witnesses withdrew.

Memorandum from Professor John Triseliotis - INTRODUCTION

SECTION 26 OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1975

PROVISIONAL FINDINGS FROM OUR CURRENT STUDY

RELEVANT CURRENT RESEARCH EVIDENCE

DISCUSSION

Examination of Witnesses

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I welcome my colleagues to the second part of our sitting and I welcome two new witnesses. Would you please briefly introduce yourselves?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Some of us around this table were reading your books many years ago.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

My question is really directed to both Professor Jackson and Professor Triseliotis, but I shall start with Professor Triseliotis. On the question of access to birth records, do you think that birth parents should have the right to protect their identity from adopted children and others if they so wish?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Why do you think that the position has changed?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Professor Jackson, do you concur with your colleague's views?

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

The Chairman and I are well aware of ``Empty Cradles'', because we conducted an inquiry into the matter for the House of Commons. However, I wish to pursue the point and get an answer from both of you. Is a compromise possible between the Government's position and the view that you have expressed whereby the birth parents could agree that the adoptees would have access to birth records but would undertake not to make contact?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I agree with every word that has been said about the right of adopted people to access their birth records. I am slightly surprised by the view that birth parents should have a converse right to contact their children as adults, and I would appreciate an explanation of that. Is the correct balance not reflected in the current position, whereby adopted people can make contact and birth parents can make known their willingness to be contacted?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I accept everything that you say about the pain experienced by birth parents. However, if the proposal were accepted, would there be circumstances in which people who had abused their children and proved seriously detrimental to the children were allowed into such children's lives in future? Should we not try to resist that? If the children want to make contact, that is fine, but should we not protect them from people who have abused them?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Would not a more acceptable middle way be a much more active service available to birth parents to establish and signal the fact that they wish to contact adopted children in adulthood?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

In the case of birth parents, should they not at least have a right to have their wish to contact their adopted child signalled actively to that child, even though they do not necessarily have the right to identify and locate the child?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Are either of you aware of any academic or organisation involved in adoption—apart from the Department of Health—that thinks it is a good idea to change the current provisions enabling adopted children to have access to their birth certificates?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Regarding birth parents contacting adopted children, is it not important to distinguish between pre-1976 cases and post-1976 cases? For example, in pre-1976 cases, it is possible—indeed, it is frequently the case—that a lot of the children do not even know that they were adopted, so to have a birth parent contact them could lead to a significant change in their lives that would be less likely in a post-1976 case.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

But at the point at which those parents adopted, they had the right to make that choice. That was the basis on which they adopted.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

We will move on.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Just before we move on to placement orders, I want to be clear on the current point. Do you both propose that it should be possible for birth parents to signal to children who are under 18 that they wish to contact them?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I just wanted to be clear about that.

We heard testimony yesterday from British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. It said that only a high threshold should be allowed for cases in which children were placed for adoption against the wishes of their parents. Its suggested wording was:

``adoption would be so significantly better for the child than any other option as to justify overriding the parents' wishes.''

Do you feel that the Bill, which makes the child's interests paramount—I am trying to put it in a neutral way—is correctly drafted; or do you support BAAF's call for a much higher hurdle?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

In summary, would you say that adopting the BAAF proposal would seriously jeopardise the Government's objective of increasing the number of children being adopted?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

With regard to the issue of children living with foster carers, is not a part of the opt-out clause—as you describe it—due to the old legislation, which meant that young people left care at 16 or 17? We have changed that law: young people can stay in care until they 21—and up to the age of 24, if they are in education or training. If that legislation had been introduced, say, 10 years ago, would that have had an effect on the outcome of your study?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

We have heard some powerful evidence today. Could our witnesses give us their ideas about the future of the new concept of special guardianship? With the transfer of parental responsibilities, it will obviously be a new means of securing stability for children in long-term placements.

Professor Jackson: If it is going to work, it will need a great deal of support and explanation, because it seems to be quite close to the concept of custodianship, which you will remember came in under the Children Act 1975 and was never really implemented at all. I think it could suffer the same fate, for the reason that Professor Triseliotis has given—that it is not meaningful to lay people and to children. But I do see that it has a place.

I would like to make another point, which is about the relationship between fostering and adoption. Most older children, if you look at the statistics, are actually adopted by their foster parents; but we know that a lot of local authorities are not at all keen to encourage foster parents to adopt because it means they lose a resource. I do not know if there is some way that the Bill could take account of that and counteract it, because it seems to me that in those cases the local authorities are definitely not acting for the welfare of the children, since they know that adoptions by foster parents of older children are among the most successful—I think they ought to be given every encouragement.

Professor Triseliotis: I agree with a lot what Professor Jackson has said. I hope you do not regard me as cynical, but of course these provisions existed before: we used to call them guardianship in Scotland when you called it custodianship; when you called it custodianship here, we called it guardianship in Scotland—to make sure we were a bit different. It has not been taken up, as many of you know, and residence orders have not been taken up. The main reason is what we found from some of our studies—that there is always the possibility of reversing the arrangement. The new guardianship order has that possibility, too. I hope it works, because in the kind of example I gave before—and there are many like that—it may produce a little more security. If can produce a bit more security, it can go some way, but do not put too many hopes into that.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It would be useful to have some more statistics. How many foster parents later became adoptive parents of the children placed with them? The shortage of willing foster parents is obviously a key resource problem, and what Professor Jackson said about local authorities wanting to keep them is true. What is the proportion of mixed foster and adoptive parents—parents who have adopted children that they had previously fostered but who still act as foster parents for other children? Is that unusual? Should it be encouraged?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Are you saying that ideally there should be a system whereby there is a probationary fostering period that becomes an adoptive period? Is that an ideal that we should try to achieve? Is there empirical evidence to support the stability of such a rite of passage, compared with cases in which people have adopted someone whom they did not know so well before?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Presumably, you would share the view that recently, and in particular since the Children Act 1989, social workers have placed too much emphasis on supporting contact with the natural family and restoring the child to the natural family, rather than on moving away from the natural family and making a clean break?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

The vast majority of children who come into care are fostered, and the vast majority of children who come into care return home after a short period. Are there dangers in giving foster carers the idea that fostering can lead to adoption, when in fact what we might want those foster carers to do is work actively with the child, the family and the social worker to ensure a safe and secure return to the natural parents?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I entirely take the point about grandparents and, critically, sibling contact. However, unless I misunderstood you, the logical progression of face-to-face contact with birth parents would be to end up eventually with the Australian system, which was referred to earlier. They have virtually open adoption. The effect has been a complete collapse of adoption numbers, because adoptive parents, already taking on a difficult role by adopting abused and damaged children, also have to take on the idea of occasional face-to-face contact with the birth parents. The latest figures that I have for Australia indicate that the entire number of children adopted in the past year was less than 500.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

By all means, lead us in to it.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Professor Jackson, you mentioned support services.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Education is a good example. Many of the witnesses discussed a multi-agency approach to support services. What other support services would you advocate? We use the great phrase ``support services'' when we place obligations on local authorities to provide support services after doing an assessment. What does that mean in practical terms?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I am interested in the point that you have just made. Some years ago, Robert Walter and I were on a Health Committee inquiry into looked-after children. The most surprising conclusion that we reached related to the failings of the education system, rather than the care system.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Both.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Yes, both. However, I was surprised about the schooling issue. The schools were not interested, because the youngsters often had problems. The emphasis in the league tables is on achievement, and they were not going to be achievers in some areas, so you have made an important point.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is very interesting, Professor Jackson. My understanding of support services has been based much more on people from local authorities coming round and making sure that a family has enough to live on and that the food and housing are adequate, whereas you highlighted education and also the health service aspect.

Who should be carrying out the assessment orders? We heard that there will now be a duty on local authorities to provide assessments to establish the problem, if called upon to do so. It is our worry that that may take an indeterminate amount of time, and that all the resources go into assessment before we deliver the support services. You say that the assessment issue is more complex. Who should be carrying out that assessment, and what qualifications should they have?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

The final main topic that we want to talk about is the right of non-married couples to adopt. I do not know whether you were in the previous session but we had an interesting exchange towards the end. My personal concern is that there is a conflict between the welfare principle and denying unmarried couples the right to adopt. I look at it from the point of view of one of several elderly social workers around the table.

I recall a case in the 1970s when I was involved in the approval of two women as foster parents for a child. The perception of the women now would be different to what it was then. We had to go to the chair of the committee for approval because there was a suggestion that they might have been lesbians. It was controversial at the time, but they were approved because it was deemed to be in the best interest of the child, although that term was not used in law. It would concern me if the Bill precluded such an arrangement being made permanent. What are your views on that?

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

The angle that I want to explore, which you have already mentioned in some detail, is about unmarried foster parents and the importance of them being allowed to adopt, if it is right for the child. You spoke in detail about how that matters to the child and how being able to be adopted as opposed to any other order helps the permanency and stability of the relationship.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

You said that 13 per cent. of foster carers adopt children whom they are looking after. Is there anything within that research that can compare the success of unmarried foster carers with that of married foster carers?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Yes.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Are you aware of any research?

Memorandum from After Adoption - Introduction

Our Evidence in relation to the Bill - 1 Maintenance of an adoption service

2 Requirement of Local Authority to provide support services

3 Post Adoption Support-inter-relationships with multi-agency involvement

4 Services to Birth Parents/Relatives

5 Contact for adopted children with their Birth Families

6 Adoption by married couples or single people

7 Disclosure of information about a person's adoption

8 Status conferred by adoption

9 Framework for allowances

10 Special Guardianship

Conclusion

Young people's comments in relation to adoption support

About support - General

Proactive support

About Contact

About information

About After Adoption - VISION

MISSION

AIMS

VALUES

THE HISTORY AND WORK OF AFTER ADOPTION

Memorandum from the Who Cares? Trust - (1) INTRODUCTION TO THE WHO CARES? TRUST - Current work

(i) Re: Central and Local Government

(ii) Trusted links with children and young people via: - Who Cares? Magazine

Special publications for children

The Who Cares? Telephone Linkline Service

CareZone -interactive online services for children in public care

(2) KEY POINTS ON THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN BILL

Examination of Witnesses

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I welcome colleagues to this final part of the morning. I thank our witnesses for their co-operation with the inquiry. Could you each briefly introduce yourselves to the Committee?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

May we return to adoption support services? I think that you sat in on previous sittings, so you heard our discussions. We take it from your submissions that you are strongly in favour of post-adoption support services. Can you give us an idea of how you think the Bill should be strengthened to make such services a statutory duty or meaningful, and of how they relate to the assessment procedure?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is largely information dissemination before support services are involved. You are saying that if there is better information, access to helplines, support groups and so on, support services may not be required.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Do you agree with previous witnesses that one of the primary services that needs to be provided relates to education and is that of an educational psychologist? Do you think that the emphasis will be on that or on other aspects?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Who should be the responsible person when it comes to transborder adoptions?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is the responsibility of the host authority, rather than the placing authority.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Ms Charlton, do you wish to comment?

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

On communicating and sharing information between different local authorities, do you believe, Ms Charlton, that it is important that a lead authority takes responsibility so that a child does not easily fall between two stools?

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

So would you like a named lead authority and a named person within it specifically identified and clarified? Is that what you are saying?

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

I just wanted to tease that out. You are saying that the Bill should go further, but I wondered what model you thought would be successful in tackling the problem.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

So one of the authorities should be named as the lead authority and a person or persons within that authority should also be named.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

The support services that we are talking about, which are heavily dependent on a relationship building up, were mentioned previously by Sonia Jackson. She spoke about doing the work rather than assessing situations. Such services would be important to, and valued by, every child living away from home and every carer in every circumstance. Do you see these services being developed distinctly for adopted children or would they be appropriate more generally for children in residential care, whether fostered, adopted or whatever?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Under which money?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Is that funded by the Government by any chance, Minister?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Funnily enough, yes.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Is it the potential isolation of adoptive parents and the adopted children that you are countering?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Yesterday and, briefly, today, the matter of regulation of voluntary groups involved in adoption services was raised. When self-help groups of adopted people are running things in their own houses, do you think it is right to make them register?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

May we turn to the access to information issue? Presumably, all the witnesses heard the exchanges in the previous sittings. After Adoption's evidence stated:

``We would be extremely concerned if the intention of the Bill was to diminish existing rights of adopted people.''

Is that concern shared by the witnesses from the Who Cares? Trust. What are your views on why the change has taken place? We have been trying to establish the background to the matter and there are different views about the extent of the problems that have occurred. Are you aware of difficulties?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Ms Robson, do you concur?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Do you see any merit in the two-fold argument that the Department put to us yesterday? First, that with the changing nature of adoption more adopted children may have problems in relation to their birth parents, so are more likely to be a danger to their birth parents if they are given access to their birth certificates.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Presumably, you deal with birth parents, too.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

May I press you on the point about birth parents' access to information about adopted children when they reach adulthood? What are your views on Professor Triseliotis' proposal that birth parents should have the right to contact their natural children who have been adopted when they reach adulthood? Is that the best approach or should birth parents have the right at least to know that their desire to contact their children has been passed on through a third party?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Should the Bill contain a clause that would either grant birth parents the right to contact adopted children in adulthood, or create an opportunity for them to signal their desire for contact?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Could you make it clear what you believe?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

So that is not an absolute right?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Are you agreeing with my first or my second suggestion?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

So it is the second point.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Mrs. Crank, you run a service to enable birth families to contact their children who have been adopted. People have to use your organisation to do that. Is that right?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

That is a long way from the current position for adults who have been adopted. They can obtain their birth records and make inquiries to locate their parents.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Of course, I agree. However, you are not saying that birth parents can have access as a right to information about their adult children who have been adopted.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

May I ask the question about consent that I asked previously? If a child is of sufficient age and understanding, would you support their right when appearing in court to be able to veto a proposal that they be adopted?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Do you think that a child should be able to give active consent to their adoption?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

So you think the Bill needs strengthening.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

May I go back to the question about ascertaining the child's wishes and consent? The Committee is discussing best practice and how we want the system to develop, but we are also discussing the legal rights and conditions that will or will not be included in the legislation. There is probably not much disagreement around the table on the importance of taking the child's wishes into consideration. That is why it is at the top of the checklist in clause 1. We can talk about how to do that most effectively, but the question on which I suspect we shall have some discussion, and which was raised yesterday--I think that this is what my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was asking, but I am not sure about the answer--is whether you think that under the law a child of a certain age must consent to the adoption before it proceeds. BAAF said yesterday that that should not be the position because of the pressure that it may put on the child. Can you answer in relation not to what would be good practice, but to whether you think that should be in the law?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

My question is almost an exact echo of the Minister's. I return for a moment to the original wording used by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. He did not ask whether you think that the child should be consulted—we are all 100 per cent. agreed that much more consultation is required—but whether they should have an absolute veto. The Minister's question, which, legally, went even further, was whether the child should have to consent formally to the adoption. We are in danger of making bad law if we go as far as saying that. Would you reflect once more on what exactly you are saying that we as parliamentarians should legislate for? Are you really going as far as saying that there should be a legal requirement for the child to sign on the dotted line?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

As I understood it, Mrs. Crank said yes.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

How on earth do you define that in a way that will not be challenged out of court by lawyers?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The age of 10 is the age of criminal liability. Do you place any particular weight on that, for example as a starting point, or can you not go on numerical ages at all?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Trying to frame legislation in the light of what you are suggesting is a minefield.

I come back to the point that you made earlier about children being able to call for support services. We are tossing about that great term, but what does it actually mean? How can one filter out not a maliciously vexatious but a whimsical call by a child who falls below your benchmark for being responsible enough to know what a support service is? Can you define the sort of support services that you think that children should be able to call for?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

You still have not said what that support is. I have a five-year-old child who is perfectly confident of ringing up emergency services, usually when you do not want them, and she could be minded to ask for support because she has been told that she will not get the latest Barbie doll for Christmas. What do you mean by support services that a child as young as five could realistically call for, and be realistically given?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

On the issue of whether a child should give their consent, the idea that has entered my mind is some sort of tick box. Best practice says that life story work, a matching process and an introduction should happen. In the main, that does happen. Any panel worth its salt would want to know how the child has been prepared. The idea that we go down a road where a child has not signed off for the adoption process is for the birds. This is not a case for a tick box.

The theme throughout the evidence has been that good quality assessments are required for people to make good judgments. The relationship between the social worker, the child and the prospective adopter is the basis on which one makes a judgment on a child having made a decision; it is not a yes or a no. Would you agree with that?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

By the way, he used to be a social worker.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

We do not live in a black and white world. These are people, not equations.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Life story work and questions to the social worker panel would presumably answer that question.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

On the issue of children's rights, I tabled an amendment to the Family Law Act 1996 to allow children's wishes to be heard in the divorce process on which parent they saw their future lying with, and so on. However, giving a child what is almost an ultimate veto is fraught with problems. Some children develop emotionally quickly and others slowly; you cannot have a rule of thumb about the age of 10 or 12.

Some children might feel—wrongly, of course—rather guilty about being adopted. They might not want to say that they are leaving their birth parents, and for various reasons they might have attachments to them, even when they have been abused. That will play on their mind. Surely it is better to rely on the checklist to say that the children's wishes must carefully—not in a tick box way—be taken into account in any assessment. The idea of a veto for a child, who might often be immature and persuaded either way by various extraneous factors, might make bad law and bad practice.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

With respect, is that not what ascertaining the child's wishes is all about?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That is why that matter is related to clause 1.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

We must finish by 1 o'clock, but can we turn to unmarried couples and adoption? We had exchanges earlier on this.

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

I would like to get a view on this. We are especially interested in hearing children's voices on this point, if it has ever come up. From their perspective, do they have a view, for example, about being adopted only by one parent and not by two?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Do you think that there is more likelihood of breakdown if a couple is unmarried or married? Do you have any evidence on that?

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

There are two issues; adoption by unmarried couples and adoption by same-sex couples. In the instances that you referred to, are we talking about male or female same-sex relationships?

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

Can you envisage circumstances where you would entertain male same-sex relationships, or where such relationships would provide any benefit to children?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

We have heard a lot of national statistics, but surely you are exploring crucial issues of stability and people's commitments and attachments via their assessment as adoptive applicants. There are marriages that, sadly, break down, and there are cohabitations, whether heterosexual or homosexual, that last permanently. Surely you are trying to find the best adopters, rather than to engage in social engineering.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I thank all our witnesses for a very helpful sitting; I am most grateful to you.

The following witnesses were examined:

Special Standing Committee

Memorandum by the Adoption Forum

INDEPENDENT SAFEGUARDS

NATIONAL DATABASE

CHANGES IN THE BILL

a) Adoption/permanency support - i) Provision of support

ii) Registration of adoption support providers

b) Information - i) Pre-adoption information

ii) Adopted adults seeking information

c) Intercountry adoption

REMAINING QUESTIONS

Memorandum from Adoption UK - 1. INTRODUCTION

2. ADOPTION UK'S REACTION TO THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN BILL

3. TWO KEY ISSUES - 3.1 ACCESS TO INFORMATION

3.2 ADOPTION SUPPORT

4. OTHER ISSUES

5. CONCLUSION

Memorandum from NORCAP (National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents) - INTRODUCTION

Access to Information (clauses 53 to 62)

Appendix 1—The Memorandum submitted in May 2001 - EVIDENCE FROM NORCAPFOR THESELECT COMMITTEE ON THEADOPTION AND CHILDREN BILL - 1. Introduction

2 ADOPTION IS FOR LIFE

Provisions for services for adults that appear to be missing from the Bill - The right for birth relatives of adopted adults to access information

4 Other provisions on which NORCAP wishes to comment

Memorandum from the Fostering Network (formerly known as the National Foster Care Association)

General Comments on the Bill

Specific Issues - Adoption Support Services Clause 4

Applications for Adoption (Clause 41)

Information (Clauses 53-62 and 76)

Memorandum from the Family Rights Group - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ABOUT FRG:

FRG SUBMISSIONS ON THE REFORM OF ADOPTION LAW:

OUR SUBMISSION ON THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN BILL

Examination of Witnesses

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I welcome colleagues to this sitting and, in particular, I welcome our witnesses. I should point out that our proceedings could be interrupted by Divisions of the House. If the Division Bell rings, we will adjourn immediately for 15 minutes. If there is a second Division straight away, our adjournment will last a further 15 minutes. In that event, I ask the witnesses to remain and, hopefully, the Members will return at some point. We are time-limited, so I am hoping that my colleagues will be fairly sharp in their questioning; we would appreciate reasonably brief answers. May I also ask everyone to speak up, as it is not particularly easy to hear people in here?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We have had an almost universally favourable response to the extension of support services to people involved in adoption. There is the question of how much goes into assessment, as opposed to how much goes into providing the services for which people are assessed. What is your reaction to the necessity to impose a duty on local authorities in respect of support services, rather than assessment, and what should those services involve in practical terms?

Philly Morrall (Director, Adoption UK): Support services are absolutely essential to ensure that adoptions stick, given the range of children who are placed. The sort of support we are talking about is not just social work support, although that is essential. One thing that needs to be clarified most quickly is whose responsibility it is to provide support, particularly in the case of interagency placements when children are placed from one area to another. We have many examples of families who are struggling to find support—not that there is necessarily any dispute about the need for it, but there is always a problem about who will pay for it. Independent peer support is crucial to many adoptive families. We need a visible presence in every authority for people to go back to in order to obtain the support that they want.

The whole issue of support really starts from the moment that adoption is thought about. People should not have to wait until they are in crisis. If we could have a visible presence and a clear road to independent, peer group support, it would be much easier for people to access it. The most crucial thing is getting different agencies to work together. In particular, education, child mental health services, adoption services and social work organisations need to be helped and encouraged, and perhaps have a duty placed upon them to work together to provide those services. It really is incredibly difficult for families to access those services, and we get different agencies playing one off against another as to who should pay. That just does not work. It just does not help.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

On the point about assessment as opposed to support, a lot of emphasis is placed on the right to, or duty for, assessment. If that is taken too far, there is a danger of existing short-staffed social work departments and people involved in child care matters concentrating their time on assessments and not being available to organise the support that is deemed to be needed. Do you think the assessment needs to be simplified, and should there be a time limit on applying for an assessment, obtaining it and then getting the goods at the end of it, for example?

Philly Morrall: In our view, no child should be placed for adoption without a full assessment of their emotional, physical and educational needs. That should happen as a matter of course at the moment a child agrees that he or she should be placed for adoption.

I do not think I have any more to say about that. I just think it is essential that the assessment is made and that the child should not be placed without a full assessment. Whatever is deemed to be the need should be there.

Pam Hodgkins (NORCAP): If a family comes back asking for assistance, it is generally in crisis at the moment it asks for assistance, so any delay is likely to exacerbate the situation. If a great deal of time is spent on a very thorough assessment and if the family is getting no help alongside that assessment, the situation may deteriorate further to the point of disruption, which, clearly, is not in the interests of the child or the family. There needs to be an emphasis on a speedy and appropriate response and ensuring that some key services can be provided without delay if problems are to be diminished and the family healed and able to continue.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We also heard evidence this morning that children as young as five should be able to instigate adoption support services. Do you have any views on that?

Pam Hodgkins: If they have a question, they need an answer. Why not is probably the simple answer, but there must be a different level of approach. A five-year-old would not be expected to go to the phone book and find the social services number. However, if a child wants help with an issue relating to their adoption, they most definitely need to be given that help.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

What are we talking about in practical terms? I do not refute what you say, but, practically, what sort of support should be made available, even to children of that age?

Pam Hodgkins: Simply underpinning the services that are provided and enabling them to be made more extensively available would be a help. There is a national telephone service for children called TALKadoption. Clearly, if that number were far more widely publicised, so children who were adopted were as aware of it as children in general are of the ChildLine number and it had the same capacity to take calls, that would be a support for children affected by adoption.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Could I finally ask about support services provided by voluntary bodies, such as small, informal family-oriented groups? Are you concerned that the regulatory requirements that are placed on them might regulate them out of sight?

Pam Hodgkins: At the moment, we are being asked to take everything on trust, because we do not know what will be in the regulations. The principle of anyone working in such a sensitive field as adoption being subject to inspection and regulation is something that I and, I am sure, all my colleagues welcome, because we realise just how much damage can be done by inappropriate or dangerous people engaging in it.

Clearly, agencies that are faced with a burden of regulation will need financial support and assistance to enable them to cope with that and probably some resources to provide training and additional infrastructures that are needed to meet the requirements. However, as I say, we do not yet know what those requirements will be. In principle, they are welcome.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

One of the aspects of the Bill that struck me was that it allows for health assessments, among other kinds of assessments, but it contains no provision for giving any help that is identified as necessary. The unseemly haggling that goes on between departments has already been mentioned. What would you like to be put in place to ensure that once all the needs of an adopted child have been identified, the necessary help is provided?

Philly Morrall: Children need to be able to access appropriate therapeutic help if that is deemed to be needed. In many cases it is, because some of these children have tremendous histories of neglect and abuse. We hear an awful lot about health in terms of physical health, but there does not seem to be a huge recognition of the long-term emotional damage that can be caused to a child and the long-term impact of that on the new adoptive family.

The sorts of support services that families have found helpful have provided therapeutic help that understands the level of damage that the early abuse and neglect have caused. It is those sorts of things that we need quick access to. When people get referred to child and family guidance, there is very often a long waiting list and it is not terribly appropriate because that does not necessarily deal with the sorts of families that we are talking about. There are some small pockets of expertise around the country that perhaps we need to mirror in other places.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

Would it be fair to say that the sort of help that you are describing falls between two stools? The help is not immediately recognisable as ``health'', although many of us would probably agree that it is, and it is not immediately recognisable as ``social services''. It falls somewhere between the two.

Philly Morrall: Probably. I think it is mostly a question of mental health in the end, but there are not enough people around who seem to be able to help appropriately.

Pam Hodgkins: The mental health issue is one that clearly needs to be addressed. It goes right through life and it can affect all the parties to adoption. The mental health needs of parents who relinquished babies for adoption in the 1950s and 1960s, as well as the mental health of families losing children to adoption nowadays, is something that has not been addressed and is rarely seen as a key issue to be addressed. All the symptoms that are present are tackled in a piecemeal way, but the fundamental thing is the profound loss that has impacted on the adopted child and, in many cases, on the adopters. The adopters have experienced loss: the loss of an ideal, the loss of hopes and the loss of expectations. That theme runs through.

The Committee needs to be aware that the incidence of suicide and accidental death—accidental in the sense of ``When is an accident not an accident?''—among young men who have been adopted is frightening. There is only anecdotal evidence to date because collecting the statistics is extremely difficult. In practice, it is a worrying finding.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Adoption is obviously a challenging and anxiety-provoking aspect of life, but perhaps the worst thing is adoption breakdown. How can we minimise the distressingly high number of adoption breakdowns?

Pauline Dancyger (Deputy Director, The Adoption Forum): Could I respond to that and add something about post-placement support? I have two perspectives in my current post. I am working as a post-adoption adviser and I have many families coming back to me to request post-adoption support. I have come to understand that what is essential for families is that they have that information at the point of placement; it is not always directly a service for the child. That is where my other perspective comes in. I have begun to understand, as a result of working with the Adoption Forum, that it is as much about the families—the adults—in this situation knowing where to get access to support at the right time. You need to equip people at the beginning of the placement, rather than waiting for them to be at a point of crisis when it is often too late.

Philly Morrall: On adoption breakdown, almost every bit of evidence that I hear about a disruption meeting following an adoption breakdown points to the fact that the adoptive parents did not have enough information about that child prior to placement. I think that information prior to placement is really important. Having a package of information at time of the adoption order, or when the child is 18, is too late. You need the information before you make the decision. You need it at the point of matching. As a prospective adopter, you need to have full information about that child. You are making a life-long commitment to that child. You would not get married to somebody without knowing a lot about them; you would not make that decision after 24 hours or less. The form Es on children are just not broad enough. They were created for a different purpose, and they are not adequate. It is the lack of information that often leads to adoption disruption. I think that that is proof incontrovertible as to why we need the information prior to placement.

Sue Gourvish (Head of Services, Fostering Network): Long-term foster care provides a model for the kind of support packages that need to be put in place. Children in that position must have a package of care in place that goes on over a number of years. There are standards by which local authorities must abide in order to deliver services to children and their foster carers. That probably deserves further recognition because the best practice in long-term foster care certainly provides a model for what could happen in support services for adoption.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

To a degree, Sue Gourvish has just answered my question. I was going to ask whether there are good models of post-adoption support currently in practice, but certain local authorities in certain areas must be better than others. You must have drawn some conclusions about what works. Would like to share them with us?

Sue Gourvish: There are. I suppose that I started off speaking about foster care, which is our particular area of expertise. Certainly, there are models of good practice known to the Department of Health. There is a whole range of research studies and standards, and there will be an inspection against the standards from next April, as you know. That will also provide data about the level and nature of support that is being provided to foster carers and hopefully that will, in turn, become a usable, working model for adoption. Of course, among post-adoption services, there are good models of practice too, but the most important thing to remember is that support for foster carers has been funded—I am not sure that it has been properly funded, but it has been funded. The situation for post-adoption support is a different kettle of fish in terms of the resource available.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

In the field of adoption, as opposed to fostering, are there good working models that are practised well at the moment? Can you say that one area is definitely ahead of another in the way in which it structures support and works? Does anyone have a take on that?

Robert Tapsfield (Chief Executive, Family Rights Group): We have not talked about the support services for birth parents. There are certainly examples, although they are very few and far between, of effective, usually self-help groups for birth parents who have lost children to adoption.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

I was speaking about children and adopters. I am sure that we will discuss birth parents, but my question related to adopters and adopted children.

Pauline Dancyger: Yes, is the answer, but they are extremely variable and that is the difficulty that we struggle with. What is not recognised is that it is a lifelong commitment on the part of the family and, indeed, of the child. Although there are certainly good models where agencies will commit to funding a package of post-adoption support for a year or two, it needs to go beyond that and there needs to be recognition that a child is for life.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

But we can learn a great deal from those good models.

Pauline Dancyger: That is where we can begin to learn, yes. Fundamentally, there is some good practice around.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Can we turn to the issue of the child's access to their birth certificate and information about themselves? It is interesting to see some distinction between the witnesses who have been before us today. I would like to start with you, Miss Gourvish. Fostering Network's evidence says:

``The rights of the child and the adult should be finely balanced. In some circumstances it may be important for the identity of the birth parents to remain undisclosed.''

I think that NORCAP may take a different view, so I am interested as to how you came to your view.

Sue Gourvish: I am afraid that I am going to disappoint you. We are going to backtrack on that.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

This is the second time that that has happened today, which is interesting. Go ahead and backtrack.

Sue Gourvish: In fact, the backtrack is pretty final and in reverse. We would like to say that we believe that all adopted children have a right to see their original birth certificate. We feel that strongly, and I am sorry about the way that it came out in the evidence. We are also anxious about some of the arrangements that have recently been introduced into the Bill to limit the right of access to birth records. We wonder why it is not possible to put the onus on the person who is anxious to preserve their privacy. They have, after all, until the child is 18 to think about their position. It seems to us that the onus should be put upon them to approach the adoption agency and say, ``Various things have happened in my life. It would not be desirable for me to be known to this child who was adopted.''

It seems that there could not be a worse time for someone to decide whether they need privacy or not than after a child has been placed for adoption. All sorts of emotions must be there and to decide that is not a good idea. Things will happen, too, as part of developments during the years until the child is 18, that will enable the birth parents and birth relations of the child to decide whether it is a good idea for them to retain their privacy or not and come to some conclusions as to why.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Miss Hodgkins, I am interested to learn your views on what you have just heard and on why there has been a change in the Government's approach in this key area.

Pam Hodgkins: In relation to why there has been a change, I wish that you could tell me because I have absolutely no idea. I was one of the people who gave evidence to the Select Committee in April or May. There was also a comment in a judgment from a High Court judge, there has been a lot of publicity, and there is practice evidence and research evidence. All of that is pushing the direction of access to information in the opposite direction: it is pushing towards more openness and more opportunities. For a Bill to be produced this autumn that takes us back to where we were pre-1975, I am absolutely taken aback. I just wish I knew where it had come from because I cannot see where it has come from. If it is based on any representations, they must be ones that the Department has not disclosed, because it is not in anything that we have been able to read and it is definitely not in any statistical information that came out from previous deliberations. So I cannot help you with that.

In terms of what the Fostering Network has said, we would not want anyone vetoing release of information at the time of adoption. That is a very bad time for anyone to be making decisions about what will happen in the future. We do not consider it necessary for anyone to be able to deprive the adopted child of the identity of their birth mother, which will definitely be known, nor of their father, where that is known.

We do accept that there may well be circumstances and situations where the birth parent may not wish to be contacted, and we think that there are very useful models in a number of jurisdictions overseas where people are entitled to the information but it is conditional on their accepting that they must not use it to make contact. That we would consider to be an appropriate step forward, if that is what a number of people have made representations about. But there are two pieces of information that are so profound that no third party should be able to deprive a person of it. For the adopted person it is the identity of their birth parents, and for the birth parents it is the information of whether their son or daughter is alive or dead.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

We have a number of people wanting to come in.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I want to pursue the model that Miss Gourvish seemed to be suggesting was appropriate. Am I right that you were saying that you could see a position in which it would be right for an adoption agency, perhaps within some appeal framework, to decide that it would not be appropriate for the adopted person to be able to identify their birth parents, and that the adoption agency might have a role there?

Pam Hodgkins: No.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am sorry, I was not asking you.

Miss Gourvish: First of all, I should say that our view would be that adopted people have a right to all information about them. I was suggesting a compromise position, I suppose. In very rare cases—people paint them as being very rare cases—I cannot imagine the circumstances, I have to say, but maybe there are some, where the privacy of birth parents or a birth parent should be preserved.

If that is the case, I think the proposals currently in this Bill are the wrong way round, in that if there were to be a suggestion; if a birth parent says, ``I wish to retain my privacy: I do not wish this child to know who I am'', just after an adoption order, I think that is a bad thing: they have until the child is 18 to decide that that is the case. I think that birth parents should know when their children are adopted that there is a presumption that all children have a right to access their birth records. If something happens in the birth parent's life which means that that becomes a problem for them, then before that child is 18—perhaps one should say within a year of their being 18; I have to say that I have not thought this through fully—they should approach the adoption agency and say, ``I believe that things have happened to me which mean that my privacy should be protected and that this child should not get access to their birth records''. Then the process that is outlined in the Bill and the way that the adoption agency then goes about it and the possibility of independent review will be the same.

I have to say, though, that that is a compromise position as far as we are concerned.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am interested in the model of giving the information on conviction that the birth parent is not contacted. I am not sure how it works. Is there any research to show the number of times that contact breaks down where it is made? What sanctions, if any, exist if that agreement is broken?

Pam Hodgkins: I do not know what the precise sanctions are, but my professional experience is of its operating in British Columbia. It has been operational there for about three years. There have been no complaints of a request for no contact being broken. We do know that in New Zealand there were vetoes on actual gaining of information for a number of years, but in fact on many occasions those vetoes were broken and again, no complaints were received. I understand that the sanctions available are similar to those for contempt of court. The weight of the undertaking given by the person receiving the information in those circumstances is that onerous. But I do not know exactly what they would be.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

It is probably too early to look at any research—

Pam Hodgkins: I imagine that there will very soon be emerging research but I do not think we have it yet.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I would like to ask both Fostering Network and NORCAP whether, had the Government not made these proposals on access to information, they would have made these suggestions.

Pam Hodgkins: No. Our suggestions are very different and I think we have included them in our evidence.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Are you trying to ameliorate a piece of proposed legislation?

Pam Hodgkins: I am absolutely horrified by it, as are people within the organisation. We just cannot see—we have had 25 years of something working extremely well and we thought we were moving forward from that point. It never in our darkest nightmare occurred to us that we would move back.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

So there is no evidence and no reason whatever to change the situation that has prevailed since 1975?

Pam Hodgkins: No.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I, too, was slightly disturbed when I read the Fostering Network's submission and I am delighted that its representatives have backtracked on it. I am still concerned about the line that they appear to be taking to meet what is in the Bill. I have two questions: the first concerns the sheer practicality of the procedure whereby the parent of a child approaching 18 is still in the loop with the agency. Bearing it in mind that typically 14 or 15 years will have elapsed since the adoption, that person will be able to answer the question or to make the election. Secondly, if that person elects to have no contact with the child, the child will nevertheless have access to the records. Perhaps not at the age of 18 but certainly by the age of 25 or 26, such children will have the resources to seek out their natural parents. There is no way to prevent them from doing that. Would it not be better to be open, up-front and transparent from the beginning, and to enshrine that in law?

Sue Gourvish: I think that is such a draconian proposal. The new proposals in the Bill about contact have been introduced so rapidly, and we feel such a sense of surprise that this has happened, that is actually quite hard to marshal oneself in relation to the proposals. It is very draconian that, directly after the granting of an adoption order, somebody should be able to require privacy for themselves in a way that stands all the way through until the time at which the child asks for that information, and there is perhaps no way of confirming it. And then the other proposals about independent reviews come in, where you are not entirely sure what will happen.

My proposal was a way of ameliorating what seemed to us to be the draconian proposals currently in the Bill. I underline again that we do not believe that the situation as enshrined in the 1975 legislation should be changed at all.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

So you would not want change? You propose a compromise?

Sue Gourvish: Yes, I emphasise that.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I am sorry to ask a question so soon after coming in, but we are in the right area, and I did give you prior notice, Mr. Hinchliffe, of the reason for my absence.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

He has been with the Prime Minister.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

What is the view of the witnesses on the proposal made this morning by one of our expert witnesses that birth parents should have the right to contact their adopted children in adulthood? What is their view of the alternative proposal that birth parents should have the right for their desire to contact their adopted children in adulthood directly to be signalled through an intermediary to that adopted adult?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Can I bring in Mr. Tapsfield on that, because he has not yet commented on that.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Is that the view of the other witnesses?

Philly Morrall: We agree with that. I would also like to make the point that issue about the lack of information to get your original birth certificate would be a major problem for adopters as well. It is all tied up in the same thing. If you were trying to bring up your son or daughter, knowing all the time that their birth parent was not prepared to be identified, you would have a hell of a lot more of a difficult job helping them grow and develop with an understanding of who they really were if you knew there was never going to be a chance to get to their original birth certificate. It is a very, very retrograde step.

Pam Hodgkins: Going back to the question arising from evidence heard this morning, NORCAP would actually support the opportunity for birth relatives to be entitled to receive information, because we believe that birth parents would handle that information as responsibly as adopted adults have over the past 25 years. There is substantial evidence that shows that is the case, because a lot of birth parents actually do have identifying information and they do handle it extremely responsibly.

We are aware that there may be concerns, particularly about the history of some recently adopted children—why for some people that may seem like a step too far. We do think that, at the very least, the right to an intermediary service is of paramount importance in this piece of legislation. If it is not included in this piece of legislation, then you can be reasonably confident that you will not face that problem again, because the bulk of birth parents who relinquished babies for adoption in the 1950s and 1960s will be dead before you come to look at this legislation again. They will not be around to bother you, but they are people who have waited. They have waited 30 or more years in many cases, and they need provisions now. We really did anticipate that there would be statutory provision in this piece of legislation, and the fact that there is not causes us and them enormous distress.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

You say, very importantly, that we are talking about a time in history, essentially from 1926 to 1976. When the adoptions were made, the deal clearly was that people would not have information. Between 1926 and 1976, there was no question that people would be given information.

Pam Hodgkins: Actually, can I point out that that in fact is a myth, because up until 1950 everyone whose child was adopted knew who adopted that child? There were no serial numbers on either side.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Yes, but the presumption was anonymity.

Pam Hodgkins: No. There was a presumption that there would not be contact or communication. That is what I am saying. The history has shown us that that was respected.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The system changed from 1976, quite rightly. In effect, you are saying that people who entered into adoption at a certain time—they did so under a certain set of rules, including the rights of adopted parents—and who would have adopted on a certain basis should be overlooked.

Pam Hodgkins: Not overlooked—taken into proper account, but just as in 1975 when the right was given to adopted people, because it was seen as the appropriate thing to do because of the society—

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

It is the right of social workers.

Pam Hodgkins: It was not social workers. It was birth parents who had to accommodate the fact that what they had perhaps presumed to be the situation was being changed. They accommodated that—they, in fact, in large numbers welcomed it. Now we are saying that adopted people and their families should make a similar accommodation. There could be all sorts of safeguards built into a provision about providing information. You could put age limits on it, you could put time scales on it, and you could make it subject to the other person having not requested that the information is not released. Any of those would be a step forward, but whilst you leave it on the basis that only if the person comes forward and asks for it will it be released, we are not getting anywhere.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

With respect, you have made a series of important qualifications that were not mentioned beforehand, and I am pleased that you have.

Pam Hodgkins: They are in our evidence.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I want to go back to the point that you made earlier about the adopted children receiving information. You talked about a compromise. Would the system not cater for everyone's feelings as it would allow parents the right to hold their anonymity, for whatever reason? Should we not respect that right? Are you saying that, ideally, that right should not exist?

Pam Hodgkins: No, I would not support that level of compromise. The compromise NORCAP proposed was not a release—

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Before we start again, I draw attention to the fact that there will be several more Divisions in the House. I suggest that we adjourn for each Division, but that hon. Members return as soon as possible so that we can resume when we are quorate. I hope that that is acceptable.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I should like to take Miss Hodgkins back to what she said about the draconian nature of the law pre and post-1976. A consensus is building—we have not heard many dissenting voices—on the question of a child's right to know its parents' identity. I want to play devil's advocate for a second. The British Columbia model was mentioned. In essence, what is the difference between the draconian measure, with the message, ``You cannot'', and the British Columbia model, with the message, ``You can, but you cannot contact''?

Pam Hodgkins: There is a tremendous difference, to do with simply knowing who you are. You have a name, and with that name comes a degree of history. You can appreciate that in British Columbia you could perhaps identify from your name the area where your forebears originated. The same is true in the UK. Just not to have a name means you are faceless.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I take your point; it has been a long day.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

It seems to me that allowing the birth parent to be told if the adopted person has died is just fundamental humanity. I do not know whether you want to expand on that.

Pam Hodgkins: Simply, it seems inhumane that someone cannot know. Most of us, hearing of a tragedy such as Hillsborough, know within hours either that the worst has happened or that we can be relieved that no one close to us is involved. A birth parent whose son or daughter is of an age to be a football fan, perhaps, would not know—they might be one of those 89 names. Then another tragedy happens, such as at King's Cross. Birth parents go through the same thing every time. It is no wonder that such people have mental health problems. Their life is never normal again because there is no closure.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I want to ask Mr. Tapsfield about his point of view. We have heard concerns that what is proposed is a radical change from that in force since the 1970s. From your perspective, have the arrangements since the 1970s worked, or would you want changes?

Robert Tapsfield: No; I think that we are clear that they have worked. To add to what Pam has said, we believe that there should be an obligation on adopters to inform the agency if the child dies. The message that we hear from birth parents is that they go on thinking about the child even though they are not looking after them, whether or not they are getting information about them from a letterbox scheme. They go on thinking about them at birthdays and Christmas. It seems to us a basic human right that they should be informed if their child dies and that we should make that an obligation on adopters. It might be difficult to enforce that, but it would be important as a message that if you adopt someone else's child you should, if the child dies, at least inform the birth parents, who will otherwise go on assuming that the child is living and will have no information.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.