Adoption and Children Bill

Public Bill Committee, 6 December 2001.

Special Standing Committee

Adoption and Children Bill

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

At its sitting on Tuesday afternoon, the Committee had completed consideration of clause 105. Under the programme resolution, the next item to be considered is clause 63, to which no amendments have been tabled.

Clause 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64 - Status conferred by adoption

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 97, in page 36, line 24, leave out

'as if the person had been born'.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 126, in page 36, line 24, leave out 'had been born as' and insert 'was'.

No. 127, in page 36, line 28, leave out 'had been born as' and insert 'was'.

No. 128, in page 36, line 31, leave out 'had been' and insert 'was'.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Amendment No. 97 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton); the other amendments are in my name. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider the wording of subsection (1)(a). It uses the phrase

''as if the person''—

that is the adopted child—

''had been born as a child of the marriage''.

The phrase is used again in paragraph (b). I find that slightly insulting. I would be grateful if the Government were to reflect on that terminology, because it will be particularly upsetting to birth mothers. We have spent much time debating the question of birth mothers, and the answer seems very simple: only the birth mother can give birth to the adoptee. Children cannot be ''as if born to''; they are ''born of'' someone. It is not good drafting, and I see no advantage in it. I accept that there may be complicated legal reasons for using that turn of phrase, but I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary gave us an explanation.

Under clause 68, we shall debate the question of adopted children inheriting titles; that provision would make the phrase in clause 64(1) incongruous. Furthermore, we should consider single people who adopt. We had an interesting debate about that subject only last week. The phrase

''as if the person had been born as a child of the marriage''

will attract substantial ridicule if it means single people having to pretend that they are married to a non-existent person in order to be seen as the parent of an adoptee. I feel strongly about this. We have debated adoption by single people and by single people with partners, yet the Bill talks specifically of marriage and uses the phrase ''as if born to''.

My submission is simple: we need to remove the phrase. The Bill should be amended in the manner suggested. I would be grateful to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's comments. I hope that she will agree that we could word the clause a great deal more appropriately. We could prevent it from attracting ridicule and insulting birth mothers and single people.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) makes a sensible point. I can only assume that the wording in the clause is the manifestation of a technical problem. The words

''as if the person had been born as a child of the marriage''

invite fiction, but everything that we have done so far has been about encouraging clarity, good information and honesty in relationships. Adoption is not about pretending that someone was born as a child of the marriage, but about people taking parental responsibility for a child and looking after him to the best of their ability—as though he were one of their children.

I cannot imagine that the amendment will cause huge dissent. I can only think that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that a difficult technical problem prevents us from sensibly rearranging the wording of the clause. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that we can change the wording.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I apologise for being slightly late, and I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hood.

I want briefly to reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk. It would be common sense and a courtesy to those involved in adoption for us not to continue with the fiction of changing the birth details of those who are adopted by new adoptive parents. The Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt tell us that the wording must take its present form to reflect the drafting of earlier legislation or other aspects of the law. If so, it is time that we changed the law in general. It is no excuse to say that we must perpetuate provisions such as that in paragraph (a), which is patently an anachronism. I hope that we shall continue the successful trend of getting the Government to see sense and respond favourably to Opposition amendments.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hood.

We do not want to spend a lot of time on a small drafting point. None the less, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk made an eloquent case for improving it. I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).

I want to add one small parallel. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) expressed concern about other pieces of legislation being used to justify the wording of the clause, and I suspect that the Parliamentary Secretary will touch on that. A similar justification was employed for about a generation for the use of the word ''defective'' to describe people with learning difficulties. That phrase was grossly offensive. The wording in the clause is not as offensive, but it is unnecessary, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk said. It is a little piece of fiction that we could do without. I look forward to the Parliamentary Secretary replying constructively.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hood. It is a delight to see you.

In a spirit of co-operation, I should say that the Government have some sympathy with the spirit of the amendments. There is obviously concern on both sides of the Committee.

The clause will determine the status of an adopted child, so that it is clear how he will be treated in law. That is consistent with the general principle of chapter 4, which is that a child ceases in law to be a member of his birth family and becomes a member of his adoptive family on the making of an adoption order. When a married couple adopts a child, he is to be treated in legal terms as though he had been born as a child of the marriage of that couple. When a child is adopted by a step-parent, he is to be treated in law as though he had been born as a child of the marriage of the step-parent and the parent to whom that person is married.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked about single people. When a child is adopted by a single person, he is to be treated in law as though he had been born to that person in marriage, but not as the child of any actual marriage of the adopter. The provisions of chapter 4 provide for how an adopted child is to be treated in law for purposes of inheritance, pensions and insurance. They do not touch on the biological or emotional ties of an adopted child—nor are they intended to do so.

Adopted children have always been regarded as legitimate. The declaration in section 39 of the Adoption Act 1976 that an adopted child is not illegitimate will not be re-enacted by the clause. The relevant provision of the clause is drafted to ensure that an adopted child is not treated in law as illegitimate. It is therefore implicit from the other provisions of the clause that that is the case.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I raised an issue with the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), and I am still waiting for a reply, so I shall ask the Parliamentary Secretary about it.

Imagine that adopter A adopts child B and lives with co-habitee C. Adopter A leaves a will in favour of her partner, C, and dies. If C died intestate soon after, would I be right in thinking that the child would not have any inheritance? I am not trying to trip up the Parliamentary Secretary, as that would not be right, and I do not expect a reply now. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question, to which I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister will reply.

I understand the concern about the wording of the provisions and the idea that the Bill creates the fiction that the child was born to the adopters, almost airbrushing the birth parents out of the adopted child's life. Some people have understood the provision to imply almost that a child's emotional ties with his or her birth parents can be severed, along with legal ones. I assure all members of the Committee that the Government have no wish to cause distress either to birth parents or adopted children. The clause is essential to protect the rights of adopted children.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk has clearly put considerable effort into drafting his amendments to try to ensure that the relevant legal status remains, but they are defective. Although they would provide for a child to be regarded as a child of the marriage—as legitimate—the omission of the word ''born'' would mean that the child could not be regarded as the natural child of one or both parents. Being a natural child matters in legal terms, in respect of inheritance, parental rights and responsibilities. For example, being regarded as the natural child is the key to an adoptive child's right to inherit under intestacy law. That might be relevant to the point that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made.

The Government undertook during evidence-taking sittings to re-examine the wording of the clause, to see whether we could improve on it. I assure hon. Members that we have tried to find an alternative but have so far been unsuccessful. The technical deficiencies in the amendments mean that we cannot accept them. We are quite prepared to continue to search for a more acceptable wording, but I am not very optimistic about the prospects of finding such wording. We must ensure that the adopted child is legally protected. I stress that our stance is not an attempt to offend birth parents. However, despite trying hard, we have not been able to arrive at a better wording.

I hope that, in view of our intention to continue to consider the matter, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for her reply. I understand her logic exactly. However, I have some suggestions. The first relates to property rights. Inheritance rights might be an issue—property might be entailed—or other rights under intestacy law might be involved, but surely it would be simple to draft another subsection to prevent the rights of adopted children in those matters being compromised or jeopardised. Such a provision in the Bill would surely override other law, or operate alongside it. If the Parliamentary Secretary's legal advisers tell her that it would not be acceptable to the courts to put those rights of adoptive children in the Bill, perhaps other legislation should be changed. If the background inheritance and intestacy law is relevant, surely we can change it in statute.

I take on board the Parliamentary Secretary's point about single people who adopt and the way in which the rights of children of those adopters need to be protected. Putting that to one side, we could still leave out the phrase

''if the person had been born''

so that the clause would read:

''An adopted person is to be treated in law . . . where the adopters are a married couple, as a child of the marriage''.

We could then insert a subsection to protect children's rights with respect to inheritance and intestacy. Will the Parliamentary Secretary comment on that specific recommendation? Could we return to the matter on Report, after she has discussed it with the Lord Chancellor and other legal brains?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

It would be unwise for me to engage in a discussion of what might or might not work. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, it is important first to consult our legal advisers and talk to parliamentary counsel about what is possible. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to search for wording that meets the objectives that we have discussed. It is not that efforts have not been made, but because of certain constraints and the need to protect adopted children in law, we have so far been unable to find anything satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman's comments are on the record and can be examined. I am prepared to write to him about his specific suggestion about inserting another subsection. I hope that, with that assurance, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I seek one more assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary: we will be able to return to the matter on Report. Sometimes it is difficult to fit everything in on Report, but I understand that if Ministers are keen for a subject to be revisited then, there is a much greater chance of it being debated.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that what is discussed on Report is a decision for Mr. Speaker and not for the Parliamentary Secretary.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I certainly take that on board.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Do you wish to withdraw the amendment?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I would like to have a further comfort from the Parliamentary Secretary, in my determination to continue to address the issue.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I shall have to take your advice, Mr. Hood. As you said, it depends on the Speaker's ruling. I have said that we will examine the matter and try to find something better. I cannot guarantee that we will find anything better, but I will take on board the hon. Gentleman's suggestions and write to him about the particular suggestion that he has made. It would be foolish to make any commitments about proceedings on Report without first knowing that there was something better.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Minister has been fair and understanding. In light of her remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66 - Rules of interpretation for instruments concerning property

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The clause is fairly complicated, and much of it will be covered in appendices, but what is the situation as regards entailed property? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary's colleagues in the Box can shed some light on that, although she may know the answer herself.

Subsection (2) refers to dates of adoption. What is the crucial factor in deciding the inheritance of property that is left to the eldest of two adopted children of a marriage—their dates of birth or the dates on which they were adopted? That would affect not only large inheritances, but the inheritance of, for example, a small, modest house in one of our constituencies. I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could consider those two points.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I should set out a little of the background to the clause. As the hon. Gentleman said, it sets out the rules of interpretation for any instrument concerning the disposition of property. It puts in place a clear system that endeavours to put the adopted child and any natural children in the adoptive family on as equal a footing as possible in respect of inheritance issues.

The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen if two or more children had been adopted. Where a disposition depends on the date of birth of a child of an adoptive parent, an adopted person is to be treated as having been born on the date on which the adoption order was made. Where two or more children are adopted on the same date, they will be treated as if they were both born on that date, but in the order of their births. That general principle does not prejudice an interest vested in possession in the adopted child before the adoption or any interest that is expectant on such an interest.

The clause assists in the disposition of property where no express position has been made in any legal instrument or will. It is, however, open to any person who leaves property to make their own provision as to how an adopted child should be dealt with. For example, if the adoptive parents die intestate, the adopted child will be able to benefit in the same way as any natural children.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk spoke of there being two or more children. Where there is a question about who is the eldest, the adopted child will be treated under the clause as having been born on the date of the adoption. A family might have two natural children aged five and three and an adopted child aged seven. For the purpose of any will that specifies that property should go to the eldest child, the five-year-old natural child would inherit the property.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Does the Parliamentary Secretary not feel that that is slightly unfair? We have been talking about inclusion and how such children, when they understand that they are adopted, should nevertheless feel part of the adopted family. We have said all along that they should have exactly the same rights as natural children, yet they do not on this important point.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The hon. Gentleman might quarrel with the clause, but it replaces section 42 of the 1976 Act and follows the system that has been in place since 1976. We should accept that that system has been seen to operate fairly. We have to think about the balance of rights for natural and adopted children. Experience has shown that the previous Act has worked well, so the decision has been made to repeat the provision. I hope that that reassures him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 68 - Property devolving with peerages etc.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 129, in page 38, line 29, leave out 'not'.

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 130, in page 38, line 31, leave out 'not'.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The amendments, put simply, will give adopted children the right to inherit titles and other inherited honours. We have spoken at length about the paramount importance of inclusivity and the integration of adopted children into new families and homes. Adopted children rightly enjoy almost all the same rights as natural children, although we have been considering some important rights under inheritance and intestacy that they do not enjoy.

We have spoken too about how vital it is for adopted children to have certain rights under inheritance and intestacy law, and a moment ago, the Parliamentary Secretary said that they should have those rights. They have the names of adopted families and many such rights. In terms of esteem and the attitude of families towards the children who are adopted into them, it is essential that they be considered part of such families. That is fundamental.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Do I detect some republican sympathies in the hon. Gentleman's comments? I am sympathetic to the point that he makes about the rights of the adopted child, but would not the clause as amended be a fundamental breach of the hereditary principle—and what would be its effect on the succession to the monarchy?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I shall address that point shortly. The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. I am no republican—[Interruption.] However, I feel strongly that adopted children should have the same rights as natural children.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

The hon. Gentleman places the child's welfare and needs at a high level. Does he really believe that becoming the seventh earl of Kinglassie, or wherever, would be as important to a child as having loving parents?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the most important thing is the love that a family can give the child. In a moment, I shall give an example that illustrates clearly that although the parents may love the adopted child, the child's life may be made more difficult as a result of the state of affairs that we are debating.

One surprising restriction remains: adopted children cannot inherit titles of honour. For instance, they cannot inherit property—it may not be a large farm but a small house—that is entailed to a title. Furthermore, although it may not interest Labour Members, adopted children cannot use courtesy titles. Labour Members may be 100 per cent. against hereditary peers sitting in the House of Lords, and they may even want to introduce legislation to stop people using titles, although I do not know how one could do that in a democracy.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I am fairly ignorant about that aspect of society, but I am curious. Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the Committee about what he means by courtesy titles?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Yes, indeed; let me explain. If the hon. Gentleman loses his seat at the next election, and the Prime Minister gives him a life peerage as a consolation prize, his children could, if they wanted, call themselves ''the honourable'' followed by their name. If they were adopted children, however, they would not be able to do that. I have always taken the view that, for life peerages, courtesy titles are pretty irrelevant, but the Prime Minister still has the power to create hereditary peerages. In fact, several have been created over the past 20 years or so, including Lord Whitelaw, Viscount Tonypandy and the Earl of Stockton. Obviously, the eldest son of an earl is titled Lord—[Interruption.]

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. I ask hon. Members on the Government Front Bench to stop conversing with each other while others are engaged in debate.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I hope that we in this country will be using titles for many generations to come, but our priority should be to treat adopted children of such families as fairly and compassionately as possible. Let us imagine what an enormous outcry there would be if adopted children were excluded from other social or even religious groups.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Is my hon. Friend aware that one witness who gave evidence on the video provided by the Children's Society to the Committee, which I watched with interest last week, was the adoptive daughter of the Duke of Richmond, from Goodwood in Sussex? She is a fascinating woman from Lesotho in southern Africa. She was brought up in the aristocracy, as she freely called it, in this country, and enjoyed herself immensely, but of course will not be able to inherit any part of the Goodwood estate or any title, even though she has been brought up as the child of the Duke of Richmond.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

My hon. Friend is right. The Duke of Richmond and Gordon adopted two daughters, both of African descent. One, Maria, was born in 1959 and is married to Christopher Handy. I think that it was Naomi, who was born in 1962, to whom my hon. Friend referred. She is known as Nimmy March; she is an actress. If they were not adopted, they would be able to call themselves Lady Maria March and Lady Naomi March. They are not allowed to do so because they are adopted. I should have thought that enough stigma is attached to trans-racial adoptions, but adding to it is completely unacceptable.

The question has been asked how many families are affected by the clause. I have been doing some research and have discovered that 23 peers and 16 baronets have adopted children, so a substantial number of families are affected. Some of the families will be without property, but many will have property, and many of those properties will be entailed with the title, so the potential property rights of a substantial number of adopted children will be removed.

I shall give an example, which is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) about the importance of the love and affection that a family gives to an adopted child. That is paramount. The fourth Marquess of Aberdeen and his wife adopted a child, who was born in 1950. He is called Andrew David Gordon. Five years later, the Marquess of Aberdeen had a natural son, who is called Alexander George; he also has two adopted daughters. The natural son has the courtesy title of the Earl of Haddo.

Labour Members may not like titles or courtesy titles, but I should have thought that the situation would be pretty demeaning and unpleasant for that eldest son, who, to all intents and purposes, is the eldest of four children. He was born to one family and adopted by another. He was given a loving home by a couple who assumed that they would be childless but then had three more children. I am sure that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford would agree that, whatever the love and affection given by the parents to the eldest child in that situation, it must be difficult for him. We are considering measures to give adopted children every other right, but we are not prepared to give them this one, for archaic and unacceptable reasons.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I am interested by the hon. Gentleman referring to the reasons for the clause as archaic. Will he respond to my points about archaic principles, hereditary principles and the monarchy?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Yes, I shall refer to that now. Adopted children should have the same rights as natural children. We hope that Prince William will eventually succeed to the throne, marry and have children, but let us assume that he has only one child—a son—whom he adopts. It would be outrageous if that son could not, in due course, call himself the Prince of Wales and be the heir to the monarchy. To follow the logic of my argument, my answer to the hon. Gentleman is yes.

I understand why Labour Members feel that peerages and inherited titles are socially divisive and a relic of the past, irrelevant in this modern society. I do not take that view, but I imagine that many Labour Members do. None the less, I hope that they feel that it would be unwarranted to exclude adopted children.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Has my hon. Friend considered giving advice to the Emperor of Japan?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. That is not related to the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

This is a very interesting debate, and I shall make a point of sending a copy of Hansard to the Japanese ambassador.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am sure that the ambassador to Japan will read it with great interest. However, let me bring the debate slightly closer to home. My hon. Friend said the overt republicanism displayed by Labour Members was understandable, but is it? The leader of the Labour party, the Prime Minister, has created more hereditary peers who take the Labour Whip in the other place—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the mark. His comments are not relevant to the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

My hon. Friend is right. Whatever the Prime Minister says about—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. I thought that I had given a little hint about my concern. I suspect that I need not hint any more.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I shall return to my comments on the amendments. There are undoubtedly contradictions in the Labour party's attitude, to which I may return in my concluding remarks.

Those countering my argument that adopted children should be able to inherit ancient titles, such as dukedoms, earldoms or baronetcies, have made much of the fact that blood offspring should inherit them. However, fundamental changes have taken place. There was a time when political power attached to hereditary peerages, which were part of the legislature. That is still true to an extent, although the Government will, regrettably, put an end to that. Hereditary peerages are now only a small part of the legislature, and the Government intend to remove them completely in phase 2 of their reform of the House of Lords. The constitutional implications of my suggested reform will not be that far-reaching. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) rightly suggested that it would have far-reaching implications for only one aspect of the constitution—the monarchy.

The debate has moved on in another important regard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will be well aware. In the past, he has spoken at length about in vitro fertilisation treatment and the problems faced by couples who cannot have children. As different aspects of infertility treatment have moved on, the term ''blood offspring'' has become more difficult to define. There are many permutations of infertility treatment. Sometimes, donated sperm may be involved, and a child may be the blood offspring of the mother, but not the father. Sometimes, an egg may be donated, and the father's sperm will be used. Sometimes, both the egg and the sperm are donated, and although born to a mother, the child is not her blood offspring. In America, surrogate mothers have often been used by childless parents. A surrogate mother may give birth to a child that was conceived with donated sperm—an even more complicated situation.

My submission is simple. The argument about blood offspring has become confused. There are many forms of assisted conception. The area is complex and technological advances mean that it is moving on apace. Anyone who reads articles by Professor Lord Winston or Professor Ian Craft will know that there will be a huge amount of debate and discussion about this area in future.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I want to probe the hon. Gentleman on the implications of his remarks. Does he think that the adopted child of a person with a hereditary title should take precedence in inheritance over an illegitimate child of that person?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

That is a good point. Illegitimate children cannot inherit a title and that should be examined. There is a good example in my constituency, which concerns, Labour Members will be pleased hear, a Labour hereditary peer. Lord Melchett, an old Etonian, former Labour Minister and current executive director of Greenpeace, inherited a large estate in my constituency. I get on with him very well, although we do not have the same political views. His son will not be able to inherit the Melchett title, because he was born out of wedlock. I am sure that Lord Melchett would not mind my mentioning that—it is common knowledge that he has not married his partner. It is scandalous that his son cannot inherit the title—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to his amendment. He is moving far away from it.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Only by moving away from the amendment are we able to get to the spirit and flavour of the endeavour. We are trying to break new ground. The amendment will change the law in a small but fundamental way.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Is not the hon. Gentleman being overly modest in asserting that the changes that the amendment would bring about are small? He is breaking with the hereditary principle of the monarchy and with that of the peerage. Is he not dealing a greater blow to the system of inherited privilege and wealth in this country than any Labour Member would have dared to propose?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The hon. Gentleman's point is interesting. The changes are minor in the context of a Bill that will hopefully make adoption much easier for hundreds of thousands of people. As a result of the Bill, many thousands of families will provide loving homes for children. As I said, the proposed changes would at the most affect 50 families. I will shortly draw my remarks to a close, as other Members want to speak.

It is wrong that children born as a result of egg or sperm donation or, dare I say it, illicit liaisons—or even surreptitious overseas adoptions—should be given more rights than legally adopted children. That is the fundamental point.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Has my hon. Friend discussed his amendments with august institutions such as the College of Arms?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I happen to know that such institutions take a fairly neutral view—they can understand both sides of the argument. My hon. Friend's intervention is none the less constructive. If the Parliamentary Secretary were to accept the logic of my arguments and the amendments were made, it would be important to ensure that such organisations were on side, to lessen the chance of the removal of the amendments on the Floor of the House or in another place.

We ought to put the proposed reform in context. Will the Parliamentary Secretary carefully consider the examples of ancient Greece and ancient Rome, where adoption carried inheritance rights? Subsequent natural children there could never take away adopted children's rights. Gaius Julius, nephew of Julius Caesar, was adopted; he inherited the imperial office and became Augustus Caesar. Labour Members may be familiar with Ovid and with the myth of Hercules, who was adopted by Zeus and Hera. Ovid wrote:

''When Zeus persuaded his jealous wife to adopt Hercules, the goddess got into bed and, clasping the baby hero to her bosom, pushed him through her robes and let him fall to the ground in imitation of real birth''.

That practice is still carried out in Bulgaria among Bosnian Turks.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend draws an important analogy. Was not Ovid exiled to the Black sea, supposedly for having an affair with the illegitimate daughter of the emperor Augustus, who would not have been able—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. I ask hon. Members to keep within the scope of the amendment. I am being super-generous.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

We have had a brief excursion into the classics, which may have revealed that some Conservative Members might be better equipped for the modern age had they spent more time reading subjects such as mathematics and the sciences. On the other hand, we do have a knowledge of the classics.

The amendment would bring about a symbolic reform. It would demonstrate total acceptance of adopted children at every level of society. I commend it to the Committee and look forward to its acceptance by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I shall be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk made a parallel with the classical world at the end of his speech. There was almost a management principle involved in adoption law in Rome and Greece. Adoption was so much the norm in classical Rome that, according to Gibbon, there was not a single instance in all the centuries of the Roman empire of descent through blood relatives lasting for three generations. There were sometimes military coups, but in the majority of cases the emperor chose to adopt the worthy candidate as his son rather than to pass power on to his natural descendants.

For all its faults, the edifice of the Roman empire was the most stable secular structure that the world has ever seen, lasting for about one and a half millennia, depending on when one considers it to have started and finished. We can learn from it. Choosing a person who was worthy if one was not satisfied of the suitability of one's blood offspring was the Roman approach.

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

The hon. Gentleman referred to a ''person'' being worthy. In relation to the amendment, I am sure that we are talking about a worthy man.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Not always, no. I can remember at least one—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted to digress.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The case I have in mind is that of the lady who inherited the titles of Attila the Hun, but I shall have to look it up. You are right to reproach me, Mr. Hood, but I mentioned that not because we all seek succession for the monarchy but because my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk makes a serious and worthy point. Many people who have reached the pinnacles of success have chosen to pass on not only their inheritance but their position among their followers. One example of a person adopted into a privileged family who went on to do huge amounts of good—he is still doing so, not least for my party—is Mr. Stuart Wheeler, whose actions were reported by the newspapers shortly before the election. His family passed on to him considerable wealth and position, and he had a privileged education. He has chosen to use his position in a number of philanthropic ways.

The question that I want to ask the Committee is this. Would it not be a thoroughly good, symbolic measure if Parliament were to allow the provision to apply to peerages—they are still sought by many people for many reasons, although new ones are nearly always life peerages—as a way of saying that we are determined that adopted children at every level of society should be treated in exactly the same way as birth children?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Further to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), does the hon. Gentleman believe that an adopted son should take precedence over his older sister when the title is inherited? What he is exposing is not so much a shortcoming in the Bill that may need to be rectified, but shortcomings in the wider system. Those shortcomings, which create much unfairness, may need to be rectified in more wide-ranging legislation, and I am sure that we would welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for such legislation.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

That issue goes well beyond the terms of clause 68, although it is a serious matter. There is a practical, albeit curious, difference between many Scottish titles and almost all English titles, but this Committee is not the right place to address that point, and I am sure that you, Mr. Hood, would restrain me if I did so.

Most of the Bill, rightly, deals with adoption as it applies to the vast majority of children; but allowing one or two symbolic cases over the years, which is all we are talking about, will say something about every adopted child. I strongly believe in symbolic acts but I have always rejected symbolic gestures. Symbolism is fundamental to the way people live. The amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk would say something engaging to every adopted child.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Having heard my hon. Friends put across a competent argument—I have great admiration for their reforming zeal—and having heard Labour Members speak about the hereditary principle, I thought that a Conservative should make a case for the hereditary principle. My argument, which is that the hereditary principle is both hereditary and a principle, has been touched on. We may or may not like it, and I am sure that all hon. Members have a view, but that principle is based on blood ties—and on legitimacy. Whether or not that is regarded as correct in this day and age, it is the principle on which the hereditary system is based. Changing the principle would be a dangerous thing, for doing so would undermine the whole concept. Although fairness and advantages would be won for adopted children if they were included, it would not be consistent with the principle as it stands.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk asks where we go from here. Life peerages have been mentioned. The children of those who now receive life peerages receive the courtesy title; that should apply in future even if the child is adopted. In the same way, and using the same rationale, the same should apply to new hereditary peerages—I appreciate that not many are created—and adopted children should be included. In effect, we would be creating a new principle without destroying the existing one.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The debate has been wide ranging. I am sure that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk sincerely wants to right what he believes is a wrong affecting the rights of adopted children. However, as the debate has shown, the intention underpinning the amendments would have substantial implications for the wider law in that area—and for the rights of other children.

Although I understand the motive behind the amendments, they will not achieve the consistency that the hon. Gentleman intends. As my hon. Friends have made clear in speeches and interventions, the amendments address the rights of adopted sons only. Daughters cannot usually inherit peerages and the amendment would not change that, whether or not the daughter was adopted.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Parliamentary Secretary is right, but some peerages have a special remainder, which allows the eldest daughter to inherit. In fact, quite a few Scottish titles have such an arrangement and a number of titles have been created with a special remainder for the daughter for one generation.

One example is the Bass family, the famous brewing family from Burton. The first Lord Burton had only a daughter: she became Baroness Burton and her son became the second Lord Burton. The Parliamentary Secretary should bear such cases in mind. I have no difficulty with the rights of daughters being put on the same footing as those of sons. Our monarch is a female, and there are plenty of able female politicians on both sides—

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a rather long intervention.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I am very aware that exceptions were made when peerages were created if there was no male heir. As the hon. Gentleman said, some ancient baronies by writ were created by remainders. Those include Willoughby de Eresby, Dacre, and Darcy de Knayth. The ancient Scottish earldoms of Mar and Sutherland and other peerages were also created by remainders which allowed females to inherit in default of male heirs, and the hon. Gentleman may already have referred to the Scottish earldoms of Loudoun and Dysart and the English baronies of Strange and Lucas of Crudwell. Females can, therefore, inherit some peerages.

However, that goes slightly wide of the issue. The amendment would put adopted sons—I say that because we are dealing with sons in this case—in a more advantageous position than sons born to unmarried parents. A peerage cannot currently be inherited by a son who is born when his parents are unmarried. Even if they then marry and he is legitimated—that is apparently the correct word—he still cannot inherit.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Born or conceived when his parents were unmarried?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Born—no, both. I believe that the act—conception—must take place within the marriage.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

On a point of order, Mr. Hood. What does the Parliamentary Secretary mean by ''act''?

Jimmy Hood (Labour, Clydesdale)

Order. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to carry on.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I may be wrong on those points and need to correct myself. I would not like to mislead the Committee on such an important matter.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

This might be one occasion on which a flow chart would be rather useful. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor's Department would care to provide one.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

That was extremely helpful. However, I stand corrected: the inheritance is allowed if the child is born into the marriage.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

If we accept the amendment, illegitimacy could be remedied by adoption.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

That may be possible, but it shows that the amendments would have a broad impact, which would create some difficulties. Peerages usually pass to the eldest son. I presume that the intention of the amendment is to ensure that the adopted son would inherit if he were older than any son born to the adopters. However, that could deprive the eldest natural son of what some might regard as his legitimate expectation.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I mentioned the fourth Marquess of Aberdeen, who adopted a son in 1950. He went on to have natural children, and his eldest natural son is allowed to call himself the Earl of Haddo and will inherit. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of depriving natural children, but we should be talking about the rights of adopted children and equality between adopted and natural children. The Government have a backward-looking attitude. We should be doing all we can to ensure that children adopted by loving couples, married or not, in every level of society are provided for.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I chose my words carefully when I pointed out that the amendment could be regarded as depriving natural children of what some would regard as a legitimate expectation. I hope that that phrasing emphasises my opinion that the proposals would have wide implications.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Parliamentary Secretary talks about legitimate expectation, but I do not propose to make the provision retrospective. If the amendment were accepted, a natural son born after a child had been adopted would have no such expectation once the Bill became law. Legitimate expectations would not be relevant—they would, effect, go out of the window.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

If a peer's son were born and an older child subsequently adopted, the natural child might legitimately expect to inherit but be disinherited by the adoption of another child. That is hypothetical, and I would have to see how such a case stacked up against the amendment. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion could have many repercussions for adopted boys, who are the main subject of this discussion.

A child born as a result of artificial insemination in which a third-party donor is involved cannot inherit.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

That is interesting. If a childless couple goes through IVF and the woman becomes pregnant, that is obviously a private matter for all concerned, and as long as the woman gets pregnant and has a healthy child, everything ends happily. Whether the outcome is achieved using donor sperm or artificial insemination seems irrelevant, because the child will, to all intents and purposes, be a natural child with all the rights of ordinary children. Is that not the case?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

There are much wider issues at stake. If a peer's wife undergoes artificial insemination involving a third-party donor, the child born as a result cannot inherit. However, I think I am right in saying that if the sperm is the peer's but the egg is donated by a third-party female, the peerage can be passed on because the male bloodline is preserved. There are inconsistencies in the approach taken, and the hon. Gentleman might be right in saying that there will be difficulties.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

What if a peer of the realm donated sperm to a woman to whom he was not married? The Parliamentary Secretary said earlier that offspring would have to be legitimate if the title were to be passed on. Would the offspring resulting from such a donation be legitimated for the purposes of heredity if the peer donating the sperm later married the third-party woman?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I think that if the peer who had donated the sperm married the woman before the child was born, the child would inherit the title, but if they did not marry and the child was not born into a married state, it would not be able to inherit. The principle would apply because the child would be considered illegitimate, and all the attendant difficulties of that status would come to bear.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Given my hon. Friend's explanations, is it surprising that some hereditary families do not have the most stable existence?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I do not know how much artificial insemination occurs among peers—it is clear that I have not been sufficiently well briefed on the subject.

There are one or two difficulties with the amendments. Outwith their wider implications, from a purely legal, drafting perspective they do not achieve the intended effect. It appears that they would override any instrument granting the peerage and/or providing the inheritance, rather than establish the status of the adopted child for the purposes of such instruments. As I said, although I can understand the motivation behind the amendments, I must ask the Committee to reject them.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for her explanation. The debate has been interesting and constructive and has introduced many issues that we never dreamed would be discussed.

The Parliamentary Secretary referred to donor sperm and in vitro fertilisation. It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is not here, as he and his wife have been through the process and he has spoken movingly about it. He knows the emotional stress and strain that couples undergo, as well as the total unfairness that they suffer because it is so difficult to get IVF treatment on the national health service. However, surely no differentiation as to how a child is born is made in respect of children born as a result of IVF, be it through intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection—ICSI—or other forms? Apart from the record kept by the clinic, no legal record will exist to show that a child was born as a result of donor sperm as opposed to the mother's egg being fertilised in a test tube by the father's sperm. Professor Craft or Professor Lord Winston, for example, might keep a record, but the children resulting from such treatment would not have an extra digit attached to their national insurance number. We do not live in a Stalinist state. One hopes that the child will be born into a happy, loving family. I am surprised by the Minister's remarks.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I was trying to explain that that is how the law stands at the moment. Under the laws of inheritance, certain types of peerage pass down the male bloodline. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was a Member of Parliament at the time, but the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 re-emphasised that inheritance could pass down only through the male's sperm.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for putting me right on that point. I am sure that all members of the Committee know of families who have undergone IVF treatment, but they do not know what sort of treatment those families had. I submit that families with an inherited title may not know the nature of a child's conception because the treatment is a matter kept private between the couple and they do not broadcast the fact. Although the hospital and social services may be aware of what is happening, other people may not.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Perhaps I can clarify a point. The hon. Gentleman said that the child might be born through IVF and asked whether that would become known. The current position is that an inheritance cannot be passed on unless it can be proved that the husband is the father.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Parliamentary Secretary seems to be saying that very few people would know about the childless couple's IVF treatment, which is a private matter. The stress and emotion for all involved is enormous, although it is of course hoped that in due course a child will be born into a loving family. The issue would be relevant only if someone contested the title—if perhaps 30, 40 or 50 or so years later a court case was brought. However, for all intents and purposes—and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury will endorse this—such treatment is not something that people discuss except with their most intimate friends. In many happy cases, a child is born as a result of IVF, so it is a pity that many childless couples do not have access to fertility treatment on the NHS; perhaps the Minister of State, Department of Health, should take that point on board. The amendment has brought into sharp focus the concept of blood offspring, and how vague and dated it has become.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

It is on record that my wife and I had IVF treatment, although our children are direct blood descendants of both of us. My hon. Friend raises an important issue, because the courts have ruled, for example in the case of Lord Ampthill, that no one can be forced against their will to undergo procedures such as DNA testing to ascertain who is genuinely blood offspring. Ludicrously, the current law is unenforceable.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

My hon. Friend illustrates the current state of affairs very well. Surely the time has come to get a grip on the matter. It would indeed be ironic if the Labour party emerged as the backwoodsmen, the supporters of something quite outmoded, outdated, archaic and divisive to society, who proved unwilling to take a highly symbolic step forward. I see some Labour Members who agree with me and would very much like to support the amendment.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his amendments do not deal with the issues? They deal only with adopted sons.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Parliamentary Secretary makes a very good point and has explained that the two amendments would lead to difficulties. Although I put quite a lot of effort into the drafting, I obviously have not got it quite right. I thought that it was simpler and neater to leave out the word ''not'' and, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, I am a great believer in keeping things simple and straightforward. However, she has argued convincingly that the amendments would not achieve what I intended. I accept her technical point that they would solve only part of the problem.

In the hope that following discussion with fellow Ministers and perhaps with members of the Cabinet, including the Lord Chancellor, the Parliamentary Secretary will table an amendment on Report that would change the law as many of us want, or that her counterpart in another place will examine the matter and table new amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69 - Protection of trustees and personal representatives

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Now that we have departed from the choppy waters of aristocratic sperm, it will be interesting to see how the Lords deal with those clauses. We are now on the safer—as far as the Hansard reporters are concerned—territory of trustees.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to elucidate the clause. I speak with a vested, but non-pecuniary interest as someone who acts as a trustee for various funds. Subsection (1) exempts trustees from inquiring in the course of their duties, which would normally be to distribute the assets of a trust fund or administer the distribution of income, about the adoptive state of—I presume—a potential beneficiary of the trust.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to explain that. A trust may be set up with the explicit intention that its assets should be passed on only to blood relatives. For example, grandparents may set up a trust for their grandchildren, but they may want only the natural-born children of their children to inherit from it. If, after the grandparents' death, an additional child was adopted by the second generation and the trustees were unaware of that, could that adopted child be a beneficiary of the distribution of the trust's assets in the same way as the blood relatives? If it were later discovered by the trustees that they had effectively breached the terms of the trust because an adopted child had become a beneficiary, would there be no comeback on that? It would be useful to clarify that for trustees. I admit that it would be unusual for there to be exclusions or exemptions for adopted children in a trust's documents, but it is not inconceivable.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Let me go back a bit. The idea of the clause, which replicates section 45 of the Adoption Act 1976, is to provide protection for trustees or personal representatives who might distribute property in ignorance of the making or revocation of an adoption order. It is not the same as the hon. Gentleman's example, but imagine that a will is made to distribute property among grandchildren, where the person who made the will dies and an adopted child then comes into the equation. If that will simply stated, ''All my grandchildren shall inherit a portion of my estate,'' the adopted grandchild would acquire the same rights as the other children. However, the trustees of the estate might distribute the money to the natural children and the adopted child without realising that the adoption order had been revoked because a mistake had been made or fraud had been committed in the documents. The clause covers such a situation. The hon. Gentleman would be protected if he were a trustee of an estate and mistakenly distributed money to the wrong children because he did not realise that the order had been revoked.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I think I see where the Parliamentary Secretary is coming from. However, will adoption law or trust law prevail? The trustees will not be guilty of wrongdoing because breaching a trust is not a criminal offence, although disaffected beneficiaries could bring a civil action. There is no comeback on the beneficiaries in trust law as regards the terms of a trust that specifies that non-adopted children can be the only beneficiaries.

The previous clause dealt with inheriting property and the equal treatment of the children. After the trust is distributed among the children, it may transpire that one of them is adopted and should not, therefore, qualify under trust law. Which body of law takes precedence in such a case? The issue is slightly complicated, and the circumstances are highly hypothetical. Can natural-born beneficiaries sue so that the share of the trust that is erroneously paid out to the adopted child is handed back? I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary gets my point.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I think that I get the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not an expert on trust law, although I might become one—as if by magic. It is important to return to the terms of the trust and of any instrument that is drawn up.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I hope that I can assist the Parliamentary Secretary. Subsection (2) gives the trustee immunity in civil and criminal law. Subsection (3) allows any disaffected person the right to the equitable remedy of tracing. That is the issue in a nutshell.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That was almost what I was about to say. Any money that was incorrectly distributed would have to be handed back. The clause protects trustees who may distribute the estate in ignorance, although it would be an entirely different matter if they participated in an attempt to commit fraud. The clause is aimed at trustees who distribute money without realising that the adoption order has changed.

The terms of any trustee document would prevail in terms of the inheritance. If a document stated that that the beneficiaries should be a specific number of children—perhaps named children—and left out the adopted children, that would be a different matter.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I understand that the clause is intended to cover every eventuality, but surely a trustee or personal representative would know that a potential beneficiary had been adopted. Trustees have wide-ranging fiduciary duties. I should declare an interest, as I am one of several trustees of a trust with four or five beneficiaries. It is our job to ensure that the professional people investing in the funds and the solicitors running the trusts do so to a high standard. We are unpaid and act as trustees because we have respect for and like the family in question. It would be extraordinary beyond belief if I did not know all the circumstances affecting beneficiaries as part of my due diligence as a trustee. The clause surprises me.

The clause may indeed cover every eventuality, as the Parliamentary Secretary says, but are there any other circumstances in which trustees or personal representatives would not be under such a duty? As part of trustees' due diligence requirement, it is their duty to be aware of such eventualities. In what circumstances does she imagine that trustees or personal representatives would not know about those unforeseen factors?

Finally, will the Parliamentary Secretary also tell us whether ''follow the property'', in subsection (3), is another legalistic definition of tracing, mentioned by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the clause applies to exceptional circumstances. I accept that he, as a trustee, has a large knowledge of the law, but the clause ensures that trustees do not have to undertake unduly extensive inquiries, which might be quite difficult in cases of fraud, for example, if a relative challenged an adoption. As I said, the provisions have been carried over from the 1976 Act to give trustees some protection, so trustees will not have to make unduly searching inquiries in exceptional cases such as fraud. In the personal case he has described, the hon. Gentleman obviously knows the family and their background well, but in some instances trustees are professionals who do not have intimate knowledge of the family. The answer to his question about tracing is yes.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

May I raise a matter that seems, on reflection, to be slightly odd? I understand subsection (3) with respect to tracing, but if the property is sold

''into the hands of another person''

under the clauses in question the disaffected person cannot recover at all. The trustee is immune—full stop. If the property is sold on in good faith, the disaffected person has, it seems to me, no right of action. Perhaps the Minister would reflect on that. I do not expect an immediate answer, but it would be interesting to know.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I am extremely happy to reflect on that. Perhaps I could write to the hon. Gentleman and any other members of the Committee who would like to hear from me on that point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70 - Meaning of disposition

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I have a few questions. Any legal dictionary or textbook will give a definition of the term ''disposition'' very similar to that in the clause, but I want the Parliamentary Secretary to throw light on one or two points. Subsection (3) states:

''This Chapter applies to an oral disposition as if contained in an instrument made when the disposition was made.''

I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that that is quite clumsy drafting. There may be a technical reason for it. Presumably an oral disposition would have to mean one that was witnessed properly and legally, rather than just casually.

Another point about which I am not too clear is contained in subsection (4), which states:

''The date of death of a testator is the date at which a will or codicil is to be regarded as made.''

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

On the point about the clumsy wording of subsection (3), I suggest that it should be worded, ''This chapter applies to an oral disposition as if contained in a contemporaneous instrument.''

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

That would be much neater, and 48 hours ago it would have been possible to table an amendment to that effect. However, the idea of a clause stand part debate is to enable us to bring to ministerial attention suggestions for improvement.

As to subsection (4) I think that there is some confusion. Surely ''the date of death of a testator'' is the date on which he dies, unless I am being naive. Perhaps the Minister will correct me.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I think that the clause is fairly uncontroversial, providing as it does a definition of the term ''disposition''. I assume that the reason for the provision stating that

''The date of death of a testator is the date at which a will or codicil is to be regarded as made.''

is that the will must be the last will. Is that not so?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Let me assist the Parliamentary Secretary. The normal rule in law is that a will speaks from death. Therefore the clause is otiose.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Then I am right in my interpretation that the wording is to confirm the normal legal position.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June] and the Order of the Committee [27 November], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question agreed to.

Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clauses 71 to 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Special Standing Committee

Adoption and Children Bill

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. The worthy woman whom I sought for the benefit of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) was Aelia Pulcheria, who was proclaimed augusta in 414, her nephew being only seven years old, and who ran the Roman empire officially for seven years and continued for many years after he had technically come of age.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

That is not a point of order. However, I am sure that Committee members will be very pleased to have that additional piece of information from this morning's debate, which I am sorry to have missed.Clause 80 Restriction on bringing children in

Clause 80 - Restriction on bringing children in

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 159, in page 43, line 16, leave out 'six months' and insert 'one year'.

Having been greatly enriched by that piece of information, I turn to more mundane matters. The Bill makes it an offence to bring any child into the United Kingdom for whom an overseas adoption order has been granted during the previous six months if the required UK procedures have not been complied with. I am trying to find out why the period decided on was six months.

Intercountry adopters frequently have to remain in the overseas country for three or more months—sometimes, in exceptional circumstances, up to a year—usually in order to comply with the overseas requirements. In practice, the provision would rarely be invoked, but if it is meant as a deterrent to people trying to circumvent the system, would it not be better to extend the period from six months to one year? That time frame would be in line with the usual one-year qualification for children to be admitted to the UK as de facto dependents when they have been adopted by UK nationals while living overseas. There appears to be a slight inconsistency between the two provisions.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mrs. Roe. I am pleased to back in Committee following the sterling work of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton).

We have moved to the part of the Bill that deals with the protections and additional safeguards that the Government have introduced in relation to intercountry adoption. The clause is an important part of a package of measures to ensure that intercountry adoption takes place only where the same minimum safeguards as those for domestic adoptions have been applied.

The clause re-enacts the restrictions in section 56A of the Adoption Act 1976, which was inserted by section 14 of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 and brought into force on 30 April 2001. It makes it a criminal offence for a British resident to bring a child into the UK for the purposes of adoption—if they are intending to adopt them in the UK—unless they comply with the prescribed requirements.

The Adoption of Children from Overseas Regulations 2001 make it a requirement that prospective adopters apply to a local authority or voluntary adoption agency through procedures similar to those followed in domestic adoptions. The adopters then receive a certificate of eligibility, issued by the Secretary of State. The clause also extends the restrictions—this relates to the issue in hon. Lady's amendment—to British residents who bring into the UK a child whom they adopted outside the British islands within the previous six months and whom they do not intend to adopt in the UK. They might choose to do that because the adoption order is recognised under UK law or because they are content to have an adoption order just from the child's state of origin and do not want the arrangement recognised in the UK.

In reviewing the law on intercountry adoption earlier this year, the Government concluded that the restrictions on bringing children into the UK for the purposes of adoption alone were insufficient because they did not catch those who returned to the UK with a child whom they had adopted overseas but did not intend to adopt in the UK. Clause 80 attempts to redress that situation by requiring British residents who bring into the UK children whom they adopted outside the British islands to comply with prescribed procedures and conditions. Those will be the same as the procedures and conditions for British residents who want to bring a child into the UK for the purpose of adoption.

The Bill requires anyone who returns with a child who is less than six months old and for whom they have an adoption order made in a country outside the British islands to comply with prescribed procedures and conditions to avoid committing an offence. The amendment would extend the length of time to a year. I understand that the hon. Lady is using the amendment to ask why we chose six months.

The hon. Lady mentioned the period for which someone might need to remain overseas before the adoption order was made. The Bill provides for a six-month period that begins after the adoption order is made, and the period will be longer for someone in an overseas country if we take into account the length of time up to that point.

In drafting subsection (1)(b), we carefully considered the time limit. We were keen to ensure that we caught those who lived in the UK and adopted a child who was habitually resident outside the British islands. However, we were also keen not to catch those who lived and perhaps worked outside the British islands and who might still be considered to be habitually resident in the UK, but who—because they, effectively, lived in the country where the adoption process took place—legitimately wished to adopt through the procedures in that country.

We decided that six months seemed a reasonable length of time. It is long enough to catch unscrupulous individuals who, to avoid committing an offence, take a short leave of absence to live outside the British islands and adopt through the procedures of the country in which they live. However, it is also short enough not to catch those who live and work overseas. I hope that I have made it clear that the six-month qualifying period commences only once an adoption order has been granted.

The hon. Lady referred to the time period. In considering it, we looked carefully at immigration service arrangements for deciding whether to grant entry clearance. Each case is determined on its merits and there is no set time limit, but the immigration service will usually treat favourably applications for entry clearance for children who are de facto dependents, where the child has lived with the family for a minimum of six months and the family has lived overseas for about 12 months. That shows that there is equivalence—to the extent that it is possible to achieve equivalence given the discretion over immigration clearance.

Extending the period to 12 months would not increase our chances of catching those leaving the country for a short period in order to adopt. However, it would increase our chances of catching those who legitimately choose to go through the adoption procedures in the country where they live. I hope that my clarification will lead the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

That was helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 160, in page 43, line 23, after 'step-parent', insert 'or foster parent'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 163, in page 45, line 3, after 'step-parent', insert 'or foster parent'.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Welcome back to our proceedings, Mrs. Roe. I would recommend a glance at the Hansard of this morning's events, which were educational and illuminative. I shall also recommend that when the Bill reaches the other place their lordships glance over our proceedings on clause 68, as the provision is particularly relevant to them.

Having had insufficient time this morning to discuss the clutch of clauses before the Committee under the stringent programme resolution, we now move to another part of the Bill. We were unable this morning to discuss an issue even thornier than aristocratic sperm—that of incest, which left many questions unanswered.

Clause 80, on restrictions on bringing children into the country, addresses the complex subject of intercountry adoption. By way of introduction, I should say that many of the professional and voluntary bodies that made representations to the Committee raised concerns about the real meaning and intent behind the clauses in chapter 6 because they seem to leave unanswered many questions about the Government's attitude to intercountry adoption. The amendments are probing, and I hope that the Minister will assure us that our concerns have been taken into account. Amendment No. 160 would add to the list of people to whom clause 80 applies the status of foster parent. Amendment No. 163 would do the same with clause 82, which deals with people wishing to take children out of the country.

The Bill seems to make foster parents non-people in the adoption process. Those covered in the two clauses are adopters, prospective adopters, parents, relatives, guardians and step-parents, but nowhere does it specifically mention foster parents. It is essential to protect the rights of foster parents as current guardians of children and as prospective adopters. The Minister may believe that their specific role is covered, but as they are not mentioned in the clause, it would be useful to have that on record. We have heard that many foster parents become adoptive parents, that it is a beneficial part of the adoptive process flow chart and that it can also speed up that flow chart because they are already recognised and have the necessary experience.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I support my hon. Friend's amendments. Foster parents adopt many foreign children, especially in inner-city areas with a high proportion of asylum seekers. I have seen plane loads of children arriving unaccompanied in this country, their passports having been destroyed. They will be put straight into care homes. Early adoption may be suitable. For those placed with foster parents, the provision could provide problems on the best course of action, so I support the proposed addition.

Clause 82 states that its provisions do not apply if

''the proposed adopters are parents, relatives or guardians of the child (or one of them is)''.

There should be an ''or'' after that; otherwise it would imply that all the conditions had to be fulfilled in order to qualify.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) suggested that the Government were not sufficiently concerned about support for intercountry adoption, or about its complexity. We acknowledge that intercountry adoption can be an extremely valuable placement choice for some children. It is in line with international conventions to which we are a signatory. However, in line with international law, we believe that children should be protected to the same extent on intercountry adoptions as on domestic ones.

That brings us to the problem of the hon. Gentleman's amendments. In some ways, they almost represent a misunderstanding of what clauses 80 and 82 try to achieve. They place restrictions on the movement of children in the context of intercountry adoption, ensure that the safeguards are met and allow exceptions to those restrictions.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

If a child who is habitually resident in another country comes to this country as an asylum seeker, is he therefore no longer habitually resident in another country? Would he be resident in this country?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I suspect—I will clarify it with the hon. Gentleman if I am wrong—that the position of a child who sought asylum in this country would partly be determined by whether he was accompanied by his parents and, if not, the extent to which he was covered by the Children Act 1989. If he became a looked-after child, the provisions on his domestic adoption would be those that we discussed earlier. If an asylum-seeking child was unaccompanied on entering the country, the foster parent would not have brought him into the United Kingdom. Therefore, the facilities to enable the foster parent to adopt the child would be those that we discussed under parts of the Bill relating to domestic adoptions.

Clauses 80 and 82 deal with restrictions on movement of children out of or into the country in relation to intercountry adoption. The provisions that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham aims to amend are the exceptions to those restrictions. We have clarified the groups of people to whom it would not be appropriate to apply the restrictions in the clauses, which are designed to provide safeguards. I hope that I can show the hon. Gentleman why it is appropriate to apply the restrictions to step-parents.

Clause 80 requires prescribed conditions to be met by those habitually resident in the UK before they adopt a child habitually resident outside the British islands. Clause 82 prevents the removal from the UK of children who are Commonwealth citizens or habitually resident in the UK for the purpose of adoption outside the British islands, unless certain conditions are met.

In both cases, the restrictions do not apply where at least one of the proposed adopters is the parent, relative or guardian of the child or a step-parent of the child. That is consistent with current law, and recognises the links and relationships between the child and any prospective adopter who falls into one of those categories. It would be seen as unreasonable to restrict the ability of a close relative or guardian of the child to take him out of or bring him into the country.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham would extend the exemption to the restrictions to include foster parents. That would mean that any foster parent could remove a child from the UK and adopt him outside the British islands. Also, anyone habitually resident in the UK who fostered a child in the child's state of origin could bring him back to the UK after adopting him in his state of origin or with the intention of adopting him in the UK without penalty. For a number of reasons, I do not believe that to be appropriate.

If the amendment were made, there would be no distinction between the foster carer who had looked after a child for a significant period, and the one who had had care of the child for only a few days. That would open a large loophole in the restrictions that we are trying to put in place to protect vulnerable children. Some foster carers should not be prevented from being positively encouraged to adopt the children in their care, given the time scales and conditions that we discussed last week, but that has to be within the restrictions that relate to domestic adoptions.

The amendment would mean that the unscrupulous—unfortunately, we know that some people may be unscrupulous in their approach to intercountry adoption—could avoid having to be assessed and approved as suitable to adopt, as a child habitually resident outside the UK could be placed with them in a foster placement overseas before adoption. Such people could travel abroad and undertake some sort of foster placement that would enable them, if there were not a restriction, to bring the child back into the country in order to adopt. That would undermine our attempts to ensure that those who wish to adopt children from outside the British islands do so only where, as a minimum, the same safeguards as in domestic adoptions have been applied.

If the amendment were made, it might be possible to foster a child overseas, where the meaning and legal standing of foster care might be quite different to that in UK law, and return to the UK with that child with the intention of adopting him. That would mean that children resident in the UK might be removed from the country for adoption by a foster parent with whom they had been resident for only a short time. That would be despite the fact that the foster parent would have no right to apply for adoption in the UK without the agreement of the local authority given that the child had been resident with him for less than a year. We discussed such issues last week.

There would also be a definitional problem on foster placements made by overseas agencies. In the UK, only placements made through local authorities would allow an individual to be recognised as a foster carer. Placements made by the parents are considered to be private fostering arrangements and the carers to be private foster carers. A range of practices exists in other countries, including placements by parents and a range of organisations. That would cause serious difficulties in identifying whether an individual could legitimately claim to be a foster parent to a child, and therefore exempt from the clauses.

The amendments do not take into account who has parental responsibility for the child and whether that person consents to the child being removed. In the case of a child resident in the UK, we would want to ensure that the birth parents and the local authority had an opportunity to consider and have their views heard on any potential adoption or move outside the British islands. Schedule 2 of the Children Act 1989 states:

''A local authority may only arrange for...any child...to live outside England and Wales with the approval of the court'',

''with the approval of every person who has parental responsibility for the child''.

The proposals would undermine the role of foster parents and the trust that they can engender in children and their families and social workers. After all, most foster carers aim to provide care and support to children on a short-term basis, so that those children can return to their birth families.

Each year, thousands of children are successfully rehabilitated with their families after short periods in foster care. If it were possible for a foster family to remove a child from the United Kingdom and adopt them outside the British islands, the effective use of foster placements would be reduced, and the suspicion would increase that a child in that situation would not return to his own family. If the amendments stood, they would have an impact on voluntarily accommodated children and could increase the number of contested care proceedings.

I understand the concern of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that throughout the Bill we should recognise that it is often beneficial to the child that foster parents are able to adopt the children for whom they are caring. However, that should be allowed only within the conditions in the clauses that we debated last week—not as an avoidance of those conditions through the intercountry adoptions to which the amendments might lead.

With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful to the Minister. The amendments are relatively minor probing amendments, and the Minister went into enormous detail to refute them. Having achieved our intention that foster parents should not be regarded as non-persons, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 156, in page 43, line 30, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 157, in page 43, line 38, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

These are also probing amendments, which relate to the thorny problem of ''shall'' and ''may'' and the even thornier problem of the detailed regulations that apply to the Bill.

The Government produced an enormous set of draft regulations entitled Implementing the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, which is available only on the Department of Health website, and not in hard copy. Those regulations are in draft form alone, and we do not know how they apply to this clause. It seems strange that those regulations do not form a statutory part of a requirement; they are only a ''may'' part of the requirement, although we are going to the trouble of introducing those regulations and legislating for them in advance. Will the Minister give us an explanation for that?

I am glad to see the hon. Lady wielding a hard copy of those documents, because her Department said when my office inquired about obtaining them that they were available only on the internet. Perhaps they should be more widely available to those without access to the internet or those who risk using up enormous quantities of ink from their printer.

However, these are only probing amendments, and I am sure that the Minister will allay our fears in a detailed manner, as she usually does.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I start by apologising to the hon. Gentleman if he found it hard to obtain hard copies of the document, of which I have a hard copy. If it is the document to which he refers, I will assure that he receives a hard copy, to save him using up his precious printer ink. It is a fair criticism, because we must ensure that the regulations and draft regulations that will follow the Bill are available for others to consult on and consider.

At the risk of falling foul of the hon. Gentleman by discussing the matter in too much detail, I start by saying that the clause allows the Secretary of State, after consulting the National Assembly for Wales, to make regulations that set out the procedures or conditions that must be met by any British resident who wishes to adopt a child habitually resident outside the British islands. We intend to consult on the exact contents of the regulations, but we expect that they will be similar to those in place for those wanting to bring children into the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption.

The conditions include: requiring that prospective adopters apply to and are assessed by an adoption agency in the United Kingdom; that while going through the assessment process, prospective adopters provide as much information as requested by the agency; that prospective adopters agree to carry out police and medical checks; that cases referred to an adoption panel, the home-study assessment and such other information as is required by the overseas authority, is sent to the central authority so that it can be checked; that the proper procedures are followed and all the information collected before a certificate of eligibility is issued on behalf of the Secretary of State and sent to the overseas authority; and that, within 14 days of arrival in the United Kingdom with a child whom they intend to adopt, notice of intention to adopt is given to the local authority in whose area the prospective adopters reside.

A problem with the hon. Gentleman's amendments—although I recognise that they are probing amendments—is that they would require the Secretary of State to make such regulations, rather than give him a permissive power to do so. That would undermine the flexibility of the current approach, which allows the Secretary of State to determine what, if any, conditions should be met before going overseas to adopt and what, if any, conditions should be met on return to the United Kingdom. However, I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the regulations that we intend to make will be along the lines of those I have outlined.

There is some benefit in allowing regulations to follow discussions of the Bill, because it is often appropriate to allow time to consult stakeholders in the field to ensure that we get the detail right.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Reference is made in several parts of the draft regulations to consulting the National Assembly, which is welcome. After the consultation, will the draft regulations return to the National Assembly for implementation by the relevant Committee, or will they be dealt with in a Committee of this House? That is a hot issue in Wales.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I understand that it is a hot issue, but my understanding is that the National Assembly does not make regulations; that is the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The extent of the consultation of the Assembly depends partly on the regulations. As hon. Members have said, there are various different regulation-making processes in the Bill.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I have not made myself clear. When the draft regulation has been drawn up, it must be overseen by a Committee of this House or the Assembly before it has the force of law. Will it go to the Assembly, or be dealt with in this House?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am very aware of the sensitivities caused by devolution. I shall correct myself if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the Secretary of State will make the regulations and that they will be subject to consideration by the House or a Committee of the House, depending on whether they are subject to negative or affirmative resolution. I hope that that clarifies the matter for the hon. Gentleman. I believe that I am right in what I have said.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Although I appreciate that the issue has not been devolved, there seems little point in devolution if what the Minister says is a general statement of principle. Frankly, there is no point in another Chamber second-guessing what has already been passed here.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman may want to turn our debate into a discussion about whether Wales should be an independent state, but I am not sure that the rest of the Committee does. Some issues have been fully devolved; others have not. I have attempted to clarify for him what I understand the position to be in relation to the Bill. When drawing up the legislation, we had significant discussions with representatives of the National Assembly for Wales. In this case, the regulations can be made only after consultation—and that is only in the context of intercountry adoption. Other regulations will be made separately.

I was explaining why not every detail is necessarily placed in legislation, or not made available when a Bill is being debated. It is partly to allow time to consult on regulations. Regulations allow us the flexibility to make changes when circumstances change or, in this case, if adoption practice changes. The content of many regulations is often too technical or administrative for inclusion in a Bill.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister's point is well taken. Conversely, she must understand why the Opposition press Ministers if they can on the likely content of regulations—so that we can have a meaningful debate on the provisions of the Bill and there is a framework to our debate.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why, despite the rather unkind comments of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about my verbosity, I nevertheless attempted to reassure him about what the regulations might contain on this point. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier is absolutely right to say that Members pressing Ministers and bringing points to their attention that should subsequently be considered in regulation is an appropriate part of the process of scrutiny that legislation undergoes. Indeed, I look forward to being pressed further as we continue our debates.

Precedent is very important in law. It goes with precedent that we should use the word ''may'' instead of ''shall'' about regulation-making provisions. I hope that with those short, sharp reassurances, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am devastated; I certainly did not seek to criticise the Minister's verbosity, as she described her output. Indeed, I was complimenting her on her thoroughness in her response to a relatively minor amendment. She spoke with even greater thoroughness in responding to these amendments. I am delighted that she should look forward to being pressed further. Indeed, it will be the thoroughness of the Opposition Members who will ensure that she is pressed on matters of slightly greater import when we come to later amendments.

We can argue until the cows come home about how much of the legislation should be included in the Bill and how much we can trust the Government to leave to regulations. We repeat our complaint that the Committee has not seen and has no knowledge of the regulations despite having to debate the clauses that give weight to them. I take the Minister's point, but we will continue to disagree on that matter. However, in the interest of moving to other clauses, on which we will be able to press her further, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 142, in page 43, line 34, after 'agency)', insert—

'or a fully qualified social worker approved by the relevant local authority'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 143, in page 43, line 36, after 'agency', insert 'or relevant social worker'.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I should like to explain briefly what we are trying to do. Subsection (4) states that

''Regulations may require a person . . . to apply to an adoption agency''.

That does not go far enough. If couples or single people, as is allowed, want to adopt a child from abroad, they will have two options. They will be able to go either to a local authority or to an adoption agency. I would imagine that, for the purposes of the Bill, ''agency'' must include local authorities—I see the Minister's officials nodding. However, at the moment, couples can go to private social workers, of whom the overwhelming majority are highly qualified, skilled and experienced. Virtually all of them are former local authority social workers who have retired early or moved into private practice. They carry out a home study and any necessary post-placement studies for couples.

The system has been working very well, but I entirely accept that it broke down badly in the case of the Kilshaws. I think that everyone agrees that the Kilshaws were completely unsuitable for having anything to do with children at all. However, it is worth bearing in mind that in their case, the agency that was used in America broke state laws. It was not just a question of private social workers in this country producing a home-study report that should never have recommended the Kilshaws for adoption in the first place—the law in America was also definitely broken. The children involved have, rightly, already gone back to America and hopefully will be reunited either with their natural parents or with another, more suitable, couple who are able to adopt them.

However, one appalling case, however appalling it is and however bad the publicity, does not justify such a significant change in the law. Throughout the country there are networks of private social workers involved in intercountry adoption. I hope that the Minister will be able to fill me in on that. To some extent, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, we are flying blind on the clause, because much of it will depend on regulations. As the Minister said, there will be consultation on the regulations and they have not yet been finalised. What they say will be critical. The existing regulations are copious, complex and, in many cases, extremely difficult to understand. The clause is, on the face of it, quite simple, but it is governed by highly complex regulations, so a few large question marks still hang over this part of the Bill.

What will social workers who work in intercountry adoption do? Some will join agencies—some have probably already done so—but there is a critical shortage of such agencies. More may be set up, and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether private social workers can form an agency by grouping together and so proceed with the work that they are doing. Many private social workers have a close relationship with the local authority in their area, undertaking home studies and post-placement reports, with local authority social workers involved and visiting the children in question.

I suspect that local authorities also subcontract tasks to private social workers. It is important to bear in mind the shortage of resources in many social services departments. There is no question but that there is a shortage of key personnel and funds in Norfolk—it is a Labour-controlled authority—and I am sorry to say that the provision of services across the board has suffered because of the shortage of funding. We must not digress, but I hope that Tuesday's settlement will go some way towards redressing those difficulties. The Minister is aware of those shortages and of the problems with morale and recruitment in social services.

Attempts are being made to bring more young people into the profession. I have been involved in the tragic case of Lauren Wright, which arose in the constituency of my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). The case worker, Hugh Morgan, resigned and several other officers were devastated. A mistake was made, but the social services did not kill that child—the stepmother did. None the less, they are the ones to suffer: they attract the worst sort of opprobrium in the tabloids and the local press. Hugh Morgan was a constituent of mine, and many social workers in my constituency have asked me, ''What can we do to encourage more young people into the profession? It will be very difficult.'' A public inquiry into the Victoria Climbie case is under way, and a substantial amount of unpleasant publicity will flow from it. The signal that is being sent to many young people who are thinking of going into the profession is, ''Is it really worth it? You'll do an excellent job 99.9 per cent. of the time and receive no praise. When things go wrong the other 0.01 per cent of the time, you'll get all the blame.''

There is a serious problem with recruiting and resources. I want the Minister to reassure me that social services departments will be able to cope properly with the extra work involved in intercountry adoptions. My amendment may assist them, because it would allow private social workers who are approved and registered by the local authority to carry on doing what they already do.

We are considering an excellent resource that is already in place. The Kilshaw case, while highly regrettable and unfortunate, it involved just one private social worker out of many. I do not know precisely how many intercountry adoptions there are every year, but we were given a figure of about 500, so let us say that there have been 5,000 over the past 10 years. I know of no case other than the Kilshaw case in which intercountry adoption has gone wrong. The agencies deal with thousands of cases, but most are dealt with by private social workers and they have done an excellent job. They are a resource that must be nurtured and encouraged. That would be in the spirit of the Government's ideas about working with the private sector and having partnerships between local authorities and the private sector, which we are seeing throughout the caring services.

Only yesterday, the Secretary of State for Health announced that if people had been waiting for an operation for more than six months, it would be done by the private sector. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will agree that we have been saying for a long time that that should happen, and I am pleased that the Government have picked up one of our policies. Indeed, all local authority services, and not only social service provision, but education and highways departments, are engaging in constructive, pragmatic alliances and relationships with the private sector. The Minister must satisfy us that private social workers, who are an important resource, will be able to help us to achieve what we want—a better, more efficient service.

We want local authorities to carry out their adoption functions as efficiently as possible. Questions are asked about resources, but if local authorities are to take on the extra functions of intercountry adoption and provide a much more efficient service for domestic adoptions, pressure on resources will increase and many personnel will be overworked and stressed—indeed, many social workers cannot go on doing the job that they are doing now. I seek a sensible, pragmatic solution, and I hope that the Minister, in the spirit of the common-sense goals that we are trying to achieve, will be able to satisfy Opposition Members that the Bill will enable that solution to be found. If she cannot, she should accept the amendment.

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

Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said, social workers do not often get a good press. The general view seems to be that they are young, incompetent and completely devoid of common sense. That view is often based on misunderstandings and a lack of knowledge.

I do not intend to go into details of the cases that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The recent tragedies of two young children in the most awful circumstances at least began to show the public that social workers' concerns about intercountry adoption and the proper assessment of prospective adoptive parents have some basis in fact. It is essential that strong safeguards are in place in all adoption processes.

The hon. Gentleman asks why it is not sufficient to use fully qualified private social workers—approved or, as he suggests, registered, by the local authority. I understand that no provision is made for that. He asks why it would not be sensible. I believe that the Government are right to insist on the stronger safeguards. We all know that adoption is an emotional and demanding process for those involved. Unfortunately, lots of things can go wrong if those conducting the family study and going through the adoption process do not pay sufficient attention to certain aspects.

I worked for an authority that used a private social worker, but the report that came before the adoption panel was found to have a great many gaps and other problems. As a result, the social worker had to return to the family and go through the process again in greater detail. That was an extra source of stress, but it had nothing to do with the situation of the prospective adoptive parents.

An independent social worker is not in a position to benefit from the supervision, structure and support found in local authorities or adoption agencies. We must also bear in mind that there is no current method of ensuring that independent social workers meet the required standard. There is no accreditation at certain stages—there is nothing other than a recommendation, which may come from another independent social worker, to ensure that they have the relevant experience and expertise to undertake the work.

There are clear benefits to families who want to go for intercountry adoption being assessed by adoption agencies. They are able to take part in the work that is done with other adopters, and they can take part in preparation groups in which important issues are discussed. Although additional work may be necessary, examining the reasons for adoption, the process of adoption and why children need to be adopted has clear benefits.

I was worried to hear the suggestion that the Bill gives local authorities a new function. That is clearly not the case. There are couples now, as there have been in previous years, going through the process of intercountry adoption. At the local authority where I used to work, we had a very bad experience involving an independent social worker, and we took the decision that in future all intercountry adoptions would be done by in-house social workers, so that support and training forums could be provided and we could ensure that prospective adopters did not suffer the extra stress of an inadequate report.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Does the hon. Lady accept that under my amendment, a fully qualified social worker would have to be approved by the local authority? That approval could be withdrawn, and in cases such as the one that she encountered when she was a social worker, in which the local authority was not happy with the work done, approval would be withdrawn and there would be no more work from that private social worker.

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

The hon. Gentleman is suggesting an additional process and an additional set of regulations that do not currently exist for local authorities. There is no process whereby a social worker is approved to carry out a certain piece of work. Clearly there are circumstances in which social work departments subcontract certain pieces of work: they generally do so on the basis of some knowledge and experience. However, in the field adoption, that is risky. If problems with a home study subsequently arise and a couple feels that their situation has not been properly dealt with, the position becomes much more complex. The risk is simply too great. I have explored the upside in some detail, so I will not repeat myself, but there are clear benefits for prospective adopters if they go through the process of training and support with other people who will adopt children from this country.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am following the hon. Lady's comments closely and they appear to contain a contradiction. She said earlier that we should not treat as the norm the few tragic examples of cases that have gone wrong. We agree. However, she has just used the example of a case at the authority where she formerly worked. That case involved an independent social worker and went wrong, and on the basis of that one case, the authority took the decision not to employ any independent social workers for any of its work. That seems a strange generalisation to have made. Is it not incumbent on that authority and on every other properly to vet any social workers who are not on the payroll to whom work is contracted out, just as it is incumbent on that department to vet its own people?

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

The local authority needs to safeguard prospective adopters and children. The experience of that case was so traumatic for everybody involved that the local authority decided that it would not take such a risk again. The number of intercountry adoptions dealt with by each local authority is relatively small. I am suggesting that it is better and safer to ensure that not only does the social worker have the appropriate support and supervision, but the prospective adopters benefit from the process that other adopters are going through.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the starting point for authorities dealing with adoption agencies should be the precautionary principle? If there is concern about how an agency controls and supervises a case, the authorities must be cautious and take the safe option. The proposal by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk has some attraction, but the interests of children and prospective families must be put first. If there is concern about how best to control and supervise a case, the authority's duty is to be cautious, not to take risks.

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

I entirely agree. Opposition Members recognise that local authorities and social services departments are under great stress. Setting up systems to vet, register and keep an eye on independent social workers will add an extra task to those they already have. The number of agencies in each local authority area is relatively small and the amount of administrative work would be completely out of proportion to the gain. Opposition Members are for ever going on about paperwork being the devil of many local authorities, so I should have thought that they would want to avoid increasing it.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Lady is making a mountain out of a molehill. In some cases, including the John Smith case in my neck of the woods and others that have been mentioned, the fault was with the full-time employees of social services departments. That was rare, but it happened.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The fault is with the parents.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Of course, but weaknesses in the system were down to the pressures on individuals who were employed by the social services departments. Ensuring that one carries out proper checks on one's own people and on outsiders to whom one has contracted work is not a matter of excessive paperwork. Many social services departments and children's departments work as part of much larger consortiums that extend beyond their area. It is perfectly reasonable to ask that checks be made on independent social workers who are indirectly employed by various local authorities that act together.

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

With respect, I return to the same issue. Opposition Members rightly mentioned tragic individual cases, and we had a long discussion about that on Tuesday. Situations that a family finds stressful and distressing may only be a molehill to Opposition Members, but they are clearly a mountain to the people involved and we should not put them at risk.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

We are all interested in doing the best job we can on the Bill. We should bear in mind the plausible and highly sophisticated manner in which many paedophile operations work. If we do not put in place a structure that allows social services departments properly to vet independent social workers, how are we to vet them to ensure that they are fit to do their jobs? There must be a readily accessible and uniform structure across every local authority so that the odd bad egg does not get through. Mine is a simple question, and there might be a simple answer.

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

As I said, there is no regulation and there is no single system. The hon. Gentleman might want to level his criticism at the systems that have been in place in this country for many years. Unfortunately, I have had far too much experience of social workers who should not have been in their positions. I do not disagree with the principle of what he says, but we have to deal with reality.

I have been speaking for far longer than I intended. Having made my points clear, I will let someone else have a go.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am sure that the hon. Lady will not take it the wrong way when I say that she has provoked me into replying to one or two of the points she makes. In some respects, she has misunderstood what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk meant. I know several overseas adopters, one especially well, and it is difficult to exaggerate the hassle and difficulty that many of them have suffered when they have gone to local authorities. To suggest, based on the case she describes, that the problem is all on one side of the equation is to mistake the truth.

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

I fear that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I did not suggest that the problem was all on one side of the equation. We know that many local authorities have been reluctant to take on intercountry adopters, for the good reason that they are trying to place many children for adoption and they naturally want to encourage people to consider adopting a child who is waiting for a prospective adopter in the looked-after system. I do not disagree with that approach. However, the Government are trying to make it easier for people to take up intercountry adoption. Attitudes have changed during the past few years.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I understand that, but I still think that the hon. Lady misses the point. All members of the Committee acknowledge that social services departments are currently extremely short of resources. Even if the Government were to give them an unlimited budget tomorrow, shortages in number of social workers would continue leave them short of resources for a long time. Of course departments have the attitude that she mentioned—they strive to do the best they can for looked-after children, and in those circumstances they do not want to divert resources to intercountry adoption. That is precisely the reason for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk.

If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, what he said should not be terribly controversial. He said that it is the quality of service or regulation applied that is important, not who provides it. No doubt, the Minister will tell him that the amendment is defective because it does not lay down a system for properly checking on the relevant social workers. However, operating some form of check on social workers would require far less local authority time than taking on extra work in adoption and other matters. The cynical truth is that, in practice, local authorities would not be able to take on that work, and it would become even harder to adopt children from overseas.

I have spoken many times on the Floor of the House about my enthusiasm for getting children in care adopted, and I have always supported the Bill. To the best of my memory, this is the first time that I have ever spoken on the subject of intercountry adoption. My concern is for British kids in care, some in institutions but more in fostering placements who are all too often moved rapidly from place to place. However, in a presentation in a Committee Room in another place last year, I heard a lady—I think that she was a noble Lady—describe the testimony of a family that had started an adoption procedure when they discovered a group of babies that had been fed to pigs in a third-world country; I believe that it was Vietnam. An intervention was made in time to recover the last baby before it was eaten. The child has now been adopted and is in this country.

No one has the right to adopt a child, and obviously not all cases are as extreme as the one that I described, but almost every child adopted by a loving family in this country has a much better chance in life than they would have had if they had remained in the circumstances from which they were adopted. The idea that local authorities, which are so overstretched, can resource this practice properly and provide the timely, unstressful and affordable assessments that are needed seems completely unrealistic. The Minister may correct me, but I believe that there will be no other avenue open to intercountry adopters—I think that I saw the Minister nodding.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Not me.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I apologise to the Minister and give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley.

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

I fear that the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of local social services is outdated. Significant changes have been made in intercountry adoption, and guidance has been issued during the past two years. I do not want to over-generalise, but the attitudes in the two local authorities in which I have worked within the past five years was considerably different; there was no delay. The Government have put large additional sums into adoption through the quality protects programme, so that area of work is much better resourced.

I must also point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is no less costly—in fact, I suggest that it would be more costly—to bring in a private social worker, because not only does the local authority have to pay for that out of its own resources, but it has to spend time regulating and checking that social worker's work. I think that the hon. Gentleman is in error.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Some parts of the hon. Lady's intervention—I am as grateful as ever—cover old ground, but I pick up one point. We must not allow confusion. It is and undeniable and extremely welcome truth that the attitude towards adoption in many local authorities has changed for the better. As little as two or three years ago, the league tables showed that only about 10 or 15 per cent. of authorities handled adoption properly. A large proportion of authorities—by no means all, alas, but a much larger proportion—are now doing their best.

That much is undeniable, but the hon. Lady confuses that with the fact that the number of social workers available is shrinking. Two or three years ago, social work departments were overstretched; they are now even more stretched. The extra money that she referred to is extremely welcome, but it is not ring-fenced.

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

Again, I fear that the hon. Gentleman is in error. It is indeed ring-fenced, in expectation that a significant proportion of money from the quality protects grant is spent on adoption. Although it is no doubt true that there has been a loss of social workers generally, adoption is usually an area in which social workers want to work and there is, as a result, no lack of staff.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am not going around the subject again, but whenever I have debated adoption—not only in Westminster, but on the airwaves two or three years ago, in the days when the social work climate was very different—I always came up against the resource argument. Social workers are in even shorter supply now than they were two or three years ago. The proportion of social workers who are fully qualified to deal with children has risen slightly, but it is still a long way short of what is needed. Local authorities will have to handle every case of intercountry adoption, yet many of them are already struggling to deal with the children in their own care.

I wish to make only one other point, because we cannot dwell on this amendment for ever—perhaps an Opposition Whip should not have been the one to say that. There is evidence of a growing and welcome consensus that the quality of a service is much more important than who provides it. The Government's recent announcements on the national health service and the use of private hospitals are a good example. I commend the amendments and look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Several times, Opposition Members have said that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley is missing the point. She is not. Within social work, adoption is a popular field to work in.

The hon. Member for Canterbury spoke about resources and delays within the adoption system. The children and family social workers who are attached to the child are responsible for carrying out assessments. The adoption workers find prospective adopters and suggest a match. The shortages are at the front end—in the children and family sector. Shortages may not be in evidence at at the back end, where the adoption workers are. The proposition that additional private sector social workers will somehow fill a gap is simply false.

Local authorities can use private sector social workers in specific circumstances—to undertake child-focused or therapeutic work, for example. They can do so now and will continue to do so. Crucial aspects of a good adoption procedure are security of information and a good supervisory regime, so that social workers undertaking home visits have a clearly established professional relationship that is open to scrutiny by an agency. Prospective adopters are being interviewed not by an individual, but by an approved adoption agency or institution. That is the crucial safeguard against collusive relationships. The Kilshaw example shows that that is where the dangers lie.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

If the hon. Gentleman's first point about the absence of resource constraints on adoption workers is correct, he has reached the heart of a party political divide—probably the first we have seen in this Committee—in saying that the social services department rather than an individual makes the choice.

The Committee had to accept earlier that private fostering could not be regulated. Yet, as my own constituency shows, huge numbers of schoolchildren can stay in this country with families whose members have been revealed by random police checks to include abusers or criminals. Why, then, should individuals who wish to provide homes for these children not be subject to a properly qualified social worker of their choice?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about private foster carers. I am on record as having spoken about that issue time and again, and I hope that we can debate it in greater detail later in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister agrees, so before I make myself unpopular again, I shall move on.

The crucial matter is supervision and security of assessment. It is not an ideological issue: I am comfortable with the concept of private adoption agencies. It is not a case of private and public, good and bad. When a home visit assessment is undertaken, the atmosphere is understandably emotional. A couple may be desperate for a child that they were not able to conceive naturally; that is sad and painful, but it is part of the atmosphere. If the person who makes the assessment is not subject to checks, balances, reviews and peer supervision, a dangerous collusive relationship may arise. Social work is not a pure science: much of social work and working with children takes place in a world of grey areas, but the best possible assessment must be made.

I support the Government, although I have tabled amendments when I did not support them. In my experience, adoption is not about recruitment. It is important that assessments are carried out by people who are subject to checks and balances. Because of the importance of supervision, the Government are right to take a precautionary line. I agree that other people could provide a service, but precaution is the important guiding principle. The amendments should be rejected.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Although I do not accept his point about resources, I have the highest respect for the hon. Gentleman, whose argument is entirely consistent. The Minister recognises, although the hon. Gentleman does not, that it is impossible to regulate private fostering. How is it consistent to confine people who want to offer a permanent home to people from overseas by using such a heavy-handed approach? We have a completely open approach in respect of a range of other families who have foreign children in their homes, whether through fostering or hosting the thousands of visits every year by schoolchildren.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

The hon. Gentleman is losing the argument. He lost the argument on recruitment and on the quality of security of assessment and now he says that private fostering is impossible to regulate. I do not believe that it is, and neither do the Association of Directors of Social Services, Sir William Utting and Lord Laming. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we can take risks in one case so we can do so in another, my response is that two wrongs do not make a right.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that being part of the local authority or adoption agency system rather than being assessed by an independent social worker means that applicants are automatically hooked into a range of services and support, from initial training to adoption support and post-adoption services?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Bringing prospective adopters into the system is good because of the support that they receive; they are able to discuss their experiences with other prospective adopters. Furthermore, it creates another check and balance on the social worker.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

We have moved into the field of fiction. We will discuss those points in the debate on new clause 3.

People who adopt from abroad do not usually get any post-adoption services at all—that is the most frequent complaint that we hear from them. I hope that we will have the hon. Gentleman's support for our new clause 3, whereby we propose to introduce some plans in that respect.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

The hon. Gentleman has introduced another factor to try to justify the amendments, but they are all toppling over, one by one. He uses an emotive and horrific example about children and pigs, but such cases are not the majority, nor does it follow that independent social workers will provide solutions for all children in such dreadful circumstances.

We need to ensure a safe, secure system. It is important for both prospective adopters and social workers that they have support and supervision. In that way we ensure quality and further the child's best interests, which underpin the Bill.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The debate has been greatly assisted by the expertise of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley and for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). They have enabled us to extract from the debate the key issues and the confusion in the Opposition's approach to the amendment. The Opposition have oversimplified the problems that arise when completely independent social workers are able to carry out what are, in effect, private home studies. I will come to the legislative position on that shortly.

My hon. Friends' eloquent arguments caused the Opposition to retreat from the position that I thought the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk took at the beginning—that there should be a return to the ability to offer a private home study, although there should be some notion of approval, the details of which were not clear. However, under pressure, Opposition Members suggested instead that they were talking about the ability for social services departments or other adoption agencies to be able to call on the resource—well approved—that might be provided by an independent social worker.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister heard me refer to the ideological divide between whether the social services department or the individual potential adopters make the choice, subject to the social worker being properly qualified.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman highlights the other important division that has emerged in the debate, which is whether the assessment of prospective adopters should be for the convenience and the use of the prospective adopters, or for the child. Talking about prospective adopters choosing who is appropriate to assess them is to depart from the notion that, in assisting prospective adopters, we are trying to ensure that the best interests of the child are safeguarded in that potential placement.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk suggested that the Bill changes the law in respect of independent social workers ability to conduct home studies. He is wrong. The provision was in the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, so it has already been debated and agreed by this House. Private social workers have not been able to carry out private home studies since 31 January 2000, when section 13 of the 1999 Act was brought into effect. It is worth reminding ourselves why the House decided that that was right.

Private home studies have been criticised for several reasons, not only because of a few highly publicised cases, as some Opposition Members have suggested. There were tragic cases that should not have been allowed to occur, but they are not the sole reason why private home studies were wrong. Other reasons include the fact that individuals carrying them out were not required to have qualifications or experience. They could not obtain police checks on prospective adopters or other adult members of the household. They did not receive information from the local authority on previous contact with social services, and they could not obtain impartial medical advice.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, no peer review or management arrangements oversaw the work of the assessors, and cases could not be considered on their merits by an adoption panel or separate decision-making body. In one instance, a person who was in the direct employ of the adopters acted as judge and jury. Those overwhelming disadvantages of private home studies rightly determined the decision made in the 1999 Act.

It has been suggested that we should allow independent activity because local authorities are not properly supporting those undertaking intercountry adoptions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley said, that has changed. A local authority circular issued by my Department in 1998 encouraged local authorities to establish an intercountry adoption service. That became a statutory duty with the implementation of section 9 of the 1990 Act on 30 April. The Department of Health provides help and assistance to people carrying out intercountry adoptions by contacting and sending papers to overseas authorities, and informing prospective adopters of progress.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk suggested that the justification for the clause was based on the recruitment and morale of social workers. The Committee shares the concern that we should recruit sufficient social workers and maintain their morale. In the vast majority of cases, social workers do an excellent job in transforming children's lives. Extra resources must go into social services departments—since 1996-96, we have increased resources to social services by 20 per cent. in real terms, and we must maintain that investment. At the risk of bringing party political discord into the Committee, I contrast that figure with the less than 0.5 per cent. increase a year under the previous Government and the fact that the Conservative party has been unwilling to say whether it would match the Government's investment in social services.

We have already addressed recruitment by launching a campaign, which I hope that hon. Members have seen in magazines and newspapers. We have received more than 12,000 responses and we are investing in training to ensure that we recruit vital people into social work.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

In the aftermath of the Victoria Climbie and Lauren Wright cases, which produced much ignorant reporting from the tabloid press, how would the Minister and her Department refute their claims and rebuild the esteem of social workers?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am not sure that that is in the amendment's remit, but I agree that it is an important task. On the Lauren Wright case, I said that, although the system had failed, social workers carried out an important function. I stated what I said earlier: the vast majority do a fantastic job and turn around the lives of some of the most vulnerable in society. That is why we are investing in the recruitment campaign and increased levels of training. We will continue to support and build morale in social work and the social care work force, both by the injection of extra resources and other initiatives. There is no disagreement about the need to recruit and retain more social workers, although we might disagree about whether to invest money in doing that.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

There has been much talk about quality protects money and ring-fencing for adoption services. Will the Minister confirm that adoption funding will no longer be ring-fenced from 2002-03 and that other parts of social services departments will therefore be able to use it for other reasons?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

No. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley rightly pointed out, the money for adoption has been through the quality protects grant route and, although it is not in the quality protects grant ring fence for adoption, it is nevertheless covered by the provision that it must be spent on children's services. More importantly, the Department's monitoring of the quality protects expenditure requires evidence of the outcomes, improvements and use to which the extra Government investment in adoption has been put.

Liz Blackman (Labour, Erewash)

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why we are setting ambitious targets for local authorities to get more looked-after children into good, caring adoptive families, and that that will drive the process and resources in the right direction?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which resonates with what local authorities told us. They mentioned the need to move away from monitoring inputs and believing that ring-fencing always delivers results, to a position in which we fund social services properly and significantly, and monitor outcomes and local authorities' delivery.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Although I strongly support that point, there is a parallel point to be made on overseas adoptions, which brings the debate back to the amendment. With all the Minister's assurances—her answer to my hon. Friend's question was yes—does she expect the current, extremely low level of overseas adoptions to stay the same, increase or decrease over the next few years?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am not sure that my answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was yes. The record will show my answer, rather than the hon. Member for Canterbury. It is difficult to give an answer to his question, but the trend is towards increasing intercountry adoptions, and that is likely to continue. That is why the need to provide intercountry adoption services has become a statutory duty and why we will be able to reassure hon. Members that those support services will be in place when we reach the relevant discussion.

The Opposition's argument seems to be that local authorities should be able, within the provisos set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, to use in appropriate circumstances independent social workers who, given the support that comes from the context of a local authority, could carry out appropriate assessments. That is not the point of the Opposition's amendment, but the position into which they seem to have been pushed in debate. Authorities may do that, as is highlighted in our regulations and guidance on intercountry adoption.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr.Llwyd) asked how we vet independent social workers. I shall deal with that general point in a moment.

Local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies contracting with independent social workers should check on their experience and qualifications in line with regulation 6(3) of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983, which requires all agencies to satisfy themselves that social work staff have such experience and such qualifications as appropriate to the work. It is also, of course, a matter of good administrative practice. However, Opposition Members are not arguing that independent social workers could be contracted to carry out the work under the regulations; rather, they want to reinstate private home studies and give people the ability to choose—and presumably pay for—an independent social worker.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Minister is absolutely right to remind me that I was referring to the position before the Oaten private Member's Bill. However, the amendment makes it clear that we are not returning to the pre-Oaten context when a private home study could be done by an independent social worker. It clearly specifies a qualified social worker approved by the local authorities. The Minister has just confirmed that local authorities can contract with the relevant skilled and qualified personnel: I am simply saying that ''agency'' can be included as well. The amendment would simply make that crystal clear in the Bill.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Conservative Members have reined back on what I thought they were suggesting. In that case, given all the provisos that I have rightly stipulated, the hon. Gentleman's amendment may be unnecessary because local authorities can already do that. If the amendment means more than that, it could work against the safeguards that we want to put in place for children. Clause 88 makes it clear that only adoption agencies and those acting under High Court order may arrange adoptions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley right pointed out, that is because we must be able to regulate the assessment and approval process and ensure that all the necessary information and advice—including independent medical advice and access to enhanced police checks—is made available to those carrying out home studies. That is essential to achieving our aim of protecting all vulnerable children, living within or outside the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy mentioned the absence of a mechanism for approving social workers, though I was unsure whether he said that in support of the Conservative amendment. That is indeed a problem in the regulation of social workers. In 2002-03 the General Social Care Council, set up by the Government to overcome the problem, will begin to register qualified social workers. Given the different aspects of social work, however, we cannot guarantee that a social worker has the requisite skills and experience to work with children or in adoption services.

Through clause 88, the Bill provides the safeguard of ensuring that only local authorities or voluntary adoption agencies specialising in intercountry adoption can carry out these provisions, including the contracting to carry out home studies. That is the appropriate way of safeguarding children and placing them at the centre of the adoption process.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying various points. I referred to independent social workers and wonder whether they can form a new agency. If so, how will they be constituted and approved? I am not clear about that; perhaps it will be in the regulations.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am sorry for not addressing the hon. Gentleman's point. Private social workers who wish to band together to create an adoption agency would have to meet the usual requirements for establishing a voluntary adoption agency and would have to register with the social services inspectorate or, in the future, with the National Care Standards Commission to ensure that the structures, support, peer review, scrutiny and supervision are in place to enable the safeguards to work properly.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

That is important, and I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point. What would the local authority's involvement be if couples or single people who wished to adopt from abroad went through an agency?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As I said, clause 88 stipulates who can make arrangements for adoption and carry out home assessments. A couple could adopt through a voluntary adoption agency that was registered or allowed to do intercountry adoption work. I understand that there are four such agencies. In those circumstances, the provisions that I said do not come with a private home study—the placement, the adoption panel and other provisions—would be necessary. I do not believe that there would be any need for recourse to a local authority, given the safeguards that are in place for voluntary adoption agencies.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am pleased to hear that, but we still have a problem. The Minister made it crystal clear that it is the Department's intention to encourage local authorities to use the pool of skilled independent social workers. However, as I am still keen to have that put in the Bill, I will not withdraw my amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 158, in page 43, line 37, at end insert—

''(5) Where the adoption agency described in subsection (4) is not the local authority in which the British resident resides, the agency shall inform that local authority that an application under subsection (4)(a) has been made, so that the duties imposed on the local authority under section (Provision of adoption support services for children brought into the United Kingdom) may be exercised.''.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment No. 22, in clause 3, page 3, line 37, at end insert—

''(c) must extend to the provision of services covering intercountry adoption.''.

New clause 3— Provision of adoption support services for children brought into the United Kingdom—

''(1) In relation to a child brought into the United Kingdom for adoption where section 80 applies, each local authority must, at the request of—

(a) the adopters or prospective adopters,

(b) the child, or

(c) any other person who falls within a description prescribed by regulations made under subsection (3)

carry out an assessment of that person's needs for adoption support services.

(2) Where, as a result of an assessment, a local authority decides that a person has needs for adoption support services under this section, they must then provide such services to that person.

(3) Regulations—

(a) shall prescribe the upper limit of any fees charged by a local authority to any person who engages in the actions described in section 80, in relation to those actions,

(b) may prescribe the persons to be included within subsection 1(c).''.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Amendment No. 158 would add another subsection (5) to clause 80; it provides that when an overseas adoption takes place in one local authority, and the parents adopting are in another local authority, the support mechanisms must be in place and the local authority in question must inform the other local authority.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will speak to new clause 3; I shall mention it briefly and speak to amendment No. 22, which affects clause 3. New clause 3 would make it crystal clear that in clause 3(3) the adoption and post-adoption arrangements must extend to the provision of services covering intercountry adoption. I want the Bill to include a requirement that couples or individuals who adopt from abroad will have the appropriate support. That is not in clause 3 as drafted, and I should be grateful if the Minister will explain why, or agree to accept the sensible new clause.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am mindful that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will speak at length to new clause 3.

One great fault in the present situation is the huge variation in the availability and quality of adoption services. It is almost like postcode prescribing, which means that the availability of drugs depends on where one lives in the United Kingdom. An underlying theme of the Bill, much of which I welcome, is its attempt to create a uniformity of good practice and service. The upper limit on fees charged by local authorities in new clause 3(3) is most welcome because—I find it incredible—fees vary between £5,000 and £16,000, depending on the local authority where one resides. It is unsatisfactory that there should be such a wide variation, and a uniform approach is needed.

Whether it is an intercountry or a domestic adoption, people should be able to build into the equation the exact figure that they will have to lay out for the adoption services. A system that allows variations from £5,000 to £16,000, depending on where one resides, is inequitable and unfair and I hope that if the Government cannot accept the new clause they will give a proper response to that huge divergence, which creates unfairness in many areas.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful to the Clerk for helping me to draft new clause 3 so that it can be included in this section of the Bill. It is relevant to intercountry adoption but it specifies matters relevant to adoption services and home studies, which would normally come under clauses 2 to 16, which we shall discuss next week. I want to talk in broad terms about the reasons behind the specific provisions in the new clause and some of the general problems of intercountry adoption.

I welcome the fact that the Minister said that intercountry adoption was an extremely valuable placement choice, but as I said about an earlier clause, that is not necessarily the impression gained by people outside the House. Other hon. Members will also have received a submission to the Committee from the North American Connection, a group involved in adoption between the UK and the United States. The group's comments echo some of the remarks from other practitioners in the field. The submission, from Cynthia Carnegie, the chairman of the group, states:

''We are, however, concerned about the attitude towards intercountry adoption that this Bill conveys and the tone used by several MPs during the Bill's second reading. There is little in this Bill to encourage intercountry adopters in the belief that their choice is 'government-approved', despite the declared desire of the Government to ratify the Hague Convention and despite provisions that compel Local Authorities to provide home studies for such prospective adopters. Instead, the broad message that it sends is that such adopters are underhanded, suspicious people, who would only exploit children.''

I am sure that is not the case but it is a perception that has been created and we need to tackle it.

The numbers also bear out some of the suspicions in Cynthia Carnegie's submission. Some 25,000 international adoptions take place every year, the vast majority of which—15,000-odd—are in the United States. In France, a country with a population comparable to our own, the figure is 3,600; in Norway, which has a population of 4 million, the figure is 600, yet the number of applications for intercountry adoptions in this country is between 300 and 350. There seems to be a disproportionate difference between our record on intercountry adoption and that of other countries, many of which are close to us. The figures do not bear out the Minister's suggestion that intercountry adoption is favoured as an extremely valuable placement choice by the Government or anyone else.

The terms of the draft regulations for implementing the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 cast doubt on the seriousness of the Government or the system to promote intercountry adoption. Paragraph 29 of the costs and benefits section of the draft regulations states:

''There will also be some small additional burdens placed on local government''—

it is in order to promote intercountry adoption—

''and it may be difficult to build the capacity needed to deliver the service required. Overall most additional costs are expected to be minimal and are likely to be met by prospective adopters.''

Paragraph 32 states:

''The Bill also allows for the review of the designated list. It has always been the policy intention to review the designated list once the UK had ratified the Hague Convention. However, it has become clear that this cannot happen without changes in the primary legislation as the removal of a country from the list would automatically remove recognition of adoptions made prior to the review of the designated list. This would then undermine the status of children (and adults) adopted in the past from countries included on the list and would not be acceptable.''

We shall come to that matter in the clause. There is a question mark over funding and the capacity of adoption agencies to cope with any great expansion of intercountry adoptions.

As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said, adoption agencies have highlighted the problems of complexity and cost of home study assessments, and the lack of adoption support services available to people who bring in children from abroad for adoption.

The Bill helpfully makes it clear that local authorities must provide home studies. It continues to allow the payment of fees for that service, which is understandable. The problem is that home study assessments can cost as much as £6,000 in some areas. In West Sussex, my local authority, the charge is £1,750. In neighbouring Surrey, it is zero. Childlink, a voluntary adoption society in London, charges £4,000. On top of that, there are legal fees and fees for other professional services.

Even if the Government are unwilling to waive the fee system, surely it would be fair to cap that cost. As the hon. Gentleman said, there is an enormous divergence in the amount of money charged, depending on where one happens to live. Although it is not supposed to be the case, those fees could, to some eyes, be liable to an interpretation of profiteering. There is also no real provision for help or advice beyond the home study.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I know that a response is due from the Minister on profiteering. The hon. Gentleman is right. What external evaluation is there of an authority's costs? Is there a body that decides whether such costs are reasonable in the circumstances, and is there some substance to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there is an element of profiteering?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful for that intervention. Although I am not suggesting that there is some sort of racket, if a certain authority charges £1,000 and a neighbouring authority charges £2,000, unless it is a loss leader in every social services department that provides that service, certain local authorities will obviously make a profit from it. After all, the overhead costs of providing the home study assessment cannot be greatly different for each local authority, even if they are at opposite ends of the country.

That profit will no doubt be used to offset other parts of the social services budget, which may seem perfectly reasonable. However, the person who loses out is the prospective adopter who needs to be encouraged, as we all agree. It seems very unfair that there should be a postcode lottery on charging for the service. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister how that service is regulated, because it appears not to be. The Government need to consider the different charging structures that exist up and down the country.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

That is market forces.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Gentleman is a strange convert to market forces, and I cannot see what great market forces operate between Surrey and West Sussex to justify such a large differential in the cost charge.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.