Adoption and Children Bill

Public Bill Committee, 11 December 2001.

Special Standing Committee

Clause 81 - Giving parental responsibility prior to adoption abroad

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 161, in page 44, line 27, leave out 'at all times'.

The clause is one of several that deal with intercountry adoption, a subject in which I have taken an interest for some years. Not only was I a Front-Bencher when the House debated the Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001, which legislation had some relevance to intercountry adoptions, but I have some personal experience of those who have—not without considerable heartache—gone through the procedure.

It is with such heartache in mind that I move the amendment. Clause 81(4) states:

''An application for an order under this section may not be made unless at all times during the preceding 10 weeks the child's home was with the applicant or, in the case of an application by a married couple, both of them.''

That phrasing is overly prescriptive and pedantic. I can see the basic idea behind the provision, which is that the child should know the prospective adopters and should have spent some 10 weeks in their home. The problem is the phrase ''at all times''. I have looked through the Hague convention and cannot find in it anything that is so prescriptive.

I put it to the Committee that if a legal challenge or contest were mounted, a clever lawyer might be able to scupper a perfectly legitimate adoption on the ground that, for example, the child had visited another relative during the qualifying period. We must at all times remember that some people's motives may not always be to further the best interests of the child and that they might seek to undermine an adoption procedure by arguing that, in the strict legal sense, the child had not ''at all times'' during those 10 weeks been with the applicant—or applicants: if the application is made by a married couple, the child should have been with ''both of them''. I foresee lawyers getting out notebooks and asking people whether they were together ''at all times'' with the child during the qualifying period.

The words ''at all times'' are superfluous to the basic thrust of the clause, which is headed ''Giving parental responsibility prior to adoption abroad''. The Committee should consider deleting those three little words because of the pain and grief they might cause to prospective adopters or to a child who feels that its

home has been with the applicant or applicants for the preceding 10 weeks only to be told that, in fact, it has not been with them ''at all times'' because it has been away for a couple of days.

The amendment is common sense. The clause is pedantic and overly prescriptive and the words ''at all times'' should be deleted.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Stevenson.

We are continuing our consideration of the clauses that deal with intercountry adoption. Clause 81 allows the High Court to make an order to transfer parental responsibility for a child to prospective adopters prior to adoption overseas. It replaces section 55 of the Adoption Act 1976. Although it is likely to be used only rarely, it is intended to allow a child from the United Kingdom to be adopted overseas if a court agrees that that is in the child's best interests. It may be used to allow prospective adopters from a Hague convention country to adopt a looked-after child who is assessed to be suitable for overseas adoption in that country. It could also be used when children can no longer live with their birth parents and their best interests are served by adoption by godparents, distant relatives or others who are significant to them and who live outside the British islands.

We must ensure that safeguards are in place and that the provision is not abused or used as a shortcut by those who should go through the usual adoption procedures. An order cannot be made under the clause if the prospective adopters meet domicile or habitual residence requirements that would allow an adoption order to be made in England and Wales. In other words, an order cannot be made if prospective adopters currently live in this country.

Consistent with the rules on adoption—to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter)—the child must have had his home with the prospective adopters for a minimum of 10 weeks prior to the order being applied for; the prospective adopters must also meet any other requirements that are prescribed in regulations. The amendment would remove the phrase ''at all times'' from the requirement that the child should have had its home with the prospective adopters for the preceding 10 weeks. I understand that the hon. Gentleman intends to add clarity, but the amendment would remove clarity from the residency requirements and might thus put children at risk.

Giving the child time to live with the prospective adopters before the order is made will allow a relationship to be built up between child and adults. If the order is made, the child will be taken from familiar surroundings to an entirely new country and culture, so it is important to ensure that the child has the opportunity to form a bond with the prospective adopters and that it accepts the impending move. It is also important that the court is able to satisfy itself that making an order giving all parental responsibility to the prospective adopters is in the child's best interests. That can be done only if it has been possible to observe

the child and the prospective adopters together and confirm that the adults will be able to meet the child's needs.

The phrase ''at all times'' makes it clear that the child should have had his home with the prospective adopters for the previous 10 weeks. That means not that they should have spent 24 hours a day, seven days a week together, but that the child should have been living with the prospective adopters for a full 10 weeks, spending time with them and doing the things that a child would normally do at home, such as eating, sleeping and playing.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I thank the Minister for her interpretation of ''at all times'', but my concern is about how a court might interpret the phrase. Elsewhere in the Bill, the term ''habitually'' is used. Is that not better than ''at all times''?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman, rightly, raises the issue of consistency and refers to other places in the Bill in which ''habitually'' is used. However, the use of ''at all times'' is consistent with section 13 of the 1976 Act, which requires the child to have had his home with the adopters at all times. Obviously, the meaning of the phrase will depend on the facts of the case, but it has not caused problems up to now, and the use of the phrase itself is not unprecedented.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but can only reiterate that we believe that removing the phrase would remove some clarity and might cause disputes about how much of the preceding 10 weeks a child needs to have lived with prospective adopters and when a home is really a home. Casting doubt on those matters would open a loophole that might be exploited and would not be in the child's best interests. I hope that I have allayed his concerns by explaining the interpretation of the phrase and the extent to which it is consistent with other legislation, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I remain concerned. I suggested in my intervention that ''habitually'' might be better than ''at all times''. By deleting ''at all times'', I seek to avoid causing unnecessary suffering to the child or prospective adopters.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. We believe that ''habitually'' has a particular meaning that might not be established within 10 weeks. It tends to mean that more permanent ties have been established in relation to habitual residence, rather than that the people involved are simply living with each other. Ironically, therefore, ''habitually'' might impose a stronger or tighter restriction on the clause than the wording that the Government propose.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I thank the Minister for that intervention. I hope that family lawyers will read the Hansard of our proceedings for definitions of ''at all

times'' and ''habitually''. In the knowledge that lawyers love to pore over such documents, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82 - Restriction on taking children out

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move, amendment No. 162, in page 44, line 38, leave out subsection 1(a).

Having spent last week at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Western European Union, I have drawn the short straw this morning in terms of moving amendments. I am perturbed by the provision that the amendment would delete—a restriction on taking children out. Clause 82(1) refers to:

''A child who—

(a) is a Commonwealth citizen, or

(b) is habitually resident in the United Kingdom,''.

My concern focuses on (a). I thought that in making the new law, particularly in the clauses on intercountry adoption, we were making law for the United Kingdom, not for passing foreigners. To include children who are Commonwealth citizens and who by definition are not habitually resident in the United Kingdom, we are making law for passing foreigners. Why specify a Commonwealth citizen? Why not say a citizen of the European Union or some other definition of passing foreigner?

I looked at the Hague convention and found nothing to say that the provision was one that we should be making. In fact, the provision seems to be contrary to article 14 of the convention, headed ''Procedural requirements in intercountry adoption'', which states:

''Persons habitually resident in a Contracting State, who wish to adopt a child habitually resident in another Contracting State, shall apply to the Central Authority in the State of their habitual residence.''

I thought that meant that the United Kingdom could not authorise the adoption of a child who was a citizen of another Commonwealth country or who was habitually resident in another Commonwealth country, unless by acting in contravention of the Hague convention. I do not imagine that it was the intention of the Minister or of those who drafted the Bill that we should contravene that convention.

The Bill contains a dog's breakfast of geographical restrictions; this is reflected in some of the Opposition amendments. It refers sometimes to ''the British Islands'', sometimes to England and Wales, sometimes to the United Kingdom—and sometimes I am confused about exactly what it means.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I, too, am confused and have tabled some amendments. ''The British Islands'' includes, historically, the Republic of Ireland, although we now prefer to talk about ''these islands''. Some believe that the ''United Kingdom'' includes the Isle of Man and the Channel

Islands, whereas others do not. Does my hon. Friend consider the expression ''United Kingdom'' to include those three island groups?

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is an attempt elsewhere in the Bill to suggest that when reference is made to the United Kingdom, that includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. However, in other places the term ''the British Islands'' is used. From the way in which it is expressed in the Bill and on the basis that we cannot make law for another sovereign state—the Republic of Ireland—I assume that phrase to mean, the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

I am concerned that we have picked on another group of sovereign states and sought to include their citizens in the Bill's ambit. There does not seem to be any reason for picking states that are members of the Commonwealth, other than our historical associations with such states. We have more contemporary associations with children who are citizens of European Union member states or of the Irish Republic, but they will not be covered by the clause.

My argument in favour of removing subsection (1)(a) is expressed most forcefully by reference to the clause's inconsistency. Not only is there inconsistency between the geographical definitions that appear in the Bill, but article 14 of the Hague convention seems to preclude us from including such a provision based on the criterion that a child is a Commonwealth citizen. Of course we can impose the restriction contained in clause 82 in respect of a child who is habitually resident in the UK, but we are treading on dangerous ground in international law if we try to contravene article 14 of the Hague convention and widen our jurisdiction to children who happen to be Commonwealth citizens and happen to be in the UK or are under the jurisdiction of a British court at the time.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

What if a country's membership of the Commonwealth is suspended after the legislation has come into force? Would such a country be covered by the legislation—for example, would the Bill apply to a citizen of Pakistan, which is currently suspended?

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

My hon. Friend poses an interesting question. I have no doubt that there would be an interesting debate in a court's consideration of a case centering on the status of a citizen of a Commonwealth country that had been suspended from the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth is an association of countries, some former dominions of the British empire and some former colonies. Some retain the status of British overseas territories, for which responsibility rests with the British Government, and in latter years some have chosen to join the Commonwealth having had no previous imperial associations with the UK or Great Britain.

I have explained how the subsection is inconsistent. I believe that the clause flies in the face of our international obligations under the Hague convention and I therefore ask the Committee to accept the amendment.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We seem to be getting bogged down in clause 82, so perhaps I should clarify its purpose. Clause 82 is not about citizenship or which sort of people it would be possible to make adoption orders for in this country. It imposes restrictions on removing children for adoptions in other countries, whether convention adoptions or others. Our debate focuses on which children should be protected under the restrictions that the clause imposes on taking children out of the country for the purpose of adoption.

Clause 82 ensures that children who are either Commonwealth citizens or habitually resident in the UK cannot be taken out of the UK for the purposes of adoption unless those involved meet certain conditions. Those conditions are that the proposed adopters are parents, guardians, relatives or step-parents of the child, or that they have obtained a court order under clause 81—which sets out the process for transferring parental responsibility—so that they may adopt the child in their state of origin.

The clause replicates and strengthens section 56 of the Adoption Act 1976. Specifically, it adds protections for those children resident in the UK who are not Commonwealth citizens. In other words, section 56 of the 1976 Act already protects Commonwealth citizens. I do not want to be mischievous, but it is unclear to me whether it is now the official Opposition view that citizens of the Commonwealth should be reclassified as ''passing foreigners''. It seems disrespectful of the nature of the commitment that we owe to citizens of the Commonwealth to categorise them in such a way.

The clause also ensures that it is not possible to avoid being guilty of an offence by arranging for someone else to remove the child from the country. Anyone removing the child from the UK would be caught by the restrictions, as would those who arranged or negotiated for the child to be removed, and the person who ultimately adopted the child.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I was conscious of the Minister's disapproval when I spoke of Commonwealth citizens as though they were passing foreigners—it was meant lightheartedly. I am concerned about why that particular group has been singled out. We have historical links with the Commonwealth, but by a succession of treaties we now have links with citizens of the European Union. Perhaps the Minister can help by telling me what sort of child would be a Commonwealth citizen and not habitually resident in the United Kingdom.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am always happy to help the hon. Gentleman, and I was just coming to that point. The use of the terms ''Commonwealth citizen'' and ''habitually resident'' is necessary, for reasons that I will explain, to cover people who I suspect even the hon. Gentleman would agree should be protected under the clause.

The amendment would remove the restrictions on removing children who are Commonwealth citizens from the UK for the purposes of adoption. That would remove a protection that currently exists under the 1976 Act and might put at risk some children who are

in the UK but who are not considered to be habitually resident here. A British citizen who is not habitually resident in the UK would be protected by clause 82 without the use of the term ''Commonwealth citizen''—that was the reason for its inclusion in the 1976 Act.

The term ''Commonwealth citizen'' includes British citizens, British dependent territories citizens, British nationals overseas, British overseas citizens and other British subjects. That means that a British child who has not been resident in the UK for long enough to be considered habitually resident here would still be protected by the clause. The removal of ''Commonwealth citizen'' would mean that such people would not be protected from removal from the country for adoption overseas.

Given the historic links between the UK and the Commonwealth, we know that many children who are Commonwealth citizens come to the UK for schooling and other purposes. It is important to ensure that once the Bill comes into force they will be, as they are now, afforded protection from being taken overseas by individuals for adoption.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I hear the Minister's definitions of the people who would be in the UK because they are the children of Commonwealth citizens. However, most of her definitions could apply equally to citizens of the EU, who might be here through their rights of free movement within the EU. Why have the Government not included a child who is an EU citizen?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I always enjoy it when Opposition Members argue in favour of our increasing the significance of Europe as opposed to the Commonwealth. I will correct myself if I am wrong, but I suspect that ''European Union citizen'' does not have the legal strength of ''Commonwealth citizen'' and would not imply the protection that we are trying to achieve under clause 82. If the hon. Gentleman were arguing for a shift of focus away from the Commonwealth towards Europe, that would be interesting.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. If the hon. Gentleman were trying to do that, I would put a stop to it quickly.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

You are right to bring us up short, Mr. Stevenson.

I hope that I have made the argument for ''Commonwealth citizen'' being necessary to protect British citizens who would not otherwise be considered habitually resident. I have also explained why the provision continues measures in the 1976 Act and why the Government consider it reasonable to provide the protection in the clause to Commonwealth citizens, given the historical links between the UK and the Commonwealth. For a range of reasons such as medical treatment or schooling, such children could be in the UK and need its protection.

I hope that I have also reassured the Committee that the clause is about restrictions on the removal of children for adoption. It does not have some of the effects on convention adoptions that the hon. Gentleman suggested, so I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

As our discussion of the amendment continued, I became more convinced that the subsection was somewhat outdated. The Minister chided me because I seemed to want less emphasis on the Commonwealth and more on the European Union, but all I want is to make good law and to ensure that the provisions are up to date.

As the Minister will recall, the 1976 Act was brought into force when this country had been a member of the European Community for only three years. Now, almost 30 years later, the European Union has grown in size and importance and the citizens of its member states—I will not stray into calling them EU citizens—have rights of free movement enabling them to live wherever they want in the EU. The Minister's justification for the use of the words ''Commonwealth citizen'' could apply equally to other UK obligations.

I hope that the Minister will entertain the points that I have made, especially the one about article 14 of the Hague convention, which I do not think that she answered. Perhaps later, in another place or on Report, she will feel minded to re-examine my argument that the provision is not only contrary to article 14, but an anomaly given our current treaty obligations to other EU member states. I do not want to force the matter to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83 - Overseas adoptions

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 164, in page 46, line 6, leave out from beginning to first '''regulations''' in line 7.

It is me again. I explained that earlier amendments were intended to remove the possibility of distress and heartache to those who had adopted children or those who had been adopted. Clause 83(2) and the definition it contains cause me concern. It states:

'''Children' includes persons who were children at the time the adoption was applied for''.

That strikes me as an attempt to make law retrospective. Subsection (2) begins:

''The description specified by the order must be a description of adoptions of children which—

(a) appear to the Secretary of State to be effected under the law of any country or territory outside the British Islands,

(b) are not Convention adoptions, and

(c) meet any requirements prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.''

The whole provision is intended to provide definitions.

If, in defining a child over whom some legal jurisdiction is to be brought about under the clause, we say that a person is a child if it was a child when the

adoption was applied for, there might be certain consequences. A child might have been legally adopted after all the relevant procedures were completed, but something might subsequently—after the child had become an adult—be found to have been wrong in the adoption procedure. The court could make a retrospective order under the clause, which could lead to great pain and suffering for the adoptive parents and the child.

If we are to apply the definition to someone who has long since ceased to be a child but who was at the time of the action in question defined as a child, we are on the road to a definition that can bring nothing but pain and suffering to human beings who, in earlier years, have probably been through a traumatic and distressing time. The Bill should define children as the word is commonly understood. It should not redefine it for the purposes for which regulations might be made as though a child was something else—someone who has ceased to be a child but just happens to have been a child at the time when the adoption order was applied for.

The amendment is another attempt to tidy up the Bill for the benefit of those for whom we are legislating. We should not give lawyers or others the opportunity to go back and dig up information that could cause unnecessary pain and suffering.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clause 83 allows the Government to put in place arrangements for recognition in the United Kingdom of adoption orders made overseas. It permits the Secretary of State to make an order specifying the adoption orders to be recognised while protecting the status of those adopted in the past from countries on the old designated list. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out the criteria that must be met by procedures in an overseas country if it is to be included in the list of overseas adoptions to be recognised. The clause allows us to review the list of countries whose adoption orders we recognise, and it allows us to protect the status of those adopted—[Interruption.] I can tell that I have the Committee's absolute attention and that, despite the sounding of the fire alarm, hon. Members are concentrating extremely hard. I shall plough on.

The clause allows us to protect the status of those adopted under the current designated list while we review which countries' orders we should recognise in future. It also allows the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the criteria that must be met by a country's system if it is to be included in the order.

Subsection (2), to which the amendment refers, clearly states that adoption orders can be recognised only when they have been made in respect of a child. The clause provides a definition of children that includes persons who were children when the adoption was applied for to ensure that overseas adoption orders can be recognised if proceedings were started prior to the age of 18 but the adoption order was not made until the child had reached 18.

The hon. Gentleman's concern that the provision might enable decisions to be made retrospectively is misplaced. Rather, the clause makes the recognition of

overseas adoption orders consistent with our practice on the making of domestic adoption orders. Clause 47(5) makes clear that in domestic adoptions

''References . . . to a child, in connection with any proceedings . . . for adoption . . . include a person who has attained the age of 18 years before the proceedings are concluded.''

That is because, although it is important to ensure that applications are made prior to the child reaching adulthood, the court's discretion to carry out checks and schedule hearings should not be fettered by the child's age, nor should a child's best interests be overruled simply because his or her 18th birthday arrives before the proceedings are concluded.

The hon. Gentleman wants to remove the existing definition of children to prevent heartache and difficulties. If the amendment were accepted, the general definition of children in clause 129, which recognises a child as a person who is under 18, would apply. That would remove our ability to recognise an overseas adoption order that was made after the child turned 18 where the application and proceedings had started before they reached that age. That would be inconsistent with current domestic arrangements and is, therefore, unlikely to be in the child's best interests. Not only is the amendment unnecessary, but it might be detrimental to children's interests. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I hear what the Minister says, although I hope that she will forgive me if I was not paying full attention when the fire alarm sounded. She referred to clause 129, which states that

'''child', except where used to express a relationship, means a person who has not attained the age of 18 years''.

The definition of children in clause 83 includes those who were children when adoption was applied for. If my understanding is correct, the Minister is suggesting that it means a better deal for those—I hesitate to use the word ''children''—who are adopted abroad in cases where the adoption procedures are not completed by the time they turn 18. I acknowledge the validity of that point, but I am concerned about the fact that the legal niceties of an adoption procedure that is started in this country or abroad may not be completed before the child reaches the age of 18: in such cases, the child would have reached adulthood and would not in normal circumstances qualify for adoption. That would be relevant to inheritance law, which may require the procedures to be completed even if the child has already reached adulthood.

Let me try to explain why I am still perplexed by one point, although I shall go away and think about it. To turn the clause on its head, people could undermine an adoption, saying, ''We can still challenge this overseas adoption and the procedures in this overseas adoption because the child is older than 18.'' Although the child considered himself adopted, lived with his adopted parents and felt that they were now his family to all intents and purposes, some mischievous person could take a retrospective approach, saying that the child had only just reached the age of 18 and that something was wrong when he was 16 or 17 when the procedure

began. A legitimate adoption could therefore be challenged after the child reached adulthood, which was why I tabled the amendment.

The Minister's explanation of the drafting of the clause and the purposes it serves are acceptable. My only objection is that another person might try to use the definition of children retrospectively to undermine the legitimacy of an adoption on the grounds of something that took place when the child was a child and had to all intents and purposes been adopted, although all the legal niceties had not been completed because it was an overseas adoption. I would not want us to make a law under which a child might find his adoption undermined if all the legal niceties had not been completed. I remain concerned about the use of the definition in other circumstances, because a child who had reached adulthood might feel that his adoption had been undermined, even though it was perfectly legal in his mind and in the minds of the adoptive parents.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman appears to be concerned about the ability under the clause—and, presumably, under the corresponding subsection in clause 47, which puts the same definition on the recognition of an adoption order—for someone to undermine an adoption order made in the relevant circumstances. I am not entirely clear whether that is his objection.

The circumstances that we are discussing are those in which an adoption order is recognised as such. We should allow for circumstances in which the application to adopt starts before the child reaches the age of 18 but is not concluded by the time he reaches 18 and the order is made after his 18th birthday. If we do not define the recognition of an adoption order in the way proposed in the clause for intercountry adoption and in clause 47 for domestic adoption, we risk creating a situation in which, for what might be seen as the arbitrary reason that the child had reached 18—even though all the correct procedures had been followed and the adoption order made—it would be impossible for the adoption order to be recognised, with, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, all the status implications that that would have for the adopted person.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find that helpful.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

The Minister is right to allude to the principal positive reason for including the wording, which relates to the status of the child or adult and is relevant to such issues as inheritance. I am concerned—the Minister alluded to this and referred me to other clauses, such as clause 47, which I am not sure we have considered—that the definition of ''children'' may include someone who has attained the age of 18 and to whom the procedures previously applied but were not concluded. That is fine if the definition is regarded in a positive sense, but I am

concerned that a court, a clever lawyer or someone wishing to cause mischief might regard the wording in a negative sense.

The Minister appears to be amused. I hope that she does not feel that I was trying to cause mischief; I am not. I am trying to ensure that the sense of the clause will not cause any heartache, pain or suffering as a result of someone interpreting it to mean that if an adoption procedure had been undertaken but not technically completed before a child reached 18, the adoption may be open to challenge. That is worrying if one considers the definition from a negative standpoint. I hope that lawyers and others who try to ascertain the meaning of the definition will read the record of our proceedings to understand what we meant by inserting a definition that states:

'''Children' includes persons who were children at the time the adoption was applied for''.

The definition is meant in the positive sense in which the Minister has expressed it and not in the negative sense that has caused me some concern. Having made my point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84 - Modification of section 64 for convention adoptions

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 177, in page 46, line 28, leave out subsection (3).

I shall not detain the Committee for more than a few moments because I am about to move an amendment to the Civil Defence (Grants) Bill in Committee Room 5. It has been a busy morning.

My amendment would remove subsection (3), which is completely superfluous. In the words of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), it is ''otiose''. I believe in trying to keep things as simple as possible and I would be grateful if the Minister would carefully consider my proposal.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am extremely impressed by the multi-skilling that is being demonstrated by Conservative Members. It is a shame that when a party has relatively few Members, they must rush around from Room to Room, but the electorate is to blame for that.

Clause 84 provides for the modification of clause 64 for convention adoptions. It allows the High Court to direct that clause 64(2) should not apply or should apply only to the extent that it so directs. I shall give a little background to explain why the phraseology that the hon. Gentleman wants to remove is necessary.

Clause 64 provides that a child adopted in England and Wales is to be treated in law as not being the child of any person other than the adopters. The clause is necessary under the Hague convention because adoption law in the UK recognises only full adoptions, which sever all legal ties between birth parents and

child and create a new and irrevocable legal relationship between the child and the adoptive parents. That is not the case in all countries. The clause allows any simple adoptions—adoptions that do not constitute a full legal transfer—to be treated in the UK as full adoptions. However, where any issue of status arises and the court considers that it would be more favourable to the interests of the child to treat the adoption as anything other than a full adoption, an application may be made to the High Court so that it may direct that the adoption should no longer be treated as a full adoption.

In some countries, not all adoptions are full adoptions including the severing of all ties with the birth parents. There are several reasons for that: for example, certain religious faiths do not allow children to be adopted in the way that we understand the term in the UK. In those cases, adoptions may take the form of entrustment or simple adoptions, which do not have the effect of severing all legal ties with the birth parents: they may take place in circumstances in which the birth parents want to have contact with the child and that is considered to be in the child's best interests.

Article 26 of the Hague convention provides for the recognition of both full and simple adoptions. Article 27 allows a receiving state to convert a simple adoption into a full adoption if its law so permits and provided that the birth parents and relevant parties under article 4 of the convention have given their consent to full adoption. Where the receiving state is England or Wales, the central authority—the Secretary of State—will ensure that in all cases the birth parents are informed of the effects of a simple adoption in England and Wales and will seek to obtain their consent to a full adoption prior to a convention adoption being made in a country outside the British islands or a convention adoption order being made here.

Where the receiving state is not England or Wales, it is possible that the child might be brought into this country in circumstances in which simple adoptions are recognised both in the state of origin and in the receiving state, so no consent to full adoption has been given. In such cases the procedure under the proposed legislation would be that the adoption would be treated as a full adoption by operation of law, but an application might be made to the High Court in relation to the issue of status where it was considered to be more favourable to the child to treat the adoption otherwise than as a full adoption.

Clause 84 re-enacts provisions in the Adoption Act 1976 which were amended by the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. It provides that where the court considers that it would be more favourable to treat the adoption as anything other than a full adoption, an application may be made to the High Court for directions to be made that mean that the adoption is no longer treated as a full adoption.

The effect of the amendment would not be a simple tidying up, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) asserts. It would remove from clause 84 a definition of full adoption; it would not be clear what was meant by full adoption and there

would be doubt as to the ambit of the clause. The term ''full adoption'' would be open to interpretation, which could lead to inconsistencies or discrepancies in the treatment of different types of adoption. Given my assurances about what I accept is a complex and relatively rarely used provision, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

In the light of the Minister's explanation that there is a good underlying reason for the subsection, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister has alluded to subsection (2)(b). The subject with which it deals is both one to which we might return later and one that we might have touched on earlier had the knife of the programming motion had not come down. Will the Minister consider article 4(c)(2) of the convention, under which

''such persons, institutions and authorities have given their consent freely, in the required legal form, and expressed or evidenced in writing,''.

Will the Minister give the Committee her definition of the term ''freely''? The giving of consent is a bone of contention in UK adoptions, let alone in the more complicated overseas ones, and various bodies have made representations to us to ask what ''freely'' amounts to. A person who is seen to be giving consent freely might later claim that it was given under duress. Is the Minister satisfied that there will not be a challenge to the term ''freely'' as used in article 4 of the convention and subsection (2) of the clause?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am slightly confused about which part of the Bill is under discussion. Was the hon. Gentleman's question free-standing?

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

We are debating clause 84 stand part, and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) seeks clarification of subsection (2) in relation to the Hague convention.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I had jumped ahead. I understand that ''freely'', in the context given by the hon. Gentleman, means that the consent has not been encouraged through the offering of rewards or coerced using force. However, his point about the nature of consent given in such circumstances is important. We had a lengthy discussion on the conditions surrounding the giving and witnessing of consent in relation to domestic adoptions. It might be appropriate for me to write to the hon. Gentleman outlining what similar conditions we would expect to govern consent in relation to intercountry adoptions.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I would be grateful, because the Minister referred to financial inducements, which are already covered by article 4(c)(3) of the convention. To correct her slightly, we did not fully explore the issue of consent freely given to domestic adoption because

of the programming motion. It would be helpful if she provided a definition before we encounter the phrase again.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 85 - Annulment etc. of overseas or Convention adoptions

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 165, in page 46, line 35, leave out subsection (1).

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 166, in page 46, line 40, leave out from 'ground' to 'that' in line 41.

No. 167, in page 47, line 5, leave out 'either of'.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I do not like the clause because it suggests that an overseas or convention adoption can be annulled by the High Court

''on the ground that the adoption is contrary to public policy.''

That would seem to allow the annulment of adoption on political grounds. If all the procedures under the Bill have been followed, it would be cruel to annul an adoption simply on so-called public policy grounds. Amendment No. 166 merely does the same thing as amendment No. 165 in a later subsection, and amendment No. 167 is consequential on those two.

Article 17 of the Hague convention states:

''Any decision in the State of origin that a child should be entrusted to prospective adoptive parents may only be made if—

(a) the Central Authority of that State has ensured that the prospective adoptive parents agree;

(b) the Central Authority of the receiving State has approved such decision, where such approval is required by the law of that State or by the Central Authority of the State of origin;

(c) the Central Authorities of both States have agreed that the adoption may proceed; and

(d) it has been determined, in accordance with Article 5, that the prospective adoptive parents are eligible and suited to adopt and that the child is or will be authorized to enter and reside permanently in the receiving State.''

We must envisage a case in which the central authorities in two states have agreed a convention adoption, but the High Court intervenes and decides that it is contrary to public policy and that on political grounds or grounds of political correctness—I think we intended to avoid that phrase—it does not like the adoption. I am at a loss to know in what circumstances we would not like an adoption.

What really concerns me about the clause is that article 40 of the Hague convention states quite simply:

''No reservation to the Convention shall be permitted.''

However, under the clause,

''The High Court may, on an application under this subsection''

by order annul a convention adoption or adoption order,

''on the ground that the adoption . . . is contrary to public policy''.

Therefore, the United Kingdom, or England and Wales, or the British islands, whichever is relevant under the clause, can annul a convention adoption, even though article 40 states that if all the rules are complied with, the adoption cannot just be moved aside because it is not deemed suitable on political grounds—particularly if the decision has been taken in the light of other articles, such as article 17.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I, too, had noticed the same aspects of the convention, and wondered whether my hon. Friend detected that the Government are rowing back; I gather that although we have signed the convention, we have yet to ratify it, as is the case with the United States and several other countries.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

That is my understanding too. I like to think that when Ministers use the Crown prerogative to sign treaties and conventions, they do so with the full authority of the British people and will not have a problem in ratifying the treaties to bring them into our law. I am concerned that the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 has the convention as a schedule, but it does not specifically include all the convention provisions.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

There is a rather strange anomaly; in other contexts, such as the 1951 convention on asylum, there are huge difficulties because we are told that it is impossible to depart from the wording and from our treaty obligations. Yet apparently, in the context of a Bill on adoption, which deals with some of the most vulnerable people on earth—small children, some of whom may die if they are not adopted, as we have debated—our treaty obligations can simply be brushed aside.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

It does seem that there are circumstances in which we feel that we know better—or, more particularly, the High Court knows better—than those who entered into the convention obligation. I am not a great expert on international law, but, unlike the European convention on human rights, for which there is an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, the ultimate appeal under the Hague convention remains in the hands of the Governments who signed it. Article 42 states:

''The Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law shall at regular intervals convene a Special Commission in order to review the practical operation of the Convention.''

There is no higher authority to which those who feel aggrieved can go. The highest authority in this country—the Bill will give it the power to overturn convention provisions, despite the fact that the convention provides that no reservations should be permitted—will be the High Court. Moreover, annulment could be on political grounds. That is not quite what ''public policy'' means, but it is correct speak for political grounds. If an adoption were found to be unsatisfactory despite the fact that the central authorities in both states had gone through all permitted procedures, and the child had been placed and was living happily with its new adoptive parents, the mighty High Court could still go over the top and

say, ''Ah, no. We are sorry, but this adoption order is null and void; we shall annul it on the grounds of public policy.''

The provision is worrying and nasty. I ask the Committee seriously to consider removing all reference to the annulment of convention adoptions.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman's argument appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the legal definition of public policy. I shall deal with that in a moment.

Clause 85 replaces section 53 of the 1976 Act. It allows the High Court to annul an overseas adoption or a convention adoption order on the ground that it is contrary to public policy. That is provided for in article 24 of the Hague convention, which states:

''The recognition of an adoption may be refused in a Contracting State only if the adoption is manifestly contrary to its public policy, taking into account the best interests of the child.''

In his lengthy speech, the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that the Government would attempt to influence the High Court politically. Not only would that be undesirable; it would probably be impossible.

I shall try to reassure the hon. Gentleman by clarifying the legal position on public policy. First, the test of public policy is a high one, and it is legally defined. It is not a political issue; it is more akin to whether something is acceptable on moral grounds. It is usually considered morally wrong for an individual to benefit from something that offends basic moral principles—for example, if there was evidence that proper procedures had not been followed, that a crime had been committed or that a child had been abused or trafficked. The test is usually used if it would be difficult to justify something happening automatically under the law simply because it usually does so—for instance, to ensure that individuals do not automatically gain financial reward as the result of criminal activities such as murder.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I hope that the Minister will agree that the purpose of a convention on intercountry adoptions is to ensure that such things cannot happen— indeed, the contracting states to the convention have agreed that such procedures will not be permitted. Why, therefore, should one state be allowed to step in and make a judgment on the procedures followed by another?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

One reason, as I have suggested, is that it is allowed for in the Hague convention. The hon. Gentleman is right about the point of the safeguards that the legislation puts in place, and the work that has been undertaken to allow us to ratify the Hague convention, to which I shall return in a moment. All the safeguards and procedures laid down by the Hague convention are designed to prevent activities such as those under debate.

It may interest and reassure the hon. Gentleman to know that it is likely that the provision would be used only in especially difficult cases, so it is unlikely to be used frequently. Indeed, it has never been necessary to use section 53. However, the Committee could surely not imply that it could never foresee circumstances in which it was appropriate to apply to the High Court to

annul an adoption order, given that that is possible under the convention and given the high tests that would have to be passed. If hon. Members genuinely could not think of a situation in which that might be necessary, the argument would have some validity. The clause provides a legal possibility for circumstances that are extremely unlikely, for which high tests would have to be passed, and in which hon. Members might feel that we would want to annul an adoption order.

The order could only be made by the High Court if it could be convinced that to recognise an adoption order would offend basic moral principles. Examples of when an adoption order could be annulled include when the authority that made the order had no jurisdiction to do so, or when full information was not given to the court even if all the procedures had been properly followed and, if it had been, the adoption would not have gone ahead. Also, the provision could be used to ensure that the best interests of a child who had been subject to trafficking or abuse were protected, if that could be done by annulling or refusing to recognise the adoption order.

The amendments would make recognition of adoption orders made under the convention and as overseas adoptions automatic. There would no longer be any opportunity for the order to be overturned, even if that were in the best interests of the child and it was not appropriate for that person to be considered the child of individuals who might have abducted or abused them. As individuals become more mobile and recognition under UK law of adoption orders made outside the British isles becomes more commonplace, it is important that a protection remains for those who have been adopted in circumstances that we would not want to happen or be recognised in the UK.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

The Minister is describing procedures and protections, but those are the ones that we have given to the central authority. Why are we now saying that the central authority that we have set up is not competent, and that we need an extra measure—one that she said had never been used in 25 years—through the High Court?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The central authority is important in relation to the procedures undertaken to carry out the adoption order. My argument remains that it is possible to consider circumstances in which all those procedures had been correctly followed, but it would be morally repugnant for the adoption order to continue to be recognised. It is important to point out that the clause also relates to overseas adoptions that are not made under convention procedures. The amendments could put children's best interests at a disadvantage. Even given the very high test that I outlined, they would make it impossible to overturn an order in exceptional circumstances.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham suggested that the Government might be drawing back from ratifying the Hague convention, but I reassure him that we are not. We are consulting on the regulations and guidance that are necessary to bring into force the provisions of the 1999 Act that will allow

ratification of the convention. We intend to ratify in the spring, after making regulations for England, Wales and Scotland under the Act and regulations for Northern Ireland under the equivalent 2001 Northern Ireland legislation.

Given the reassurance on our commitment to the Hague convention and my other points, I hope that the hon. Member for North Dorset will withdraw the amendment.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

The Minister made a number of interesting points in her deliberations on the amendments. The most interesting was that the provision exists in the Adoption Act 1976 but it has never been used. That is a good reason to question whether we should repeat the phraseology in subsequent legislation, particularly given that we introduced a central authority under the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act to ensure that adoptions fall within the bounds of generally agreed public policy.

I am concerned about the effect that perpetuating the expression in the clause might have on an adoption that is approved by the central authorities in two contracting states—the Minister referred to non-convention states, which I shall mention later—that have agreed to abide by all the provisions of the Hague convention. The High Court could overturn what those competent authorities do, which could lead to all sorts of pain and suffering, particularly on the part of the adopted child. What will we do with a child who has been adopted according to the laws of two member states and is living with its new adopted parents in the United Kingdom? Should we deport it on the ground that the High Court decides that it is contrary to public policy for the parents to have that adopted child in their care? I ask the Minister to think again.

I said that no reservations were permitted under the convention. The Minister cites article 24, which states:

''The recognition of an adoption may be refused in a Contracting State only if the adoption is manifestly''—

that word does not appear in the Bill—

''contrary to its public policy, taking into account the best interests of the child.''

It says that the adoption may be refused, not annulled. The refusal of the adoption would come at a much earlier stage, when the adoption agencies and the competent authorities were involved—

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

If fact, the convention says that the recognition of an adoption may be refused.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

Yes, the Minister is correct. It does say

''the recognition of an adoption''.

However, I feel that the recognition of an adoption, once granted, should not be annulled. If all the legal procedures required in two contracting states to the convention have been gone through to secure that recognition, it seems to me, to use the term in article 24 of the convention, to be ''manifestly'' unfair to the child that they should then be told, ''Your adoption is

contrary is public policy and so you'll have to go back from whence you came.'' I could not contemplate that, and nor, it is clear, could the Minister, because she tells me that the provision has never been used in the 25 years since the passage of the Adoption Act 1976.

The form of words is bad, and I sincerely ask the Minister and her officials to re-examine the provision for annulment of convention adoptions. I would, however, concede that if the adoption is not a convention adoption but an overseas adoption between the United Kingdom and a non-convention country, the High Court might be able to have some say—not in the individual case, but in how the law is interpreted. We have seen many cases of intercountry adoptions conducted in indefensible circumstances. Some kind of legal precedent should be set by the High Court for dealing with such cases when they do not involve two competent authorities as recognised under the Hague convention, but only an authority or agencies in this country.

For non-convention adoptions, input from the High Court might be desirable, but for convention adoptions, the clause goes too far. Because it has never been used, it is, to some extent, irrelevant. It reeks of unnecessary law, granting powers to intervene and overturn a perfectly legitimate adoption for which the correct procedures have been followed, on grounds that, were they valid, would have been considered during those procedures. As I said, I ask the Minister to consider the phrasing of the clause and the powers that it gives to the High Court. On the basis that I am sure that the Minister will re-examine the clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - Section 85: supplementary

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 168, in page 47, line 19, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert 'the United Kingdom'.

The amendment relates to my confusion over the area to which we refer when we make adoption law. I have been here before, and I see that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is present. I do not seek to prevent him from leaving the Room. When we discussed the Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill, we considered what the competent authorities were in England and Wales, in the United Kingdom, in Scotland and in other parts of what are called the British islands—although we are still not entirely sure what that means.

This is a probing amendment. I want to know whether it is logical to disbar courts and other agencies in one part of the United Kingdom—which I still regard as a unitary state—from processing applications from people who are resident in another part.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman make clear his understanding of the United Kingdom? I was enlightened last week on the subjects of the classics and history, and hope to be equally enlightened on the subject of geography.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention. In my understanding, the United Kingdom is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the constituent parts being England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As a consequence of devolution, some powers may have been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales—although the clause refers to England and Wales—some to the Scottish Parliament and some to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I think that that last is currently a valid body, but I am not sure because it goes in and out of validity. My point is a general one. We are, at the end of the day, a country.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The British state is one state, which consists of Scotland, England, Wales and part of Ireland. Those are four countries.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I regard the United Kingdom as a country. If the hon. Gentleman wants to define it as a state as opposed to a country, that is a matter for his judgment. However, I shall continue to refer to it as one country. I say that as someone who is Welsh by birth and regard myself as a Welshman, especially when a rugby match is taking place. For the purposes of legal definition, we are a country. The Bill often refers to the United Kingdom and the British islands—we are not entirely sure what that means, but someone will no doubt enlighten us as we proceed—to England and Wales and occasionally to

''the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any colony''.

We occasionally refer separately to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. I believe that those who seek to interpret the law would be grateful if we tidied up the geographical definitions in the legislation. It will lead to a great deal of confusion on the part of those for whom we are making law if that is not done. Do we really mean, as I have highlighted in the amendment, that

''No application may be made under section 85(1) in respect of an adoption unless immediately before the application is made . . .

(b) the adopter or (in the case of a married couple) both of them, habitually reside in England and Wales''?

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

I am again a little puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Having worked in social services for many years under a great deal of legislation, I know that it is common for some legislation to refer to England and Wales and other legislation—or different parts of the same legislation—to refer to Scotland. In my experience, people generally seem to know what they are supposed to do.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

The hon. Lady is correct that law is often made on the basis that it relates to England and Wales. However, my understanding is that when the Bill is enacted it will say not only that it

''extends to England and Wales only''

but that

''The following extend also to Scotland and Northern Ireland'',

after which there is a list of sections.

The Bill makes provision for territories that are described as ''the British Islands'', and for colonies—I shall come to that in debate of the next amendment—the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The probing amendment seeks consistency from the Minister in application of the law.

I return to the point on which the hon. Lady intervened. Are we saying that if both members of a married couple, or an adopter, do not habitually reside in England and Wales, they are somehow precluded from adopting a child in England and Wales and will have to apply under different provisions in a different jurisdiction within the United Kingdom for an adoption order to be made? It should be possible for those from Scotland, Northern Ireland, England or Wales to adopt children from England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland—wherever they wish to carry out that adoption—without having to think about which jurisdiction they are under.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as someone who was born in Wales, he would find it strange if he were described as having been born in England and Wales? Does he therefore agree that subsection (2)(b), which states that the adopter should be habitually resident in ''England and Wales'', is outdated, and that the term should be replaced with ''England or Wales''?

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting suggestion. I do not feel competent to answer his question. Perhaps the Minister can do so—

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by referring to the amendment. It does not specify ''England or Wales'', but ''England and Wales''. Our debate must abide by the terms of the amendment.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

Thank you, Mr. Stevenson.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The same problem arises for companies that are incorporated in England and Wales. The issue is relevant not only to the Bill, but to the general breadth of our law.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification. It is a matter of fact that all primary legislation for England and Wales is made in the House as primary legislation for England and Wales.

Through my amendment, I seek to draw out some concept of what prospective adoptive parents would think, given boundaries that they might not recognise. They would recognise Scotland and Northern Ireland, of course, and also different county jurisdictions. We are considering the application of adoption procedures in the United Kingdom. I seek the Minister's clarification that the provision will not prevent children from being adopted across internal borders in the UK, and that we can view the UK as a single unitary state.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Although I appreciate what the hon. Member for North Dorset said about references to the United Kingdom, the British isles, England and Wales and so on, I think that I am right to say that the reference in subsection (2) is to the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. There would equally be a Scottish and a Northern Irish jurisdiction. He is right to probe on the subject, but the answer will simply be that the Bill will apply in England and Wales, with parallel Bills in Scotland and the north of Ireland. Wherever a possible adopter resides, he or she will put in train his or her application for adoption under the legislation that applies in that part of the British isles.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We have moved from discussions on Europe to discussions on the nature of the United Kingdom and the British islands. Some Opposition Members seem to want to turn the clock back even beyond the devolution proposals implemented by the Government to a period when the UK was an amalgam with no differences between the legislation in its different parts. I suspect that, if we looked at the history books, we would see that such a time never existed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) pointed out, such differences have not caused significant difficulties so far.

I am a little disappointed that hon. Members are not intimately aware of the provisions of the Interpretation Act 1978, which sets out that the United Kingdom constitutes England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that the British islands are the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I have a bad feeling that we shall return to those definitions in a minute.

Clause 85, as we discussed, allows the High Court to annul an overseas adoption or a convention adoption order on the ground that the adoption is contrary to public policy. Clause 86 specifies that the application for the annulment of overseas adoptions or convention adoption orders should be made in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period. The two clauses replace sections 53 and 54 of the Adoption Act 1976. Those sections apply only to England and Wales but, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy helpfully pointed out, equivalent provisions are made in Scottish and Northern Irish legislation. Orders made under clause 85 would be recognised in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and any equivalent orders made there would be recognised in England and Wales.

The hon. Member for North Dorset expressed concern about the recognition of adoptions in the four countries of the United Kingdom. Under clause 63, adoption orders made in one of the jurisdictions of the British islands are recognised in the other jurisdictions. The amendment would allow an order to be applied for in a court in England and Wales by anyone habitually resident in any part of the UK, rather than anyone habitually resident in England and Wales. That is not consistent with current legislation, nor with the idea of a court's jurisdiction outlined by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. It is not necessary, as anyone habitually resident in Scotland or Northern Ireland could apply to a court in Scotland or

Northern Ireland for the same sort of order. The court's jurisdiction depends on establishing residency or showing that an action has occurred in that country, and that is for the court to decide.

It is important to ensure consistent access to the provisions of clause 85 in any part of the UK, which is what concerned the hon. Member for North Dorset. I hope that I have reassured the Committee that that is possible. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

As I said at the outset, I tabled a probing amendment. The Minister has responded, although not necessarily to my absolute satisfaction. She reiterates that someone habitually resident, let us say, in Scotland cannot apply to a court in England for an adoption order. That is an unfortunate consequence of several historic occurrences, but we cannot rectify it under the Bill. The Minister has given us some helpful definitions, and we can rest reasonably happily now that we know what is meant by the provision—although I would have preferred it if the amendment had been accepted. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87 - Overseas determinations and orders

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 169, in page 47, line 28, leave out 'colony' and insert 'British Overseas Territory.'.

I fear that it is my turn again. The term ''colony'' seemed to be shouting out at me when I read clause 87. In British law, that term obviously goes back quite some time. We are still on the subject of definitions: perhaps we should get them right. If my understanding of procedures in the House is correct, British colonies have not been so named for some time; they have been renamed British overseas territories, and legislation before the House at the moment grants their citizens the right of abode in the United Kingdom.

This is a probing amendment. I am intrigued about why legislation in 2001 still uses the term ''colonies'' to describe what we have correctly renamed British overseas territories. It is a throwback to an earlier time. We do not refer to the Administration of those territories as our colonial Administration, and we are responsible only for their external relations, not their internal government. We should perhaps not continue to incorporate the term ''colony'' in new legislation. I shall be interested in the Minister's response.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

My hon. Friend made an interesting point. The word ''colony'' has disappeared from the lexicon, and we have rightly moved on to use the term ''overseas territories''. My hon. Friend is right to note that a Bill before the House will give the

citizens of our few remaining overseas territories extra rights. I would like it to go further, and I hope that the Government will consider that.

Those issues are relevant to the clause, because the Government's thinking in it has not moved on sufficiently. Now is the logical time to ensure that overseas territories are properly represented in Parliament so that they can invoke legislation such as the Bill. We should move to the system that exists in countries such as France, whose former colonies are now overseas territories and part of la France—

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. I tried to catch the hon. Gentleman's eye, but failed to do so. I think that he knows what I am going to say. I would be most grateful if he stuck to the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

My point is important. If overseas territories were represented in Parliament, they would be able—

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. Yes, but with the greatest respect, we are not debating whether overseas territories should be represented in the House. That should be debated elsewhere. I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I have great respect for your skills as a Chairman, Mr. Stevenson, and I shall endeavour to keep my remarks in order.

Goodness knows what the Government were thinking when they included the word ''colony'' in the Bill. It is a throwback to imperialist thinking, and I was under the impression that we had moved on. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset is right that the word sends entirely the wrong signals. It is not only clumsy drafting, but a basic mistake.

Conservative Members feel strongly about the issue because we feel strongly about our overseas territories, which we do not want to insult or patronise. We feel strongly that they have much to offer, particularly now that we are left with a hard core of such territories. Once, there were big questions about Hong Kong's future as a dependent territory and about whether part of it would remain with Britain ad infinitum or whether all of it would move back to China under the terms of the lease. However, that is history, and we are left with 14 overseas territories. To call them colonies, as the Bill does, is insulting. It is patronising and it sends completely the wrong signals. I urge the Minister to support the amendment.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Member for North Dorset has probed long and hard this morning, and he has finally hit the jackpot. Clause 87 allows for the recognition of a decision made by an authority in a country that has ratified the 1993 Hague convention or in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any colony where it has the power to decide that an adoption order should be revoked or annulled. If an authority in one of the specified countries decides that a convention adoption should be either annulled or confirmed, that decision will have effect in England and Wales also. The hon. Gentleman's amendment seeks to replace the word ''colony'' with the phrase ''British Overseas

Territory''. He is right; the British Overseas Territories Bill is going through Parliament. We believe that the clause should be amended to take account of the terms used in that Bill. We shall consider what drafting change will be most appropriate and will table an amendment on Report.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am lost for words. I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that, although my relatively straightforward wording is not immediately acceptable, a similar form of words will be introduced as a Government amendment on Report. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Subsection (2) states:

''If the authority makes a determination in the exercise of that power, the determination is to have effect for the purpose of effecting, confirming or terminating the adoption in question or, as the case may be, confirming its termination.''

I am not sure that that wording is as sharp as it could be—we considered tabling an amendment to make it more logical. Does the Minister agree that it does not flow very well, especially in the last line? Is it really necessary to repeat ''confirming its termination''? As she knows, I believe in trying to keep things simple, straightforward and logical. It could be that such wording is required in order to make sure that the law stands up. Will she comment on that?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The clause, as I have said, allows for the recognition of a decision made by an authority in a country that has ratified the 1993 Hague convention or in the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or overseas territory where it has the power to decide that an adoption order should be revoked or annulled. Therefore, if an authority in one of the specified countries decides that a convention adoption should be annulled, that decision will have effect in England and Wales too, and the adoption order will not be recognised. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the wording of subsection (2). The wording, as it stands, is legally necessary to confirm a termination as well as to confirm or terminate an order—two separate things are covered in that subsection. I hope that I have reassured him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120 - Scottish restriction on bringing children into United Kingdom

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 178, in page 67, line 24, leave out 'British Islands' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 179, in page 67, line 26, leave out 'outside the British Islands' and insert 'abroad'.

No. 181, in page 67, line 43, leave out 'British Islands' and insert 'United Kingdom'.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

These amendments continue our earlier discussion. Through them, I propose to clarify once and for all what we mean by ''British Islands''. I mentioned briefly that I was not especially happy about the expression. As the Minister pointed out, the phrase has a definition under the Interpretation Act 1978, but events have moved on since then.

We have been keen to build close relationships with the Dail in the Republic of Ireland. Since 1978, a series of initiatives has tried to bring the two Parliaments closer together, including the Anglo-Irish treaty and other initiatives that have flowed from it, including the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body and the Good Friday or Belfast agreement. Many important initiatives have been made under which cross-border bodies have been set up, to try to break down the idea of the British isles.

The expression ''British Islands'' may evoke nostalgia among various people, especially Conservative Members, for the days when the Republic of Ireland was part of the UK and it was not necessary to talk about the British isles with any regard for people's sensitivities. However, the Republic of Ireland is concerned about the use of the phrase. As various members of the Committee who are on the inter-parliamentary body will know—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is—the expression often leads to offence. The Irish find it patronising, archaic and in many ways inappropriate.

That is why whenever there is a bilateral meeting of any kind between the two countries, we talk about ''these islands'', which encompasses the islands around this country—the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey—and the islands around Ireland. Obviously, many issues of mutual concern affect all those islands. Once or twice, people have talked about the British isles in the inter-parliamentary body and it has led to considerable offence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will recall.

I would like to see ''British Islands'' removed from the Bill. It is good to be nostalgic at times, but we must bear in mind the concerns of the Irish, our nearest neighbours in the west. The links between our two countries have improved substantially. Every initiative that has arisen from the Belfast agreement has led to the countries working together, and there are several more initiatives to ensure that we work more closely on social legislation. Hon. Members will be aware that Irish citizens in this country have the right to vote and the same rights of citizenship as us. We have a special relationship with Ireland, although it is a separate sovereign country. Since 1989, citizens of this country have had the rights to vote and claim benefit in Ireland. For example, they have the same rights as Irish citizens to claim subsidised bus passes. The Government made a concession a moment ago on the amendment tabled

by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, which would have removed the word ''colony''. In the same way, it is important that they should remove the words ''British Islands''.

The Minister pointed out a moment ago that under the 1978 Act a legal definition is attached to the term ''British Islands''. That distinguishes it from the term ''United Kingdom'', which manifestly does not include the two Channel Islands, Jersey and Guernsey, or, indeed, the islands attached to Jersey—Alderney and Sark. It does not include the Isle of Man either. Therefore, I understand the term ''British Islands'' to mean, in a strict legal context, the United Kingdom and those islands. I asked the Minister on—I think—Thursday whether that was right, and she was not able to give me a clear answer. I think that she has since been briefed by her civil servants, who have updated her on the legal definition of the United Kingdom. The islands that I mentioned are not included in it; they have a separate legal status.

It is interesting, to return to a point that I made earlier about our close relationship with the Irish Republic and the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, to note that we have brought on to that body Members of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and of the Northern Ireland Assembly, a Member of the Tynwald of the Isle of Man, and Members of the Parliaments of Jersey and Guernsey. The result is truly an inter-parliamentary body, encompassing the Parliaments of all these islands' countries, including the one separate sovereign state, the Republic of Ireland. That arrangement is now working well. I should like more inter-parliamentary bodies to be set up between the countries concerned, to deal, particularly, with social legislation, health and transport.

What does the situation that I have outlined mean for the clause? Simply, we must remove the words ''British Islands''. The amendment would replace them with the words ''United Kingdom'', but probably we should not do that. If the Minister's intention is to include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, that should be stated. We should, in that case, insert the words, ''United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, Jersey and its attached islands and Guernsey''. That would make it clear what was intended. It would also send a strong signal to our friends in the Irish Republic that we are not trying to patronise them or invoke nostalgia.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

My hon. Friend has not mentioned the role of the Isles of Scilly. Is that because they have a different status, as part of England, or will he come on to the subject of those islands?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

That is a good point. The Isles of Scilly have a parish council, not a Parliament. As far as I am aware, although they have some devolved functions, their services, such as social services and education, are mostly provided by Cornwall county council.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Do they have a Member of Parliament?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Some functions are wholly devolved, but the body concerned is really a parish council which, in one or two specific local matters including parks and cemeteries, has an element of sovereign power.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of the Isles of Scilly, I draw his attention to the sedentary intervention of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan). I think that the answer to it is yes. The islands form part of a parliamentary constituency—South-East Cornwall, is it not?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Yes, they have a Member of Parliament. In fact, the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey do not have representation in this House because they have their own Parliaments. That is probably a mistake.

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled and in order to advise the Committee of his interpretation of the terms ''British Islands'' and ''United Kingdom'', but I fear that we should not get into a discourse about whether one island looks after its parks and another its cemeteries. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that point and refer to the words on the amendment paper.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

We have digressed a little, but it is important to explain the background to the amendment, because unless one does, one could end up looking a little foolish. It is too bland an exercise simply to take the amendment as it is. I am keen for the Minister to accept the spirit of my amendment and the intention behind it, but not necessarily its current format. If it is her intention to include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in the provision, she must find a better definition of ''British Islands''. She should perhaps insert ''the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey.''

I have explained my intentions and, hopefully, convinced the Committee of the real sensitivities and concern in the Irish Republic at this crucial time when we are trying to build on the Good Friday agreement. The amendment is very much in line with what the Prime Minister is trying to achieve and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman appears to be trying to use an amendment to a Bill on adoption and children to further good relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland and to change legal definitions relating to the United Kingdom and the British islands. Although I am sure that many members of the Committee would share his hope that relations between this country and the Republic of Ireland continue to develop, that important issue should not be mixed up with our aims in relation to adoption and children. The Bill is not the correct vehicle for making changes to definitions in law of the terms ''United Kingdom'' and ''British Islands''—definitions that were set out in the Interpretation Act 1978—although concerns about that may be expressed in the Committee. I am afraid that, for those reasons, it would not be appropriate to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendments.

I should like, however, briefly to give the hon. Gentleman some assurance on one of his points about the Government's aims with respect to clause 120. Clause 120 provides for restrictions for Scotland on bringing children into the UK, in the same way that clause 80 does for England and Wales. It amends section 50A of the Adoptions (Scotland) Act 1978 to impose restrictions on British residents bringing or causing someone else to bring a child habitually resident outside the British islands into the UK with the intention of adopting the child in the UK, unless the person complies with prescribed requirements and meets prescribed conditions.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am interested in the Minister's remarks. Will she enlighten the Committee as to whether, as the Bill amends Scottish legislation, the Scottish Parliament will have the power to amend it to its original meaning?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I do not know the answer to that question, but I will find out for the hon. Gentleman. The Scottish Administration are undertaking a review of adoption law, but I think that they share our view that consistency among the different countries in the United Kingdom is important. The Scottish Parliament, as I understand it, would have the ability to change its own Act. With the agreement of Scotland, we are trying to ensure consistency.

Clause 120, alongside clause 80, ensures consistency. It also makes it a criminal offence for a British resident to bring, or cause someone else to bring, a child habitually resident outside the British islands who was adopted within the previous six months into the United Kingdom, unless the resident complies with prescribed requirements and meets prescribed conditions. A person will be liable on summary conviction to up to six months' imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding a statutory maximum of £5,000, or both. In event of the case being referred to the Crown court, he will be liable for up to 12 months' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both.

The clause covers residents of the British islands and defines external adoptions as those affected under the law of any country or territory outside the British islands. ''British Islands'' is defined as England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. That is consistent with the 1976 Act, which covers England and Wales, and the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. The amendments, as the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk knows, would mean that the clause covered residents of the United Kingdom alone and defined external adoptions as those affected under the law of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is defined as England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. That would introduce restrictions on bringing children from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man into the United Kingdom and would make an adoption order made in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man an external adoption order.

The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have almost identical legislation to that of the United Kingdom and use the same assessment and adoption procedures. Adoption orders made in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are recognised in the United Kingdom and adoption orders made in the United Kingdom are recognised in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which are recognised publicly as part of the British isles. For those reasons, it would be unacceptable to introduce added restrictions on bringing children into the United Kingdom from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and to treat adoption orders made in those countries as external adoptions.

The amendments would also mean that the clause would cover bringing into the United Kingdom for the purposes of adoption a child ''habitually resident abroad'' rather than ''outside the British Islands''. There is no legal definition of ''abroad'', which would make the clause too vague to implement satisfactorily.

The hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to express his concerns about United Kingdom relations with the Republic of Ireland and about the interpretations and definitions in the Bill. However, I do not consider those issues appropriate to consider in relation to the Bill, and hope for those reasons that he will withdraw his amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am grateful for that cogent explanation. I have two final questions.

First, does the Minister know how many children are adopted into the United Kingdom from the Isle of Man and Channel Islands and how many from the United Kingdom into the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? It would be interesting to hear that figure, if she has it to hand.

Secondly, the Minister did not address my suggestion, which would answer my concern that we must include in the definition the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man while avoiding the term ''British Islands''. She rightly said that we were not considering a Bill on adoption and children to improve relations with the Irish Republic, but does she not feel that we

could easily sort this out by using the words ''United Kingdom and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man''?

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of the amendment, which does not contain the additions that he suggests.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Indeed, I accept that, but until the Minister gives us a logical reason for rejecting the amendment, we are entitled to suggest that there might be some merit in what I propose. Will she comment on my two brief points?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I do not know the exact numbers of children, and understand that only a handful are involved, but I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman seeks to make by determining the numbers. It is important that there is an ability to recognise adoption orders between the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom and vice versa. That is what we attempt to safeguard by rejecting the hon. Gentleman's amendment.

Secondly, I made it clear in my response that this is not the place to consider definitions. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise that point, he must do so elsewhere.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. It is a little difficult to focus on areas such as the Channel Islands or the Scilly Isles—

George Stevenson (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I am advised that I must put the question.

It being One o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June] and the Order of the Committee [27 November], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clauses 120 and 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Adjourned at one minute past One o'clock till this day at half-past Four o'clock.

Special Standing Committee

Clause 2 - Basic definitions

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (4).

There is a degree of frivolity in our proceedings, Mrs. Roe, but it would be entirely out of order for me to explain why. The gist of it is that several Opposition Members are serving on more than one Standing Committee, which makes life interesting.

Amendment No. 20 is probing. We want to know why subsection (4) is necessary. The fact that we are debating clause 2 more than half way through the Committee's proceedings reflects the rather odd order of consideration—the most unusual that I have come across. We are in our fourth week of deliberation, but only now are we debating definitions.

Why is an adoption society that is an unincorporated body not allowed to apply for registration? I note that the clause does not say merely that it cannot register; it says that it cannot even apply to register. It seems odd that such a body should not be allowed to apply to be considered for registration. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Welcome back, Mrs. Roe. We are now on the 10th of 20 sittings, so we are well set.

We come to the part of the Bill that deals with adoption support, particularly the improved provision that the Government will be making under the Bill for the right to an assessment for adoption support for a range of people involved in the adoption process. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have expressed an interest in ensuring that we increase the number of children who can be adopted. One way of ensuring that those adoptions are high quality placements and that a sufficient number of people are attracted into adoption is to support them during the adoption and post-adoption process, to give those children the secure lives that we hope adoption will provide.

Clause 2 provides several basic definitions for the adoption service provided by local authorities and approved voluntary adoption agencies. Those definitions are used throughout the Bill. At present, voluntary adoption agencies in England and Wales are

inspected and approved by the social services inspectorate. From April 2003, they will be inspected and listed by the National Care Standards Commission in England, and by the National Assembly in Wales, under part II of the Care Standards Act 2000. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said, the amendment proposes the removal of subsection (4), which provides that an adoption society that is an unincorporated body may not apply for registration under part II of the Care Standards Act.

First, it is worth explaining the current position. Under the existing legal framework, registered adoption societies must be incorporated bodies. To that extent, the Bill does not propose a change. That requirement is currently contained in regulation 2(2) of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983; it has therefore been included in regulations for some time, and we have decided to provide for it expressly in the Bill.

Why is it important that a registered adoption society be an incorporated body? An incorporated body is a separate legal entity. It is something of a legal person, which is separate and distinct from individual members of the body. An unincorporated body has no such separate legal existence and is not in law distinguishable from its members. As we discussed at length in previous sittings, adoption agencies may have parental responsibility for a child as well as many other important functions. That is a significant responsibility that must be clearly defined in law. It is therefore vital that all adoption societies registered under the 2000 Act are incorporated bodies.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises both that the amendment would restate the current position in the Bill, and that the significance of the activities and responsibility vested in adoption societies is such that it is important to ensure that they have the legal status of incorporated bodies. That is the logic of the Government's approach, so I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

On the basis of that clear explanation, 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. 65, in page 3, line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'will'.

Welcome back, Mrs. Roe. We are discussing adoption services, one of the most important subjects in the Bill. It is fair to say that all the representatives of the groups that we saw during our evidence-taking sittings, as well as the vast majority of representations that we have received, welcomed the improvements the Bill makes. The changes provide for a greater range of adoption support services before, during and after the act of adoption, and for those whose problems may or may not be solved by adoption. We echo the welcome that they have received.

On more substantial provisions, we will want to probe the Government's intentions more closely, but I thought it suitable to table the probing amendment to

the clause, which is about basic definitions and starts chapter 2. Clause 2(6) loosely defines adoption support services as

''counselling, advice and information in connection with adoption''—

we will discuss that in more detail later—

''and...such other services as are specified in regulations (which may include financial support).''

The final sentence of the explanatory notes on clause 2 states:

''The Government's intention is that the services set out in the regulations will include financial support.''

To probe the Government's real intentions, we have tabled an amendment that would substitute ''will'' for ''may''.

At this stage, it is appropriate to raise the subject of adoption allowances. Certain groups that have made representations to us have said how necessary it is to clarify that subject, which was touched on in the White Paper. We largely agree with the range of measures that the Government are introducing to promote the adoption as soon as possible of more children and to ensure that all adoptions, including those extra ones, are as stable, lasting and effective as possible. This part of the Bill relates to that second aim. The provision of the right support, which in no small way includes financial support, is crucial to that aim. In a fairly detailed survey by British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, financial support is identified as a key consideration, although it is not the most important, when people put their names forward to become adopters.

A problem arises because of the wide variation in adoption allowances, let alone the support services available. That makes it difficult for adoption agencies to advise prospective adoptive parents on the level of financial support that they might receive. That has material implications for decisions to adopt, how many children to adopt and whether to adopt what might be described as complex children. When I considered the subject in more detail with local child care workers, I was struck by the differential between allowances for adoption and allowances for fostering.

That goes a long way to explain why more foster parents do not become adoptive parents. Less than a quarter of foster parents in my county consider going on to be adoptive parents because in many cases the financial reward for doing so is prohibitively small: for example, in West Sussex an adoption allowance available for a child aged between four and seven works out at £54.89 a week, which is means-tested and less child benefit, whereas for a child of equivalent age who is fostered, the care allowance is £153.58—almost treble the sum. That is a big difference, even though taking on an adoptive child is obviously a far larger and longer-term commitment.

There is also an anomaly in the system whereby an adoption allowance is considered in the means-testing for income support, whereas foster care payments are not. That is another disincentive for parents to become

adopters. The Government need to consider that big financial gap, which is wider or narrower depending on which local authority one deals with.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The distinction between adoption and foster allowances does not apply only in means-testing. In an unfortunate case, the former wife of an extremely worthy constituent had taken his own children away; he and his current wife adopted a child, but their adoption allowance was taken into account by the Child Support Agency when it assessed him.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is yet another complication. I am sure that we all know of cases in which such sums are taken into account in calculations that are already extremely complicated. There seems to be an anomaly in the system that militates against the Bill's aim, which is to promote adoption, make it more attractive, and make more people able to undertake the commitment that it involves. All the good intentions in the Bill will count for nothing unless the whole system of adoption is properly resourced. That means resourcing allowances for parents who have taken on that commitment.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Like other Committee members, the hon. Gentleman will have a copy of the memorandum of evidence from Barnardo's, which states:

''As an agency placing children whom local authorities consider hard to place, we have been dismayed by how few of those children actually qualify for an adoption allowance—15 out of 52 in 1998/99 and 16 out of 68 in 1999/00. We are unable to advise families what level of financial support they might receive as this varies so much from one local authority to another. If the Government is serious about significantly increasing the number of families coming forward to adopt, this will mean attracting a wider range of families.'' —[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, November 2001; c. 352.]

That issue must be addressed.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is exactly right. The hon. Gentleman backs up my point. It is odd that the system of adoption allowances is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill or in the explanatory notes. This might not be the most appropriate time to raise the matter, because the clause deals with adoption support services as well as the financial support for that. However, it is an appropriate juncture at which to ask these questions so that the Minister, in responding, can reveal some of the Government's thinking about issues that go hand in hand with the subject we are discussing.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate whether there is any other clause that would allow us to debate the subject more fully. So far as I can tell, my hon. Friend is right—there is no other point at which we shall be able to discuss what more than half the members of the Committee are on record as having said is one of the key issues in adoption.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We await the Minister's reply on whether she thinks that my proposed amendment would be useful and whether it will be possible to discuss the issue at another stage.

The other specific point that surprised me was that allowances—certainly those for fostering—tend not to reflect the complexity of the problems that an adopted child might have. Instead, they are usually geared to reflect the qualifications and experience of the parent who is taking on the responsibility. That is certainly the case in West Sussex: the county has various top-up schemes but, in effect, a foster parent is paid an allowance based on his or her qualifications and experience. I do not suggest that they are in it for the money, but foster parents can get the best deal by being as highly trained and qualified as possible, but taking on the least complex child possible.

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

My understanding of the schemes under which parents are paid according to their experience is that that is done precisely to ensure that children with complex needs are placed with foster parents who have the greatest skills to undertake the required task. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that a foster parent who has the highest skills would opt to take on the easiest child is nonsense in terms of the design of those schemes.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It is not nonsense. I am not suggesting that it is the norm; I am saying that it can and does happen in practice. It would be pointless and counterproductive if all the extra resources went into training potential foster parents so that they could take on especially complex or older children, but they did not actually do that. My point is that there is no compulsion on them to do it—there is no direct link with the money. Because foster parents are in such short supply in certain parts of the country, they can call the shots to a large extent: if they are minded to take on the easier children and they are paid at the higher rate, they can do so.

The hon. Lady frowns. That might not be the case in the part of the country in which she practised, but it is the experience in other parts of the country, including my constituency, that such things can happen. It is strange that the money does not closely reflect the complexities of the child, but instead focuses on the foster parents.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

The hon. Gentleman is talking about enhancements for foster carers. In my experience, certain foster carers are identified after having provided a service to a local authority for a long time; the local authority invests in those foster carers by training them and so on; they will then be entitled to those enhancements to deal with the complex cases that they are expected to take on. The hon. Gentleman says that that does not always happen, but that is a matter of the management of foster carers and the available resources. The situation he describes is certainly not the norm; it is an exception—or even an anomaly. An anomaly is not a good example when speaking about allowances for adoptive parents

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; that is what I expected to find. However, I am talking not about enhancements but about the allowances that

are paid automatically to foster parents. Enhancements are paid on top of that in kind and through various other fees.

We are getting away from the point. We are supposed to be talking about adoption support services. Subsection (6) refers to the form that adoption support services might take. I understand that the allowances paid to adoptive parents must not contain an element of profit: they are not meant to subsidise income but are to pay for the child's basic needs. Fostering allowances, however, offer an income as well as paying the day-to-day costs of looking after the child. Financial support for adoption support services usually pays for petrol to convey the child to various professional services and for adaptations to the family car if the child has a disability. It might also pay for youth activities and membership of youth clubs or other group that might be deemed appropriate. In a minority of cases, adoptive parents may pay directly for therapeutic services, such as speech therapy, although such services are largely provided by the local authority—either directly or contracted out—and the parents receive no money.

The amendment has generated rather more interest than I expected. There seem to be a lot of questions, but the main fact to emerge is the enormous diversity in the ways in which people are treated in different parts of the country. My experience is rather different from that of other hon. Members who have first-hand experience. The variation in adoption services, whether professional services, services in kind or financial allowances and top-ups, is a postcode lottery. If we are to bring about continuity and minimum standards, we need a rather broader spread of the quality benchmark that we are trying to achieve.

When the Minister responds to the debate, perhaps she would deal with those aspects that are probably more appropriate to the wording of the clause, which deals with what finances may be paid in lieu of adoption support services in order to buy adoption support services. Will she also touch upon the whole issue of adoption allowances, including fostering allowances, or at least indicate a more appropriate time when we might more usefully raise that subject and have a meaningful debate?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It is important that I have an opportunity to spell out the Government's thinking on financial support. It would be possible for us to debate the matter when we discuss clause 4—[Interruption.] My hon. Friends are not sure that they want further debate on clause 4, but clause 4 of the Bill will enable us to discuss the matter in greater detail if we want to.

Clause 2(6) provides that adoption support services will include counselling, advice and information in connection with adoption and other services as prescribed in regulations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the list of adoption support services set out in the regulations will include financial support. The amendment provides that the list of adoption support services included in regulations must include financial support, but I hope that I can assure him that that is unnecessary.

We have already committed ourselves to improving the availability of financial support for adoptive families. The hon. Gentleman referred to the White Paper ''Adoption: A New Approach'', which refers in some detail, on page 41, to financial support. It highlights the fact that

''support may be provided financially, in the form of adoption allowances.''

It states:

''The Government will introduce new legislation''—

as we are doing now—

''to set out a new legal framework for adoption allowances''

and to establish the principles on which those allowances will be based. They should be:

''available for adopted children and their new families; for needs specific to adoptive families; to help the placement to last; for needs that cannot be met elsewhere; flexible to meet immediate, ongoing, and future needs; fairly awarded, taking into account the family's ability to meet the needs of the child financially.''

The White Paper adds that new framework obviously needs to be fair and flexible, and I shall return to that in a moment.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) outlined various different forms that financial support could take, and he is right. As we said in the White Paper, we envisage that

''Councils will be able to pay adoption allowances as a one-off payment''—

for example to cover an extension to a house in the case of a family who adopt a group of siblings—

''as a time-limited payment'',

which might cover the cost of some therapies, such as counselling,

''or as an ongoing payment'',

perhaps to cover the cost of visits to birth families as part of contact arrangements.

The hon. Members for Canterbury and for East Worthing and Shoreham both mentioned means-testing and the discrepancies in different parts of the country. The White Paper states our belief that

''The current system of means tests is unfair and varies across the country.''

A key role for the new framework will be to

''set out a more consistent approach to means-testing. However, in future, more services will be provided as post adoption support, so families will have to meet fewer needs out of their own pocket.''

That is worth bearing in mind when we consider the balance between financial and other forms of adoption support.

We promised in the White Paper to develop a new national framework for adoption support services and financial support. We are currently developing the framework with the co-operation of a stakeholder group, including representatives of some of the organisations to which the hon. Gentlemen referred, and we intend to publish the framework for consultation in the spring. We will then finalise the framework in the light of responses to the consultation before publishing the draft regulations for consultation.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

In connection with means-testing, the Minister raised an important issue that requires examination. She was right to say that greater fairness needs to be introduced into the system. Is the implication of her remark that there will be less means-testing, not more? It is evident that there must be a change from the status quo if the system is to be improved.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The problem with the current system is not the amount of means-testing, but the variations in it, which we must try to get rid of when we design the framework. However, given that we are working out how to target support most effectively, I am not sure that I agree with what I suspect is the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question—that we should avoid means-testing. We should have a coherent system of means-testing.

The other point raised by hon. Members is the interaction between adoption allowance and the tax and benefits system. Clearly, we need to ensure that that interaction does not undermine the tax and benefits system and recognises people's needs for financial adoption support.

As I was saying, after consultation, we will publish the draft regulations on adoption support and financial support that will be provided for under clauses 2, 3 and 4. That will enable us to ensure consistency; I agree with the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that consistency is lacking in the current system. The framework must cover detailed circumstances, so it is important that it receives careful consideration and that we consult widely. We must get it right, so that it ensures both consistency in the system and the appropriate level of support.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Does my hon. Friend see any principled reason why there should be any distinction between the way that adoption and fostering allowances are paid, either to support the needs of the child or the adopter's skills?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The relationship between foster care allowances and adoption allowances and some of the questions that have been raised about disincentives are key issues that we will consider when we develop the new framework. That work is already under way with stakeholders who have a detailed understanding of that relationship.

If hon. Members need more certainty—I hope that they do not—let me assure them that the Govt are serious about ensuring that financial support is available and is consistent. The national adoption standards make it clear that children and adopters are entitled to have access to a range of adoption support services, including financial support. For those hon. Members who are keen on homework, I draw their attention to the national adoption standards, in particular to paragraphs A12, C3 and D7, all of which emphasise the importance of financial support and

assistance. Given those assurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful, but I am not sure that we are any closer to an explanation than we were when we started to discuss the amendment. I did not detect any hint of an answer to the reasonable question—which I had asked previously—asked by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).

The Minister slightly missed the point. She agreed with me on the great diversity in sums awarded in different parts of the country in relation to various services and allowances. She said that the means-testing procedure would need to be examined because of those variations, but my understanding is that there is no variation in means testing. The Benefit Agency rules on how adoption allowances are dealt with vis-a-vis foster care allowances. That does not vary—it is the one bit of consistency in the whole formula. However, the cases are treated, on the face of it, unfairly in terms of what the Bill is intended to achieve. The sums paid by different authorities vary enormously. We have all identified that problem. The means-testing treatment of those sums is standard; it is only the sums themselves that vary. The Minister did not respond properly to that concern.

The Government need more time to sort out how to deal with the problem—the issue is big. They can do it by amending the regulations that we expect to be published in the spring, so I doubt that we will get much more out of Ministers before then. However, the Minister assures us that financial support services are very much in the Government's frame of thinking. On that basis, it would not serve the Committee's purpose to pursue the matter further. However, by raising it now we have drawn to the Minister's attention to how important we, and many people who have made representations to us, think it is. We hope that she will make good the undertakings that she has given to us by ensuring that they appear in the appropriate place in the regulations later next year, by which time we will have finished scrutinising the Bill. On that basis, and because the amendment was only intended to be probing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Maintenance of adoption service

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 175, in page 3, line 31, leave out 'and'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 176, in page 3, line 32, after 'services', insert—

'and

(c) for the co-ordination of any services identified in 4(9).'.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

The amendment is a probing one that attempts to clarify who, if anyone, will have overall responsibility for co-ordinating the complete

needs of the child. Much has been made of the fact that the child is at the centre of the Bill, and many Members have emphasised that many of the children being put up for adoption today have a range of complex needs.

We will discuss clause 4 at a later date, but I share the opinion already expressed that it is one of the most controversial clauses in the Bill. I, too, think that the child is present in name only, and that the necessary financial support is not always provided for. The clause also places no onus on health authorities and local education authorities to provide the practical support that may be identified as necessary. I note from the amendment paper that many Opposition Members feel strongly about these issues, so in the spirit of optimism, I hope that clause 4 will be amended.

Once needs have been identified, not all of them will fall neatly under the headings of ''national health service'', ''social services'' and ''education''. Some will fall into a grey area, and many children will require a multi-agency approach. If parents are trying to get the best for their adopted children and there is a problem, they may find themselves being passed from one agency to another. Buck passing, or budget passing, could be elevated to an art form.

Those of us who had problems with flooding last year will remember what happens when several agencies are involved in solving a problem but none has overall responsibility. People end up being passed from one to the other to try to get to the bottom of the matter. What is really needed is a way to get everybody in one place under somebody who has overall responsibility. It is not clear whether social services has a legal responsibility to take the lead in co-ordinating any other services that might be identified.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I understand the thrust of the hon. Lady's argument, but does she accept that prospective adopters or adoptive parents do not always want to be in the social services system, especially if the adopted child has come from an abusive background? It is not always appropriate for social services to co-ordinate post-adoption services. It is essential that adoptive parents have confidence in whoever is co-ordinating services, and sometimes one step removed will be more satisfactory for prospective or adoptive parents.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Some people do not have confidence in social services. However, the point remains that nobody seems to have been identified at any stage as having overall responsibility; the role seems naturally to fall to social services because it is involved in most of the work prior to adoption. However, it strikes me powerfully that there should be somebody who can co-ordinate matters and who can be identified as being completely on the side of the parents.

I accept that some parents might believe that co-ordinator should not be social services, but there should be somebody who has an advocacy role, or powers to bring everything together. If there is a problem with social services, perhaps somebody else can be identified to take on the role. The drafting suggests that an adoptive parent will have to fight

many battles on many different fronts. I hope that that will not be the case, although in practice it is sometimes so. Will the Minister clarify how these issues will be worked out in practice? Who will take the lead and who will have the overall responsibility for ensuring that the needs of the children have been identified and that they have access to the services that they need?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clause 3 requires each local authority to continue to provide an adoption service in its area. The local authority adoption service must be designed to meet the needs of children who may be adopted, their parents, guardians and prospective adopters, and of adopted people, their adoptive parents, birth parents and former guardians. That is a much wider group than that covered by the equivalent provision in the Adoption Act 1976, which does not include adopted adults, their parents and their former guardians.

As part of their adoption service, local authorities must make and participate in arrangements for the adoption of children and for the provision of adoption support services. For the first time, the Bill places on them a clear duty to make and participate in such arrangements and to provide such services. That new duty will tackle the inconsistency in the availability of adoption support services across the country. As the Government set out in the White Paper, improved availability of adoption support services will help to improve the success of adoptive placements and encourage more people to come forward to adopt and look after children.

The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) is concerned about the need for co-ordination. The clause will oblige local authorities to provide their adoption service in conjunction with their other social services and with voluntary adoption agencies in their area, so that services are provided in a co-ordinated manner and without delay. They will be able to make arrangements with registered adoption societies and other persons specified in regulations to provide services on their behalf. Local authorities greatly value the experience and expertise of voluntary adoption agencies, and we expect the current arrangements to continue whereby adoption agencies provide adoption support independently or on behalf of some local authorities.

The hon. Lady raised the specific issue of co-ordination. Clause 3 is intended to set out the requirements for the adoption service provided by local authorities. To that extent, it would not be appropriate within the clause to place requirements on local authorities to make them participate in arrangements to co-ordinate services with health and education providers. However, the Government are committed to ensuring the joined-up planning and provision of adoption support services—

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I accept that the Government are committed, but will the Minister tell me where in the Bill it would be appropriate to discuss who has overall responsibility, or is that another matter that will be dealt with through regulations?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Lady is being a little impatient—I was about to refer to that subject.

The Government are committed to ensuring the joined-up planning and provision of adoption support services. In our White Paper, ''Adoption: A New Approach'', we promise that adoption support services will be planned jointly with local education authorities and the national health service. Clause 4(9) helps to provide for that and I note that there are amendments on the amendment paper that address the issue of co-ordination with health and education services.

Clause 4 gives people who are affected by adoption a new right to request and receive an assessment of their needs for adoption from their local authority. When it appears to the local authority as a result of an assessment that there is a need for health or education services, clause 4(9) places the local authority under a duty to notify the appropriate health authority, primary care trust or local education authority of that need. Following that notification, the health authority, the PCT or the LEA will decide whether to provide services in accordance with its statutory obligations. In addition, the Government intend to issue guidance and directions for health authorities, PCTs and LEAs to ensure the joined-up provision of adoption support services across the various public services. The national adoption standards state that councils will plan and deliver adoption services with local health and education bodies, and the use of guidance and directions will help to deliver that standard.

The hon. Lady made another important point. Clause 3 refers to provision of the service, whereas clause 4 relates to the rights of the individual. She asked who would co-ordinate the needs of the child. On page 39 of the White Paper, we say:

''Looked after children who are adopted and their new families will have a keyworker, identified by the agency, to help them access services.''

If they want, the adoptive family can use the key worker as a route through what we accept can be a maze of various agencies involved in adoption support, and to help with the co-ordination of services. The key worker will not be imposed on adoptive families, and to that extent it is not appropriate that that service should be included in the legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) raised the important issue of the choice that adoptive families might want in how they access adoption support. Key workers will be available and adoptive families of looked-after children will be able to choose whether to use them to help to provide that co-ordinating role to which the hon. Member for Romsey referred in her intervention. Given my assurances, I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I would feel happier about withdrawing my amendment if I did not have foreknowledge of clause 4, but I accept that that battle will have to be fought another day. 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. 64, in page 3, line 37, leave out subsection 3(b) and insert—

'(b) must extend to the provision of those services to other persons if so requested by said other persons.'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 66, in page 3, line 37, at end insert—

'(c) Should commence and give provision of services to persons described in (a) and (b) above when requested and continue until these persons decline any further support services.'.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The maintenance of adoption services is an important part of the Bill, which will count for nothing unless it is properly resourced. That goes to the heart of the problem. All the witnesses welcomed the clause, and we especially welcome the extension of adoption services to a much wider family of persons connected to a prospective adopted child—ranging from siblings and grandparents to the immediate birth parents and the adoptive parents, and including, at the centre, the child to be adopted.

The history of adoption legislation does not give one enormous faith in adequate resources following the subject and being provided when they are needed. Amendment No. 64 would replace subsection (3)(b) with a slightly beefier version. Amendment No. 66 would add a paragraph (c), which would apply whether or not paragraph (b) was amended by amendment No. 64.

If any members of the extended family connected with the adoption say that they need help, they usually do, as they are the people at the sharp end who may suffer because of domestic pressures. A child may be vulnerable, a couple intending to adopt may need to be better prepared, or a couple may have adopted a child and the placement may not be going as smoothly as it might. If those people run up the flag and say that things are not going to plan, they should be believed as the experts. Some may cry wolf or exaggerate their case, but by and large they know that they need help. It is not as if people will be running to social services departments to form a long queue to say that they need help because, in many cases, doing so is quite humiliating.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

When did that damascene revelation come upon the hon. Gentleman? My distinct recollection of working in social services departments between 1979 and 1987 was that large numbers of people were asking for help, and that the inadequately resourced social services departments were unable to provide it.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It was no road to Damascus for me. If the hon. Gentleman had looked at the history of social services over the past 25 years since the Adoption Act 1976, he would have seen that many additional requirements have been placed on local

authority social services departments during that time, some of which relate to care of the elderly or of children at various levels. He will know that those departments have been increasingly under-resourced by central Government. Increasingly, it has been a case of Peter robbing Paul between care of the elderly and of children. High profile child abuse headlines have led to the use of emergency sticking plasters to try to protect children who, it was argued, were more immediately vulnerable than the elderly who may not have been receiving the most appropriate care but who were less likely to be abused than children in a threatening domestic position.

The position has gradually deteriorated, but it has deteriorated even more rapidly over the past five years. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures, he will see that the gap between the amount of money that comes from central Government in the form of standard spending assessment and the money that local authorities spend on their social service activities is now the widest ever. It is estimated by the Local Government Association to be little short of £1 billion. Local authorities are budgeting to spend £1 billion more than the Government think that they should be spending—and £1 billion more than the Government are prepared to provide in the form of SSA grant. The hon. Gentleman must admit that the gap has never been that wide—and it is widening. Not only is the gap wide now, but its accumulative effect over so many years has run down the service, and that makes the pressures so much more stark now.

Mr. Brazier rose—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I know that my hon. Friend wants to intervene. Added to that are the pressures on child care workers. We have heard so many times from hon. Members that looking after children and working in the adoption service—

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I will give way in a moment, first to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and then to the Minister.

However attractive looking after children and being part of the adoption service is for social workers, it must be admitted that there are still large gaps in the service. In parts of the country, particularly in London, the vacancy rates are estimated to be 30 per cent. A survey published in September by the LGA identified at least 2,000 child care vacancies in social services departments.

The upshot of that has been more emergency and short-term cover by agency placements, which are that much more expensive and do not allow the continuity of care that should enable staff to work with the same families month in, month out, and year in, year out. That is why the situation has deteriorated to such an extent. It is little to do with the years between 1979 and 1987 that the hon. Gentleman selectively chose to mention. If he thinks that things have somehow magically improved over the past four and a half or five years, he is sorely out of touch with reality. He will have only to speak fairly and dispassionately to some

of his former colleagues and go to conferences held by the LGA social services, as I and the Secretary of State did a couple of months ago, to find that out.

Margaret Moran (Labour, Luton South)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I shall give way to everyone in a moment.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

What did the hon. Gentleman tell the LGA?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I shall be happy to repeat the speech that I made at the LGA, which I have to say went down considerably better than that made by the Secretary of State. A couple of days later, he was howled down.

It is entirely disingenuous of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre to try to claim that, in some way, the problems that we are trying to address on a cross-party basis resulted from those 18 years, during which an awful lot happened in social services.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre is much respected and experienced on the subject, but my hon. Friend made a point about specific pressures on adoption services. The general pressure on social services is now so extreme that the statistics are without precedent. A 10th of all the beds in our local hospital system are currently blocked by people who should be funded by social services. The clause deals with resources for social services, and we must accept that we are in unprecedented territory.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister will mention the wonderful £300 million extra to deal with bed blocking. Whether part of it has come from partnership funding remains to be seen.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his passion about the shortage of resources for social services departments would be slightly easier to stomach had he not stood for election seven months ago on a manifesto that did not even pledge to match the extra resources that the Government will put in? I accept that it is a challenge to ensure that extra resources go to social services, but does he accept that the Government have made the improvements, and that his party stood for election on the basis of cutting those increases?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister says that the Government have made improvements, but we have yet to see what they are. Although she and her colleagues constantly seek to deny it, she knows that the complete pot of health funding promised by my party at the election at least equalled that of the Government's figures. We made no bones about that. The only way in which the Government will tackle their problem of bed blocking is to reorient the money between acute care and social services. The Government have created a problem by trying to accelerate the intake of those going into hospital, while

failing dismally to do anything about the suitability and extent of residential elderly care for those coming out of hospital. Indeed, they have presided over the loss of 50,000 beds. Some of those who have suffered work in child care services, which makes the subject relevant to the debate.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the amendment and ask him to bring his comments back to it.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I shall, after I give way to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), who has waited patiently.

Margaret Moran (Labour, Luton South)

It is noticeable that the hon. Gentleman has not answered the question asked by my hon. Friend the Minister. Perhaps he might clarify what his party's manifesto specified about social services funding as opposed to health funding. I spent many years as a leader of a council that struggled with social services budgets. He referred to the cumulative effect of the run-down in social services, but he cannot avoid the fact that, between 1992 and 1997, the growth in personal social services budgets was 0.1 per cent, as opposed to more than 20 per cent. between 1997 and 2003 under this Government. As he will accept, that is surely why local authorities such as mine have a £1 million deficit in their budgets. We will try to bridge that gap between now and 2003.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Lady's sophistry, which is so typical of Labour Members, is entirely unconvincing. She knows that the additional responsibilities that were shifted on to social services during those years, and the ring-fencing and then discontinued funding, do not add up to the figures that she gives. I return to the overall figure from the LGA, a Labour-led organisation. Its research shows that, despite all the figures that she tries to dress up, there is a gap of almost £1 billion. That gap has never been bigger. If local authority social services departments throughout the country spend £1 billion too much, for which her Government are prepared to fund them, it is incumbent on her party to say what those departments

should cut to make up the balance. Her party is in control, in government and responsible for the shortfall of £1 billion.

The biggest losers are child care services—I say that before you stop me, Mrs. Roe, as I can see out of the corner of my eye that you might. I want to return to the amendment.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Yes.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. I hope that the intervention will be connected to the amendment.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I am grateful for your guidance, Mrs. Roe, in ensuring that I remain in order.

I support the provision of more resources for child care services. It is essential that we put as much money into them as possible. If a proportion of the £1 billion goes to child care services, that will be welcome. There may be a difference between the SSA and what

councils can spend, and local government finance is an issue that vexes us all. The Government's commitment is that we want more money to be put in. Can the hon. Gentleman commit to providing that additional £1 billion? He criticises us for not providing it, but would he?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We are in danger of testing your patience, Mrs. Roe. Such questions are for the Government to answer. The gap exists under the Government. When we come up with our comprehensive new proposals for health and social services, it will be even more incumbent on the Government to defend the biggest ever gap in social services funding.

Let us get back to the amendments. When the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford first intervened to make an entirely unrelated point, I was saying that many families could see it as humiliating to have to go to a social services department to ask for support for their problems. The parents might have learning problems that they share with the children whom they are trying to bring up. The biggest cause of breakdowns in adoption placements is attachment difficulties, especially for children with histories of multiple placements. Those children desperately need support, especially at the early stages, to ensure that the foundations on which a placement is based are as solid and comprehensive as possible.

Social services departments say that they have been especially under-resourced for post-adoption services, and that will continue given the requirements in the Bill. For obvious reasons, they have been good at providing pre-adoption support such as investigations and getting children out of dangerous positions, but most people's experience suggests that follow-through support during entire childhoods tails off. If we achieve what we are trying to achieve via the reforms of the adoption process—if more people are adopted—the problem will get bigger, because the potential clientele will grow. Far more people, having been adopted, will need—if we set them up properly—post-adoption services. If the figure is to increase by 40 per cent. over the next few years, there will be a much larger pool of people, and if they are adopted at the age of three, four or five, they will have another 13 or 14 years before they reach adulthood. It is therefore essential that we get post-adoption services absolutely right and that they are properly resourced.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

The hon. Gentleman's point about children and parents who need greater support because of events prior to placement is right. We all want to increase the number of adoptions. Is it not best for local authorities to be able to target resources at the most complex cases? The amendments could result in everybody getting the same. There will be finite resources—even the hon. Gentleman with his extra £1 billion will agree with that. If the amendments are agreed, the ability of a local authority to make an assessment to target resources at those most complex cases will be undermined.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in the first part of his premise, but he is wrong in his analysis of the effect of the amendments. The point that we make in amendment No. 64 is that an adoption support service should not be produced—if it is to be produced, which is addressed in the next clause—only for a person who says, ''I need adoption support''. Such a person would typically be a parent who has recently adopted a child, and it could be the siblings of that child who need extra support, or the child himself or grandparents. The child and the siblings are unlikely to call for that support themselves, and certainly not directly through a social services department. Therefore, if there is a case for adoption support, of whatever description, social services departments and local authorities should have to respond to connected people for other connected people, rather than specifically to that connected person. That is particularly appropriate to a child or siblings who need support.

I have largely covered amendment No. 66 in that where adoption support services are deemed necessary, they should be provided—not unregulated on demand, but certainly not episodically. We need a proper, holistic programme that continues until the situation is deemed by the people receiving the support to be back on course, whatever form the support might take. In view of the patchiness of services, it is incumbent on us to identify whether we need a minimum package that will constitute adoption support. Perhaps that will be the point of the regulations. It will take different forms for different problems, but we must agree on whether people have an entitlement to expect such a minimum package.

It is also incumbent on us to ask the Minister what will happen if the local authority fails to provide the support. Nowhere in the Bill, so far as I am aware, is there a duty on the local authority to provide support services. It has a duty to maintain support services and a duty to assess the need for such services. There is not the same duty on a local authority to come up with the goods. We shall consider that anomaly in more detail when we discuss assessment under the next clause.

Those amendments are exploratory—a better word than ''probing''—and would add to the Bill. I disagree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford that they would in some way restrict what is available to other people; that will depend on what resources are available. They clarify to whom the support services should be available and ensure that need for them is identified by the person who will receive them. That need has to be satisfied before an episode or series of episodes of support services is stopped. I commend the amendments.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As we have already said, the clause relates to the duty of a local authority to provide an adoption service in its area. It does not relate to the provision of assessments or services to individuals. We shall discuss those issues when we come to clause 4. However, there has been some confusion of those two matters in the amendments, and I hope to address that.

Clause 3 requires the local authority to provide an adoption service. Amendment No. 64 explored whom the adoption would be designed for. The service must be designed to meet the needs of children who may be adopted and their parents, guardians and prospective adopters, and of adopted people and their adoptive parents, birth parents and former guardians. The Government intend to extend the duty on local authorities to make and participate in arrangements to provide adoption support services to birth and adoptive siblings of adopted people and children who may be adopted. That provision will be made in the regulations made under subsection (3)(a). We shall consult stakeholders in the adoption field on the detail of the regulations, and on whether they should cover any other extended family members who are significant to the child.

The amendment would require local authorities to make arrangements to provide adoption support services to all other persons who request them. I hope that I have assured the hon. Gentleman about the scope of those for whom the adoption services can be provided under clause 3.

Amendment No. 66 would require local authorities to provide adoption support services to individuals on request, and to continue to provide those services until the recipients decided that they no longer wished to receive them. The amendment does not fit with the structure of subsection (3). The first purpose of the subsection is to identify groups of people for whom local authorities must make and participate in arrangements to provide adoption support services in addition to those listed in subsection (1). Regulations made under subsection (3)(a) will ensure that the local authority adoption service will meet the needs of those listed. That will be a much wider group of people than that entitled to receive adoption services under the Adoption Act 1976, and local authorities will have a power, under subsection (3)(b), to extend their arrangements for the provision of adoption support services to others.

That combination of a duty and a power provides the flexibility needed by local authorities in that area. Subsection (3) is not intended to set out requirements for the provision of support services to individuals. That is covered by clause 4, which puts in place a new system for the assessment of needs for adoption support services by local authorities. It provides that where an assessment identifies a need for adoption support services, the local authority must decide whether to provide adoption support services to that person. The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to decide whether to provide adoption support services to individuals, and which ones to provide, based on need and locally available resources. That is the approach taken to service provision by the vast majority of public services, and, ultimately, local authorities provide the adoption service, so they must decide who needs which level of support.

That brings us to the vexed issue of the resources available to local authorities to provide that support. We will expect them to use a substantial amount of the extra £66 million for adoption announced in the White Paper to improve their adoption support services. There has been much discussion and some argument about the level of resources available for personal social services, but it is fair to say that the extra £66.5 million in funding represents a significant increase in the amount of money available for social services departments to spend on adoption.

In 1999-2000, local authority social services departments in England spent nearly £51 million overall on adoption and adoption allowances. Therefore, £66.5 million over three years is a significant increase on the amount that was spent. The amount includes £14.5 million in 2001-02, £22.5 million in 2002-03 and £29.5 million in 2003-04. The Government are right to have invested the extra money to help ensure that many more adoptive families get the support that they need. Furthermore, the Bill's provisions will be considered as part of the forthcoming spending review process. I do not necessarily want to rehearse the arguments on resources again.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

This might sound a rather silly question, but I have received correspondence from various interested people who seek a definition of ''facilities'', which means, in effect, support services. Will the Minister give some examples of the typical support services that will be available at local authority level? The question might be silly, but I am responding to correspondence that I have received.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As we discussed in relation to clause 2, we made it clear in the Bill that adoption support services would cover issues such as advice, counselling and other adoption support.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

There is a flow chart.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As my hon. Friend says, we have a flow chart. [Hon. Members: ''Oh dear.''] For any given individual, the range of services would depend on assessment of their need. I will give the hon. Gentleman some examples of the types of support that would be available in a comprehensive post-placement and post-adoption support service.

We would envisage such a service including the key worker whose role I outlined earlier and special medical services such as child and adolescent mental health services. It would also include the assessment itself, support for birth parents, such as birth parent support groups, written information for potential adopters and those going through the process, and child therapeutic services. As I spelled out in a previous debate, the service would also include adoption and financial allowances and counselling on access to information. There may also be support for young adopted people, such as a newsletter or self-help groups, post-adoption indirect contact, such as the letterbox idea that local authorities often use,

educational services, and, very importantly, practical help for adoptive parents such as respite care or adoptive parents support groups.

Those are some of the types of facilities that it would be appropriate to include in adoption support. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present earlier when the Committee discussed the framework, but because of the complexity and the range of services that would be included in adoption support, it is appropriate that we discuss that framework in more detail with stakeholders. We will then publish the framework for consultation and will be able as a result to make regulations. I shall not be tempted into discussing resources. We are all concerned to ensure that social services departments have adequate resources, but some of us are making that a reality while others refuse even to promise to do it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister claims ambitiously that she is making her promises come about, but we have yet to see how the Bill will come into effect. She has told us about the announced, re-announced, treble-announced and multi-counted quality protects money for adoption services, which is welcome. However, that is spread over three years and is supposed to cater not only for what is going on now. It is intended, too, for extra adoption support services that we all agree are necessary and for other work that will be required on the back of the Bill—the extra 40 to 50 per cent. of children that will be adopted in the next few years, which is a Government target that we support, and the cumulative effect of post-adoption services for the increasing number of children to be adopted each year.

As I have pointed out, that money is not as generous as the Minister might like it to appear because of the enormous extra demands that will be placed on it. It would be complacent to take the Minister's words as suggesting that an enormous pot of funding is available to cater for all the additional requirements for adoption support services that we all deem necessary and that we want to see happen. Even with that funding, there will be enormous constraints on the support services. I repeat what I said at the start of the debate, that even the noblest of intentions, many of which appear in the Bill, will not be translated into action unless resources are available, particularly given that social services departments in some parts of the country are under great pressure.

The Minister has spoken about duties and powers giving that combination flexibility. As usual, it is a question of how the regulations will eventually appear and manifest themselves in practice. However, we can pursue this issue in more detail in debate on clause 4. On that basis, 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. 23, in page 3, line 42, after 'question', insert

', including qualified social workers working on contract to the local authority.'.

We now come to subsection (4). One of the problems that we face is that, although the Bill makes many references to regulations, we have not seen them because they have not yet been written. Paragraph (b) refers to

''other persons who are within a description prescribed by regulations of persons who may provide the facilities in question.''

However, we do not know what those regulations are, and as far as I know they have not been finalised. The amendment would make provision to include ''qualified social workers'', who may be covered by the regulations anyway, so perhaps the Minister would clarify that point.

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, a huge amount of pressure is put on social services departments. A great deal of strain and stress is put on those who work in the service, as several hon. Members said, including the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford. Social workers enjoy working in adoption, and there is no shortage of social workers in departments who want to get involved in that field. However, there is a shortage of younger people entering social services, as we have discussed.

In terms of the overall funding arrangements and budgets for local authorities, the Secretary of State made it clear that the local government settlement is reasonably generous. However, the devil is in the detail, and I have had a close look at how the local authority funding settlement affects Norfolk. A large number of questions remain to be answered. A large question mark hangs over some parcels of funding that have to be bid for when qualifications are attached. It will be difficult for every social services department throughout the country to receive the level of funding that it so badly needs.

That leads me on to the purpose of the amendment. Independent social workers represent a resource who may have left social services through personal circumstances. They may have gone off to have a baby, moved into another career or gone into some other form of private practice. They may want to return to mainstream social work, but may not be able to take on a full-time job. We need to make it crystal clear that we are sending out the right signal to that group of people—that their qualifications and experience are valid and could be very useful in bringing about the Government's laudable aims in the Bill.

That is the purpose behind the amendment. The Minister may be able to satisfy the Committee and clarify what the regulations will allow. If she cannot do so, however, I humbly submit that the amendment should be accepted to widen the scope of the subsection.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Under subsection (4)(a), local authorities may meet their obligation to provide services by ensuring that services are provided by a registered adoption society on their behalf. Local authorities may, for example, enter into contract arrangements with a registered adoption society for it to assess prospective adopters on their behalf. That would enable local authorities to draw on the expertise of registered adoption societies in their area.

A list of other persons who may provide services on behalf of local authorities will be drawn up, as the hon. Gentleman says, in regulations under subsection (4)(b). It is intended that those persons will include registered adoption support agencies in respect of the provision of adoption support services. Adoption support agencies are introduced in clause 8, so we will discuss them in more detail.

The persons listed in the regulations will include national health service providers and independent social workers when such social workers are working on contract to the local authority. Local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies can already—and many do—contract with independent social workers to provide services on their behalf and under their supervision. As the hon. Gentleman says, that allows additional capacity to be brought into the agency, ensures that all the necessary information can be obtained and that all checks and balances are built into the system.

The hon. Gentleman's amendment would bring social workers working on contract for the local authority within the group of people able to provide adoption services on behalf of local authorities. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will include such social workers in the regulations made under clause 3(4)(b). On the basis of that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving that crystal clear assurance, in the light of which 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. 67, in page 3, line 43, leave out from 'must' to end of line 2, on page 4, and insert—

'(a) be provided in conjunction with the local authority's other social services and with registered adoption agencies in their area,

(b) be provided in conjunction with any other local authority's social services and with registered adoption agencies in other areas,

(c) be given in a co-ordinated manner without duplication, omission or avoidable delay.'.

The last of the amendments tabled to clause 3 refers to subsection (5). It is a probing amendment designed to include more detail in the Bill, unless the Minister can assure us that the current wording is sufficient. The amendment would introduce a more joined-up approach. It goes for a three-pronged attack, whereby the support services are not defined merely by what the social services department can or cannot provide. The amendment would require the child care department to liaise with other social services departments in the local authority, as well as with various other adoption agencies that may offer support services.

We also believe that a social services department should be able to call on the resources of other departments. With the greater use of the register that is envisaged, because the Bill gives legislative teeth to the register, it is likely that more distant adoptions will take place. Certainly, the facilities are being put in place to enable that to happen. It is also likely that

more adoptions will take place because there will be a larger pool of prospective adopters. Therefore, it seems wholly appropriate that social services departments should liaise with each other, not only on extended placements beyond their boundaries, but in cases where another authority can offer specialities and expertise, perhaps relating to behavioural difficulties or children who have been badly abused—we heard about many such cases during our witness sittings.

We know that the various adoption departments in social services departments operate in consortiums, whereby the departments in several local authorities link up. I believe that, in my constituency, West Sussex links up with the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and, perhaps, Southampton. I believe that a similar arrangement operates in Kent. One would expect there to be more interaction between the social services departments in a consortium, and paragraph (b) of the amendment would provide for greater co-operation.

Paragraph (c) repeats the provision already included in clause 3(5). [Interruption.] I am sorry if I am boring the Minister but, harking back to one our overriding concerns, it is important that all the services should be provided without delay. That is a meaty point to which we shall return when we discuss the next clause, if the Minister can keep her eyes open for that long. That is the basis of the amendment. It is helpful and is designed to tease out more explicitly a more holistic approach to the provision of support services.

I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to rethink the comments that she made the other day when replacing her hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, who presided so skilfully, professionally and amenably over the amendments that she steered through the Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary graciously and quite rightly offered to take on board some of the sensible comments made by Opposition members of the Committee, only to be replaced by the Minister, whose phrase, I believe, was ''No more Mr. Nice Guy''.

This is an opportunity for the Minister to reassert her credentials as a human being who might have something to learn from the great expertise and thought that went into the amendments. This is a constructive, helpful and common-sense amendment, which I have no doubt the Minister will now be delighted to adopt.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was going to start by apologising for my yawning. If my eight-year-old done that, he would have been in trouble.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Slapped.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

He would most certainly not be. However, the hon. Gentleman has been rather unkind, so I will not apologise. He has, though, woken the Committee up.

Subsection (5) of the clause obliges local authorities to provide their adoption service in conjunction with their other social services and with registered adoption societies in their own area. That will ensure that services are provided in a co-ordinated manner and

without delay. Adopting the amendment would mean that the facilities of the local authority adoption service would have to be provided in conjunction with any other local authority's social services and with registered adoption societies in other areas, as well as in the local authority's own area.

The Government believe that that is unnecessary—not because we believe that the hon. Gentleman's points are without foundation. In many circumstances, local authorities will need to work with other ones and with voluntary adoption agencies that operate outside the local authority's area. That will be particularly important where a child is placed with a family living in another local authority area in respect of the provision of adoption support services.

For that reason, subsections (10) and (11) of clause 4 place local authorities under a duty to co-operate with each other in the provision of adoption support services. That will ensure that local authorities work together to support people receiving those services while they are settling into a new area. Subsection (7)(h) of clause 4 enables regulations to be made setting out the arrangements for the assessment of needs and the provision of adoption support services, when a child is placed with an adoptive family in a different local authority area.

At the moment, adoptive families tell us that when they adopt children from another local authority area, they do not necessarily receive a satisfactory adoption support service. That is why we intend to use regulations to make local authorities' duties in such circumstances clear. We will consult stakeholders while developing the regulations, to get the detail right.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of consortiums. The Government are committed to encouraging local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies to work together in consortiums. Joint working between councils and voluntary adoption agencies can be a way of achieving more cost-effective organisation and service provision, and of sharing best practice. That may help local authorities to find families more quickly for children who need them.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Does my hon. Friend accept that most local authorities already work in consortiums, because they wish to pursue policies that promote adoption? There is surely no need to put into legislation conditions that already apply. I would have thought the Conservatives would support that.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was going to say that we expect most local authorities to become members of consortiums in time, but that the appropriate way forward is to encourage rather than require them to do so, as he pointed out. Consortium arrangements work most effectively when the organisations involved are committed to the successful operation of the consortium.

I am unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, for the reasons that I have outlined. On the basis of the assurances that I have given, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw them.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister is obviously confused. She gave two contradictory statements in her retort to my perfectly reasonable amendment. First, she said that the wording of the amendment would mean that support services ''must'' be provided in conjunction with the local authority's other social services. That is not my wording, but the wording of the clause. The word ''must''—it is unusual, as ''may'' would normally be used—is used in line 43, which is in subsection (5). One of her arguments for not accepting my amendment was that it would be too restrictive. If it would be restrictive, so would the clause.

The Minister's second contradiction was taken up from what the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said. He mentioned that the arrangements were already occurring in consortiums, as we had admitted, so we should not need to prescribe them. We prescribe only a little more detail than the Government already do in the one sentence of subsection (5). On the basis of the Minister agreeing with her hon. Friend, she should scrap subsection (5) altogether. There seems to be some conflict as to what subsection (5) is meant to achieve. That vindicates my original intention, which was to try to make more explicit what the Government are prepared to entertain and are trying to achieve, whether it is now happening in certain consortiums or not.

I was confused by the fact that tiredness had obviously punctured the Minister's usual sagacity and conciseness in her response to my amendments, as she was entirely unconvincing in this instance. However, we have some more fun ahead on clause 4(7)(h), although that is of course entirely subject to the long-lamented and long-awaited regulations which may appear with the coming of next spring. On the basis that there will be a further opportunity to tease out explanations from the Government on the next clause, it would not serve the purpose of the Committee any further to persist with the amendment, so, regrettably, and with a view to returning to it on a later stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I should like to say briefly how much I welcome the clause, which is one of the most important in an important Bill. Subsection (1) states:

''Each local authority must continue to maintain within their area a service designed to meet the needs''

of many people, and it proceeds to list them. That is a vital step. We have not heard it today, but the Opposition and groups from outside Parliament have issued us with a counsel of despair about local authorities and adoption services. The clause is a vote of confidence in local authorities and a way of signifying that the most important adoption services for children in care lie with local authorities, which as corporate parents have the fundamental responsibility to look after children who are placed in care voluntarily or by care order. Local authorities must

maintain that adoption service, because adoption must be developed much more to meet the needs of children in care.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Does my hon. Friend agree that a key and welcome feature of the clause, which is different from its previous incarnation before the general election, is the provision to provide services to natural parents? Does he also agree that that significantly enhances the previous proposals?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

My hon. Friend anticipates my comments. It is a tremendous step forward. There were some elegant contributions to the evidence-giving sittings from organisations involved in counselling and supporting adopted children and birth relatives in what can be a heart-breaking quest for both sides. It is essential that this element has been added to the Bill.

So much of our discussion in Committee is so dry and formal, when we are talking about a deeply human and personal, but in many ways joyous, process. The clause, and the significant resources that the Government are allocating to adoption services and to care services for young people in general, marks a fundamental step forward in how we look after young people. I look forward to the development of a vast range of proactive services, so that adoptive parents, young people and advocacy services are encouraged to work much better with local authorities than they have in the past. Public and private services should come together to meet the sometimes profound needs and difficult circumstances of adopted young people and their parents. I am optimistic about the clause, and we should all wish it well.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I agree with almost everything that he said. He is right to say that in many ways clause 3 is the heart of the Bill. He will not take it amiss if I say that the issue of resourcing is central. I say that without hypocrisy, as I have argued repeatedly in area after area on value for money and on keeping public spending down where it is unnecessary.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and it is no exaggeration to say that he had the most professionally parsimonious job in the whole of the House of Commons. He also loves to engender his personal reputation for parsimony, even to the extent that in all the meetings on adoption in his office, we were not once offered a drink. I frequently tease him about that. He said that resourcing for adoption is the one area where he would be willing to consider an almost blank cheque purely for the reasons of finance, even leaving aside all the human considerations that bring every member of the Committee to these deliberations.

The evidence of long-term savings is overwhelming in every part of Government spending, from special needs in schools to the criminal justice system. There are such huge returns to be made from moving children from unsatisfactory and frequently turbulent

parts of the care system into homes where they can be adopted that there is a strong case for generous resourcing.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to preface his remarks about the success that adoption offers so many children in care, even on the targets that the Government have set —which will be a tall order to achieve—which we all support? Let us not forget that the majority of children remain in care with foster carers and that social services endeavour to return them to their natural parents, which is the optimum option for them. In mooting the idea that the Bill is a blank cheque for adoption, let us not imply that the majority of children who remain in foster care are therefore condemned to second-class opportunities.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Of course, no child in care should be treated as second class. Children in care are our responsibility. We as Parliament and the State are their parents. The hon. Gentleman is right. Although I agree with him that every child in care is extremely important, the point about adoption is that it has been under-recognised in the past, and to the Government's credit, they have acknowledged that in bringing forward the Bill. Both the academics who gave evidence made the point that, in most cases, if one leaves aside the large number of children who come through care for short periods, adoption is the best option for those children who have been in care for a substantial period.

It is important to remember, as the Prime Minister's review stated, that even the modest improvement in the adoption figures and the ambitious target that the Government have rightly set would bring the bald statistics only up to a par with the situation in America. The American care system has a much higher proportion of children with difficulties for adoption than ours.

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

The way in which statistics are calculated has always been a mystery to me. Adoption statistics are based on the number of children adopted within any local authority in a calendar year as a proportion of children in care on 31 March of that year. That does not tell us how many children who may have been eligible for adoption have been adopted. It gives a proportion of a figure on one day in which the overall number of children who have been adopted is not included. It is a proxy measure of achievement, rather than an actual measure of how many children might have been adopted and how many children were actually adopted. Because it is only a proxy measure, we must take care in comparing that figure with those in other countries.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I suffer from having been a statistician for a number of years.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

So have we.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The hon. Gentleman is in danger of slipping below his normally high standard of debate. It is only half-past 6.

The hon. Lady's point deserves an answer. The gist of it is that until three or four years ago, the statistics on adoption to which she refers were not collected on a fully comparable basis. Indeed, a small number of local authorities, mostly the worst adopters, failed to furnish statistics at all. To the credit of the Minister's immediate predecessor, that practice was cracked down on and every local authority provides statistics on the same basis.

The defect that the hon. Lady mentions is true in theory. It is a proxy measure, but having struggled with the figures for some years, I can say that in practice, it is a pretty good one. The proportion adopted in any one year as a fraction or percentage of the total number in care at a snapshot point is a pretty good measure. It is also broadly comparable with the statistics gathered in the league table in the Prime Minister's original review.

That showed that we do better than most other European countries, but we are well behind America. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, the Americans have a much higher proportion of children who are difficult to adopt, even though our proportion seems very large. Therefore it is by no means over-ambitious for us to aim to reach their adoption level. Indeed, the Americans are trying hard to raise their own adoption level.

The statistics could be improved in one area, and this is relevant to the resourcing available under clause 3. It would be useful to have a second statistic that showed the proportion of children who had been in care for more than a certain period, although a lack of international comparisons would mean that it was often availably only for internal comparisons. I would argue that that period should be relatively short. According to the way in which Government and, indeed, academic thinking is moving, we should consider those who have been in care for more than six months, rather than only the long end of the spectrum. I hope that that answers the hon. Lady's point.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I want to take issue slightly with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. He made some relevant points about the clause, although he might have gone slightly over the top. He also said that our deliberations had largely been dry and formal. That is an unfair reflection: our deliberations have been largely moist and informal. [Laughter.]

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I take it all back. I look forward to much more moistness.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

On that basis, we shall move swiftly on.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre, who brought us back to the fundamental reason for our being here: to ensure that we improve the legislative framework around the adoption of children. As he said, that is a very important, personal and individual feature.

The clause ensures that we move away from the patchy provision of adoption support services across the country. The new provisions on adoption support will tackle that inconsistency. For the first time, the Bill places a clear duty on local authorities to make and participate in arrangements to provide adoption support services, which will include financial support.

We will use those provisions to deliver on the commitment to a new framework for adoption support services and financial support. That will be developed with stakeholders and published for consultation in the spring. We shall back up the national framework with extra funding to ensure that many more adoptive families receive the support that they need. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Assessments etc. for adoption support services

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 4, line 12, after 'needs', insert

'or the needs of connected persons'.

Despite the universal eulogies that we heard about clause 3, clause 4 may prove more central to the Bill. It certainly contains much more meat, hence we tabled several amendments to it. Amendment No. 95 is simple and harks back to the points that I made under amendment No. 64 to clause 3 about who can call for support services.

Clause 4(1) states that a local authority must respond to the request of persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b). We are yet to be given the full identity of those people, which will be in regulations. At their request, a local authority must carry out an assessment of

''that person's needs for adoption support services.''

The point that I made before, and want to echo now, is that an adult might have spotted that someone in the connected persons list, which we do not have in full, is suffering in some way; typically, it might be the adopted child or a sibling of that child who is a minor, and who obviously needs support. As the clause stands, someone whose need for support has, for some reason, not been spotted by the professionals working with him or her can ask for that support only for himself or herself. I am sure that that is not what is intended, but a strict definition of the clause suggests that that would be the outcome.

The problem that we have with the clause—the next group of amendments will address this specifically—is connected to the large amount of regulation and requirement set down for assessments. We think that assessments are necessary, although we are not sure how detailed and time consuming they will be. Our fear is that, although much effort and scarce professional time will go into the assessments, there is no equivalent duty then to provide the support services that an assessment may identify as required.

The amendment is helpful. It would mean that a person who identifies a need for support does not have to identify that need only for himself, but can do so for other connected persons.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As the hon. Gentleman said, we are now discussing clause 4, which introduces a new right to an assessment for adoption support services. It delivers on the commitment made in the White Paper to give adoptive families a right to an assessment of their need for adoption support services from their local authority.

The clause goes yet further, extending the right to an assessment to everyone affected by adoption. The persons listed in clause 3(1) will all be entitled to an assessment of their needs for adoption support services. They are children who may be adopted, their parents and guardians, prospective adopters and adopted people, their adoptive parents, birth parents and former guardians. Additional persons will be prescribed in the regulations made under clause 4(1)(b), who will also have the new right to an assessment. The Government intend those people to include birth and adoptive siblings of adopted people and children who may be adopted.

The amendment would require the local authority, in addition to carrying out an assessment of needs for adoption support services of the person who has requested it, to carry out an assessment of the needs of connected persons. It does not make it clear who those connected persons might be, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman's concern is to ensure that the assessment is as broad as necessary to take into consideration any needs that might be identified.

The Government believe that the amendment is unnecessary. We intend that everyone affected by adoption should be able to approach their local authority for an assessment of their need for adoption support services, and clause 4 provides for that. In addition, parents can request an assessment on the child's behalf. In practice, the needs of adoptive families—adoptive children, their adoptive parents and any adoptive siblings—will be assessed together. It would not be appropriate for the child's needs to be assessed in isolation, so assessment will consider the needs of the family as a whole.

On the rare occasions when a child's needs are assessed in isolation, the local authority will consider the extent to which the people caring for that child have related needs. For example, to meet the needs of a physically disabled child, the adoptive parents might be assessed as requiring respite care. The provisions in clause 4 are flexible enough to allow for that, so there is no need for the amendment.

On that basis, and given the broad scope of those able to request assessment for adoption support and the way in which such assessments will be carried out, I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that the issues that he has raised are adequately dealt with.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It is not entirely clear that what the Minister has described will happen, but I think that we are getting at the same point. She said that our amendment does not make it entirely clear who the ''connected persons'' are. That is right, and it will not become clear until the regulations are published. The wording is intended to mirror the wider family who have an interest in the adopted person. Such persons could include the child himself, siblings, grandparents, step-parents, birth parents and others.

We have been assured that the provision will be set out in greater detail in regulations. In using the phrase ''connected persons'' we do not seek to extend the range of people further than the regulations will in any case do, so the Minister need have no fears on that score. She rightly said that the clause and the regulations should be flexible enough to enable as many people as possible to approach the local authority. However, to be brutally frank, children, off their own bat, are not likely to approach the local authority and say, ''I've got a problem, and I need to have my adoption support service requirement assessed.'' Under the clause, somebody who is articulate enough or minded enough to say, ''I need this help now'' could not do that on behalf of someone who is not in that position.

As I have said, minors in particular, but also adults with mental disabilities—those who are not physically children but are of a lower mental age—are more likely to be in need of support services, but they may not have the ability, cause or gumption to ask for it. We ask only for the sealing of a loophole through which everybody could find a route to securing those support services. If the Minister can reassure me that the clause prevents that, my amendment is unnecessary, but I want to hear a little more from her to suggest that we are thinking along the same lines.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I have outlined the range of people who will be able to ask for an assessment. If the hon. Gentleman's concern is the extent to which an advocate outside that list will be able to request an assessment for adoption support services, I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks. However, he raises an important point about the extent to which someone else could ask for an assessment. I can assure him that a child could request an assessment under subsection (1) and that the parents of a child who is not competent could request an assessment on behalf of the child.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I hope that the Minister will be a little more forthcoming if I give her a practical example. An adopted child could have a mentally impaired birth grandparent or a young sibling who, for various reasons, was having trouble coming to terms with a continued relation with that child. Given that they were not living in the same home as the adopted child, who would instigate support services for them if the adoptive parent saw that there was a problem affecting the child? For obvious reasons, the two people whom

I mentioned would be unlikely to be able to go to the local authority to say, ''I need this support service now.''

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As I said, although an assessment might be requested by one person, it would in practice involve the whole family and any other people who were affected by the adoption. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for the child's needs to be assessed in isolation; the assessment would need to consider the needs of the family as a whole. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue about advocacy and the route into the assessment process for people who are unable to access it themselves.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I want to make a related point without returning to this morning's discussions about geographical definitions. The Bill relates to England and Wales. In Wales, the Children's Commissioner for Wales has a certain advocacy role. Just by chance I happen to have the Children's Commissioner for Wales Act 2001 in front of me. Section 4(5) refers to

''complaints or representations made to the person by or on behalf of a child about services provided in Wales to or in respect of the child.''

Does the Minister envisage that the Children's Commissioner will have a role to play in this context?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I do not envisage that the Children's Commissioner will have the title role envisaged under this part of the Bill by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, but clearly the representative role may be significant in raising issues around services that a child might have received. That would not however solve the problem described by the hon. Gentleman of a person acting as an alternative route into an assessment for someone who is unable to access it for themselves.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised an important point, and I undertake to write to him about the specific examples that he cited. The Government intend that people should have the right to access assessments, and we need to consider the implications for those who might be unable to make that approach directly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by what I have said, or will be so later in Committee, and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am glad that time is ameliorating the Minister's attitude and I am grateful for her comments. She is placing the matter on a higher level than I have tried to do. I am not talking about an advocacy situation, and certainly not about children's commissioners. I am talking about a simple relative, step-relative or adoptive relative—who may not be blood-related—pointing out to the local authority that it needs to do something for the adopted person. As the Minister graciously admitted, it is not clear how to access assessment. I am reassured by her statement that the Government's intention is that as many people as possible should have the right to access it. I entirely agree with that. I am now trying to identify the mechanics whereby that right can be exercised. I am

sure that she will go away and get a little post-flight refuelling—[Interruption.] Ah, she has had some in-flight refuelling.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman using the following example. If somebody were incompetent and unable to make a request for assessment, a carer may make it on their behalf; alternatively, somebody could draw the attention of the local authority to the situation, and the fact that no formal request had been made would not preclude the local authority from assessing the person's needs.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Now I am confused. Does that piece of advice constitute an excuse for the Minister not to consider the issue in more detail, or is it a stop-gap? The Minister has clearly identified a potential gap, to which she will undoubtedly want to give further thought. If that thought manifests itself in rewriting part of the clause before Report, we will be manifestly happy to have instigated that—even if the Minister does not give credit where it is due.

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. 69, in page 4, line 18, leave out from ''services'' to end of line 19 and insert

''the local authority has the duty to provide suitable services to that person.''.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 170, in page 4, line 18, leave out ''decide whether to''.

No. 70, in page 4, line 19, after ''person'', insert

''and provide a written explanation of their reasons if those support services will not be forthcoming.''.

No. 71, in page 4, line 20, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

''(5) If a local authority decides that a person has need for adoption support services, the local authority must prepare a plan in accordance with which adoption support services are being provided to the person and keep the plan under regular review.''.

No. 171, in page 4, line 21, leave out ''decide'' and ''has assessed a need''.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

This is quite an extensive group of amendments; our amendments have been grouped with two tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

The lead amendment is absolutely essential and would be a test of the Government's genuineness to turn into reality the bold and well-guided intentions of clause 4. Earlier, I made the point that there is much detail about the duty on local authorities to carry out assessments—that is right for support services. However, there is no matching duty thereafter, if a need is identified, to provide support services to deal with the problem. If the latter does not follow the former, it makes a nonsense of the intentions of the clause.

Subsection (4) begins:

''Where, as a result of an assessment, a local authority decide that a person has needs for adoption support services'',

but it continues:

''they must then decide whether to provide any such services to that person''.

We want to firm that up substantially by replacing it with the words,

''the local authority has the duty to provide suitable services to that person''.

Without that, providing an assessment could be seen as a handy way to escape the provision in the clause. That point was raised by a number of witnesses, in more detail, in many of the submissions. All the submissions welcomed support services being much more universally available, but most raised a concern that the assessments should be matched by support services that are forthcoming.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Perhaps I am anticipating my hon. Friend's comments, but it seems absolutely bizarre to compel local authorities to carry out resource-intensive assessments without making them go on to do something about it. Already restricted numbers of social workers will be involved in ever-increasing numbers with assessments, and they will be less able to deliver services.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend is right; that is a fear that we have raised. I raised it because I wanted to concentrate on this part of the Bill during the witness sittings. As we have discussed at length, social workers involved in child support are in short supply. We certainly need more of them if we are to increase the number of children adopted, as we want to do.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's intentions. Does he agree that if the amendments were accepted, local authority social workers would be encouraged to skew their assessments in terms of the available resources, rather than making a fair assessment, and if necessary pointing out unmet need?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The logical extrapolation from that is that they can promise the earth in their assessments if they know that they do not have to provide it. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is entirely irrelevant. We need to make it clear that there must be a fair assessment, and that those assessments need to be properly monitored. No doubt the Minister can assure us on the quality of the assessments. It is a fair point that much of the paperwork on which social workers involved in adoption now rely is cumbersome, lengthy and, in many cases, out of date. One has only to look at subject form F1, with which many Government Members will be very familiar. It was faxed to me and caused the expending of no little amount of ink and fax paper. No doubt the Minister could have provided me with a hard copy if I had requested it.

The point is that, as many professionals in the field have said, such forms were designed about 25 years go. They ask questions that are not as relevant—often, largely irrelevant—today, 25 years since the Adoption Act was introduced. That is part of the problem with the assessments. Are they asking the right questions? We need to make sure that the assessment process is fair and valid.

Saying that social workers should not be obliged to provide services, and that that would in some way encourage them to make a fairer assessment in the first place, rather misses the point. We have required local authorities to do certain things and placed duties on social workers elsewhere in the Bill, and we are not asking an awful lot in this context.

Section 27(2) of the Children Act 1989 does not deal specifically with the business of local authorities providing adoption support services, but it does deal with an equivalent. It states:

''An authority whose help is so requested shall comply with the request''.

That is a clear duty to comply, and not to decide whether or not it will provide support services. I should like to see the same terminology applied to appropriate support services.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.