Adoption and Children Bill

Public Bill Committee, 13 December 2001.

Special Standing Committee

Clause 4 - Assessments etc. for adoption support services

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

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing 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'.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

The clause in some ways baffles me. I cannot begin to fathom—nor could many of those who made submissions on the Bill—why it will not be mandatory to provide services necessary to cater for an identified need. As the Bill stands, the following scenario is likely. First, a child is assessed for need; secondly, the assessment identifies the need; thirdly, the local authority ignores the assessment.

The local authority might have a variety of reasons for ignoring the assessment, but I suspect that the most likely would be pressure on funding. Indeed, the Minister alluded to budget problems on Tuesday. We all know that strict budgets mean that other social services functions will suffer. For instance, they can fund only a fixed number of nursing home beds, which is one of the factors that contributes to bed-blocking.

Another trend, which I have noted particularly in my constituency, is that budgetary pressures on local authorities make them take a ''this will do for this child'' attitude when dealing with children with special educational needs instead of doing the best that they can. I fear that the same attitude will pervade the adoption services. Given that the Government rightly want to increase the number of adopted children, I can foresee adoption services budgets coming under huge pressure. The clause will provide local authorities with an easy get-out; the Bill makes it far too easy for them to say no. Prospective adoptive parents might also face the scenario of support services being provided for a year and then withdrawn because other cases are thought to be more worthy. It seems unfair that they should be promised support but with no guarantee that it will continue to be forthcoming in the long term.

I firmly believe that the Bill will be counter-productive—especially if the Government are genuine in trying to boost the number of adoptive parents. If complex needs require a certain amount of financial support, prospective adoptive parents will need to be reassured that the support will be forthcoming for as long as is necessary. If the amendments were accepted, the situation would be much clearer. The local authority could provide support, and the adoptive parents would be secure in the knowledge that that support would be on-going.

As I said, the Minister came clean when we were discussing clause 3 by saying that decisions would have to be made in the light of available resources. In what other instances might local authorities decide not to support an identified need?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I thought that hon. Members were going to make rather more of a meal of the amendment.

Clause 4, which we began debating on Tuesday, gives people affected by adoption a new right to request and receive an assessment of their need for adoption support services from the local authority. As such, it provides an extremely important step forward in enabling families and adopted children to access the necessary adoption support. The assessment will ensure that adoptive families and others must no longer fight against the system to get the support that they need. It will also ensure that public services are properly joined up and co-ordinate the provision of adoption support services. Where the assessment identifies that a person needs adoption support services, the local authority must decide whether to provide them.

Opposition Members have feigned incredulity that such a system could pertain to local authorities or public services. The system is, however, appropriate because local authorities are best placed to decide—on the basis of need and the resources available locally—which services to provide and whether to provide them. That form of decision making is appropriate given the range of services that local authorities and other public services provide.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I find this very hard to understand. What is the point of making it compulsory for a local authority to assess a need if it need do nothing about it? That is an artificial exercise.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The fact that the hon. Lady finds something hard to understand does not mean that it is not the sensible and appropriate way in which to organise public services.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister obviously got out of bed on the wrong side this morning after a very late night that was of her party's making. She referred ungraciously to our feigned incredulity, but our concerns reflect statements that many witnesses made before the Committee and in representations. The Bill talks not about which services to provide, but about ''whether to'' provide them—that is the point.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

If the Opposition's argument is that providing adoption support services is crucial to increasing the number of adoptive parents, I agree. However, I disagree with their proposal that assessments should be automatically translated into action. That would be quite unusual for public services.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

In a moment.

Clause 3 spells out, for the first time, the duty on local authorities to provide adoptive families with services—to increase the number of adoptions, as we all want.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

No, not at the moment. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) in a minute.

By giving local authorities extra resources for adoption support services, the Government will ensure that they are provided to individuals, and we shall discuss the details of provision later.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation is similar to that in many other services? Only the other day, I sought an assessment for my parents from the Liberal-Democrat run council in Sheffield. It struggled to offer one and made it clear to my mother on the telephone that it would not provide certain services even if she was assessed as having a need.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I cannot comment on the failures of the Liberal Democrat council in Sheffield, but my hon. Friend is right. The Conservative Government introduced the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which also established a relationship between assessment and the right of local authorities to decide how and whether to provide services. Therefore, determining the provision of services in such a way is not unprecedented.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

If we are sharing out blame, I could throw equal light on Labour-controlled Southampton city council, under which we have problems accessing special educational needs provision, and, to be even-handed, Conservative-controlled Hampshire county council—

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

Order. It is right and proper for hon. Members to emphasise a point by identifying specific experiences, but we do not want to start a political debate about local authorities throughout the country.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

Just because there is already a problem does not mean that we should perpetuate it by passing a similarly flawed Bill.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The logic of the hon. Lady's argument is that, contrary to the Government, she does not believe that local authorities are best placed to make such decisions.

Sandra Gidley indicated dissent.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is the logic of her position. Although it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that there is a duty to provide services, which the Bill provides, and that local authorities have the wherewithal to make decisions about how resources are allocated—which will undoubtedly be easier under a Labour Government who make the resources available in the first place—the local authorities themselves should be able to make the decisions.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Before we sky-rocket off into more party political nonsense, I remind the hon. Lady that she has just repeated that clause 3 puts a duty on local authorities to provide services. Can she point out in which phrase or part of clause 3 there is a duty on local authorities to provide adoption support services?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The responsibility is clearly laid out in clause 3.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Where; which line?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

At the beginning—''to maintain an adoption service'', and as we discussed. [Interruption.]

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

Order. We are doing very well. You are being very kind to me, and my life is easy. I should like, with your co-operation, to keep it that way, so please let us have no interjections from sedentary positions.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

In fact, subsection (2)(b) provides a duty to maintain an adoption support service. The duty to provide resources is there, as is the responsibility, which the Government take seriously. Nevertheless, local authorities have discretion in their decisions.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am afraid that the Minister is not convincing. The clause makes provision for the maintenance of adoption services and for the arrangements for the provision of adoption services, but makes no provision placing a duty on a local authority actually to provide those services. That is the point. The wording of the clause contains no duty on local authorities to provide a support service. That is not what the Minister said.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am afraid that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Clause 3 clearly states:

''Each local authority must continue to maintain within their area a service designed to meet the needs, in relation to adoption, of—''

and lists the people for whom the service should be available. Subsection (2) says:

''Those facilities must include making, and participating in, arrangements . . .

(b) for the provision of adoption support services.''

There is a clear duty to put in place an adoption support service. That has been introduced in legislation for the first time. Later, we shall talk about the responsibilities in terms of planning and, therefore, accountability for ensuring that those adoption support services are in place.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Under that very wording, a local authority could maintain a fleet of dustcarts and a fleet of rubbish collection men and have no duty to collect any rubbish. The same principle applies to the clause.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman is stretching credulity a little.

I turn to the argument of the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) that local authorities are very likely just to ignore assessments. That is not my experience of local authorities. In the past, local authorities may not have provided adequate adoption support services when they did not have a duty or the resources to do so. The Bill attempts to set that problem right.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I have one brief point. I followed what the Minister said about clauses 3 and 4, but she gave the game away when she said that local authorities would provide services according to the resources that they had. That is a let-out for local authorities not to provide services, but their doing so is the point of the Bill.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am at a loss to work out how local authorities could provide services without taking their resources into consideration. Resources are important and local authorities need to make decisions on the basis of those that they receive. However, in law they now have not only the responsibility and duty to maintain adoption support services, but increased resources with which to do so. Opposition Members may say that this debate is deteriorating into party political points, but that is the distinction between this Government and the Conservative Government. We are supplying and are pledged to continue to supply the resources to enable the services to be provided.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the implications for other services provided by local authorities could be devastating if we accepted the amendments? Parameters need to be determined by local authority members when they consider their budget, their priorities and the level of council tax that they want to set. We in the House should not be so prescriptive as to hamstring local authorities. Many people might be put at a disadvantage and find that one group that requires services is given preference over another, but it cannot be right for us to decide such matters; they are for local authorities.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes an important point about the responsibilities of local authorities. The Committee is rightly concerned to ensure that adoption support services are in place to support the objectives that we all have to increase the number of adopters. We are also dealing with local authorities, which rightly have a range of responsibilities. They are locally accountable to their electorate in deciding how money is spent.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

May I take the Minister back to the argument that I put at the end of our previous sitting? Local authorities have a statutory duty to look after children in care, and we all support that. It is an extremely expensive statutory duty, but it is right. The anomaly on adoption—it will remain after the Bill is enacted and was borne out by the academic testimony that we heard—is that the only non-compulsory part of the equation is the procedure that provides the best outcome for children who have been in care for a while, which is almost always the cheapest outcome for the local authority even if it provides all the adoption services.

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

Order. Interventions should be as short as possible. I think that the Minister got the point.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, there has been another misunderstanding about the extent to which it is the responsibility or duty of the local authority to provide a service, and the extent to which that local authority has discretion about how it provides support for any individual. There is a distinction. I do not agree that the Children Act 1989 has the effect that Conservative Members and the hon. Member for Romsey are trying to create through the amendment.

I would like the Committee to consider some details of the amendments, some of which came up on Tuesday afternoon. Amendments Nos. 71 and 171 are about the necessity to provide a plan following an assessment. Subsection (5) proposed in amendment No. 71 would require local authorities, where they decide to provide adoption support services following an assessment and the circumstances fall within a description prescribed by regulations, to prepare a plan for the provision of those services and to keep that plan under review. Regulations that we will make under clause 4(7)(d) will set out requirements as to the manner and frequency of reviewing plans.

The previous version of the Bill, introduced in the spring, required local authorities, in every case in which they decide to provide support services following an assessment, to prepare a plan for the provision of those services and keep that plan under review. We have given the issue of plans careful consideration since then, and we have decided to make a change so as not to place unnecessary burdens on local authorities, particularly in light of the much wider responsibilities to provide an assessment in this Bill compared with the previous one.

In many cases in which a local authority provides adoption support services following an assessment, it will be appropriate for it to draw up a plan to co-ordinate the provision of those services. For example, where an adoptive family is provided with a number of different services following an assessment, the details of those services will need to be recorded in a plan to ensure that the family receives the services at the appropriate times.

However, in some cases a plan will not be needed. For example, where services are provided on a one-off basis, such as an individual session of counselling for an adopted adult preparing to receive information about their birth family, a plan will not be necessary to co-ordinate their provision. We do not want to place unnecessary burdens on local authorities, so the regulations will be used to make it clear where a plan is required. That is an important proviso, given the extended right to assessment in the Bill.

We have already had some discussion of amendments Nos. 69 and 170, which would require local authorities to provide the adoption support services that a person is assessed as needing, following an assessment under clause 4. We have heard a few of the arguments already, but I hope that I can reassure hon. Members and contradict the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Romsey that somehow local authorities are looking for a way out of providing such services.

A local authority must act reasonably when deciding whether to provide an adoption support service following an assessment, but it is for the local authority to make that decision. In doing so, it will take the resources available to it into account. That follows the approach taken to service provision in the vast majority of public services, including other social services and the health service. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear on Second Reading on 29 October that, ultimately, local authorities provide the adoption service, so they must decide who needs what level of support. The substantial extra funding that the Government have made available will help to ensure that many more people get the support that they need, and we will continue to consider the need for resources in light of the forthcoming spending review process.

Amendment No. 70 would require local authorities, where they decide not to provide adoption support services, to give a written explanation of their reasons for not doing so. That is not a matter for primary legislation. It will be good practice for local authorities to do so following an assessment, but it is more appropriate for the issue to be covered by guidance to local authorities. In some cases, depending on the needs of the person who has been assessed, it may be more appropriate or necessary to provide a verbal explanation of that decision.

We are developing a new national framework for adoption support services in consultation with experts in the adoption field. We will publish that framework for consultation in the spring. If we decide after consultation that it would be appropriate to require local authorities to give a written explanation of their reasons for not providing adoption support services, we shall issue guidance to local authorities to that effect.

We have had a lively start today in debating the amendments. Under other amendments, we shall go on to consider in more detail how the right to assessment and extra resources provided by the Government and the other provisions in the Bill will lead to much improved adoption support services for families. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) feels able to withdraw the amendment.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

When I attended the evidence sittings, I found it useful. We received several memorandums from people expert in the field, and I find it unacceptable that the Government are not addressing the areas identified by those concerned and knowledgeable individuals.

I refer to what Barnardo's said. The evidence given by that organisation clearly states that

''provisions contained in clause 4 do give rise to considerable concern. The right to an assessment of their needs will be available to children and families but the local authority is then under no obligation to provide any of the services that it may have decided are needed.''

That is rather illogical. The Bill tries to introduce uniformity across England and Wales in the delivery of adoption services, and hopes to instil best practice, but it does not make a great deal of sense for clause 3 to impose a duty to carry out an assessment if a local authority can decide not to act on it. Together with the question of adoption by unmarried couples and access to information, that area attracted the most attention from the various bodies that gave evidence.

We should remind ourselves of some of the things said to us by some of those knowledgeable people about the services and what is required from them. The ATD Fourth World memorandum states:

''Section 4(4) only places a duty on a local authority to decide whether to provide any services to that person. It is recognised by all parties, including the Department of Health, that adopted children, birth parents and adoptive parents all need support. Support services should be on offer to everyone involved who can take them up as they see fit for their own individual circumstances.

The provision of—not the assessment for—adoption support services should be a statutory duty on local authorities and therefore included in the Bill.''

The argument is developed further.

The Adoption Forum memorandum states:

''One of the laudable aims of this Bill is to bring adoption/permanency support into the front line. Adoptions that fail do so because families feel unable to cope and support has been all but impossible to find and fund. If the rate of success is to be improved—and it is difficult to see why there would be much point in upping adoption figures unless adoptions are going to succeed—then there must be help available.''

The memorandum then describes some of the contents of clause 4. On the subject of giving help, it continues:

''It seems to us that families are the foremost experts on whether and when they need it; they recognise when they are in crisis and unable to deal with the child. The danger of not providing support at the time of request is that the placement/adoption may break down irretrievably, to the great damage of all concerned and probably great expense to the state in the longer term.

There are of course degrees of adoption support: some, possibly the major part, will be reasonably easily resolved within a short time, necessitating in the main experienced counselling. Other families will need longer term, more profound assistance with an input from other areas such as health and education—as is made clear in the Bill.

If families have to go to their LA for assessment they are very likely to find themselves involved in a very long process: waiting for assessment, the assessment, waiting for a decision, waiting again while the LA decide to act on their decision and so on. This could take months, by which time the adoption well may have broken down.

Given that assessors will have to possess the same finely-honed skills (which are in short supply) as those offering the support itself, surely they would be put to better use in providing it rather than assessing?''

The Adoption Forum also asks,

''—What if the LA says yes, you need support but we have no staff to do it?

—What if the LA says no?''

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about unmarried couples and birth records, but he is referring to issues of policy and resources. Does he not agree that decisions about spending priorities and allocation of resources should be made by the local authority? If the tap flows continuously in one area of policy, that will affect other areas. I do not accept what he said about there being a queue.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

What worries me is that, as we all agreed previously, some local authorities are failing. That may be due to problems of resources or to other things, but it seems to me that these provisions may be a recipe for further failure. The local authority will be able to say that it could not provide the service because it did not have sufficient resources. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is logical, but the clause seems to provide a get-out.

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

Given that, as we have heard, it is better for children who are looked after for a long time to be adopted—which is generally also cheaper in the long run—is there not an incentive for social services or adoption agencies to ensure that adoption support services are provided to maintain an adoption, rather than the child having to return to being looked after, which is the more expensive option?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am sure that the hon. Lady is right because she has considerable experience in the area. In a perfect world, that would be true, but it does not alter the fact that the perception among all the experts who gave evidence is that there is a problem with clause 4. I agree with them.

The memorandum from Adoption UK also states:

''The Prime Minister's Review of Adoption and the subsequent White Paper acknowledged that children adopted from the care system will have experienced neglect, physical, sexual or emotional abuse, frequent changes of carer as well as other challenging life events:

'67 per cent. of looked after children have an identifiable mental health problem'.

Parenting these children is a rewarding but challenging task and one which must be adequately supported. Without good adoption support, adoptive placements are highly vulnerable to disruption.''

That is obvious. Adoption UK goes on to say:

''We welcome some of the changes to Clause 4 and are delighted that adoption support includes all those affected by adoption.

We do not believe that adoption placements will necessarily be supported if backed by a legal duty to provide an 'assessment of needs for adoption support services' ''.

That goes to the core of this debate. It continues:

''Our 30 years experience of supporting adoptive families has shown us that these families need access to the actual provision of support post-placement and post-adoption, not simply an assessment to determine the nature of that support.''—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 21 November 2001; c. 168–352.]

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

All members of the Committee will have sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said and with the views of those doing the relevant work, but if we are to write blank cheques to support families with children, should not the first of those be written for children living with their birth families? Perhaps fewer children would then be in care.

Mr. Llwyd rose—

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

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman resumes, I request that quotations be kept as short as is consistent with making his point.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I accept that, Mr. Stevenson; I simply feel that the people concerned are being ignored. I will be brief. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about initial support for birth parents. He is right.

Adoption UK puts effectively the same view as the others that I have cited. I also want to refer to the document provided by the British Association of Social Workers. I know that several Labour Members have lengthy experience in social work. I confess that I do not, and I bow to their expertise in many respects. However, I shall quote the comments of the association. It states:

''Clause 4 needs substantial improvement. A distinction should be drawn between the basic service of social work support, which should always be available as the main component of adoption support services, and additional services, such as the payment of an adoption allowance, where there is a case for some exercise of discretion. Social work support in connection with adoption should always be available, and it should not initially be conditional on an assessment of a person's needs having already been carried out. It should not be open to a local authority to decide whether or not to provide it, although once the order is made its duration and intensity should be discretionary. One of our concerns with the present wording is that it may lead to an excessively bureaucratic approach in which nothing will be done to help people until standardised assessment forms have been completed and processed through complex rationing machinery. The end result of this approach can be that time and money which could have been spent on helping people is spent on deciding that their need for help does not have sufficient priority.''

The passage continues:

''Sub-clause 4(1) restricts people to asking for support services for themselves. It does not provide, for example, for adopters to seek support for their child, or for the local authority to assess the child's needs at the adopters' request.''—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, November 2001; c. 273.]

You have been patient, Mr. Stevenson, and I appreciate that. My point is that people have spent time preparing their memorandums, and thinking about the Bill. They gave up their time to give evidence to us, and, seemingly, they are all wrong and the Government are right. I question that. If the Special Standing Committee procedure means anything, and if it is to be used for other Bills, we should listen to the people who are at the front line in providing the services in question. If they do not know, who does?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I entirely accept your earlier rebuke, Mr. Stevenson. I should have tried to catch your eye, instead of attempting to intervene on the Minister. I want to make two points, beginning by expanding slightly on my intervention.

There is a difference between the issue dealt with by the amendments and the wider issues of local authority services, about which hon. Members have made sensible points. Of course any social services committee anywhere in the country, and, indeed, any other local government committee, must set its priorities against a mass of conflicting demands, and the money will never be enough to go round. No Opposition Member would challenge that view, which we all understand. However, we must understand something: at every other point while a child is in the care system, there is a statutory duty for the relevant services to be provided.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Children Act 1989 does not create an individual enforceable duty owed to a child but only a general duty? Section 17 gives local authorities a general duty to

''promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need''.

A child's circumstances must nevertheless be examined in the context of the general range and level of services that are provided. To that extent, the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the Act is mistaken.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I accept the Minister's legal point, but the practical fact is that no one believes that any social services department in the country would get away with throwing a child out of a children's home or ending a fostering arrangement because the money had run out.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

The hon. Gentleman paints a completely unrealistic picture. Does he not accept that one of the gross iniquities of the system is the fact that fostering has been badly underresourced? Children have been pushed out of the residential care system because of the lack of resources.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I should like to develop my point. The hon. Gentleman and I have often listened to such stories in the all-party groups that we chair. He is right about the system, which is why I have advocated adoption for so long. No one denies, however, that local authorities have a duty to children collectively and, in practice, individually. They sometimes fail to fulfil that duty, although children in the care system are extremely expensive, and everyone understands why the money is spent.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am sorry, but I should like to develop my point. I will then give way to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw).

The Committee heard advice from two academics that adoption was the best option for most children who had been in the care system for a while, and Sonia Jackson put it in the strongest possible language. Of course, there are exceptions, and many children pass through the system only briefly. However, the best option is adoption.

The amendments tackle the central anomaly in the clause. Local authorities are rightly forced to spend large sums on children up to the point of adoption, although they cannot always easily put their hands on the money. Parents must, however, struggle with children who have often been badly abused—I shall give two brief constituency examples after I have given way—even though relatively small sums could keep the adoption together. The essential maintenance of adoption arrangements is not resourced or given equal priority with other arrangements in the care system. We are talking about priorities.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We have moved on slightly, but I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) suggest that social services arrangements were still greatly underresourced given that we heard the other day that everything was sweetness and light.

Was the Minister not being selective when she quoted from a general duty in the Children Act? She referred to section 27, as I did the other day. It places duties on authorities to comply with requests for certain services, including cross-boundary requests.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Indeed; I take my hon. Friend's point.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Is not the hon. Gentleman talking about the same issue as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)? He is talking about a flowing tap, but he is mistaken to say that local authorities must provide services on request under their responsibilities in the Children Act. If that were true, social services departments would take into care every child whom a parent presented at their doorstep. They do not do that; they make an assessment of the child's needs and provide appropriate resources, just as the clause says.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. To quote his own words back at him, social services assesses a child's needs and provides appropriately for them. The problem is that there is a statutory duty to make an assessment but not to meet the needs. The hon. Gentleman was a social worker for many years. Does he really believe that if a local authority made an assessment—[Interruption.]

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

Order.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that if a local authority made an assessment that it was necessary to take a child into care but refused to do so because of resourcing problems, a subsequent inquiry would support that authority's decision?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

The point that I am making is that a local authority will not take children into care at the drop of a hat. They will of course make an assessment, but the premise is that the child remains in the home rather than being taken into care. The authorities cannot write a blank cheque. Under the Bill, an assessment is made and resources are provided.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

We have reached a point where we do not understand each other. I am saying that an assessment may be made but there is no requirement to provide resources. No one is arguing for a blank cheque. We say that although the local authority makes assessments, the unavoidable danger, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre pointed out on Tuesday, is that their assessment of special educational needs and many other matters may be biased by consideration of available resources. We cannot get away from that in public services.

I shall share one of my constituency cases with the Committee. At my surgery I was visited by a couple who had adopted two girls of 11 and nine years old who had been severely abused. They were not at the prime age for adoption. It was very brave of my constituents to take on children who were that old and had so much baggage. The children were from a London authority, not Kent. I will not name the authority and I do not want to make a party political point because representatives of the authority are not here to defend its decision. The local authority passed on those children, washed its hands of them and said goodbye. My constituents were not asking for money. They were not terribly well off, but they were not asking for adoption allowances. They came to my surgery to ask whether it would be possible to have the bus fare paid to take the children to counselling sessions for the sexual abuse that they had suffered. The local authority would not cover even that.

That refusal was monstrous. From an economic angle, while those girls were in the system they cost the local authority a huge sum of money. Those brave and generous constituents of mine had taken those children out of the system, so they now cost the system nothing. Yet the local authority would not pay even for a bus pass—I am sorry, Mr. Stevenson, I do not mean to be over-emotional about it.

My second argument is that touched on by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, whose constituency name I still cannot pronounce: my hon. Friend—I am proud to call him that—knows that I mean no offence. It is a strong argument, that was mentioned also by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. Quotations were read out showing that professionals, too, believed that there was a danger that we would start a bureaucratic blizzard. That would absorb resources that were not available—I am talking not about money, but about social workers' time.

No one is suggesting the writing of blank cheques, but if the first stage is to wait while a social worker assesses a case before deciding whether to pay even for bus passes to take children for counselling, the danger is not only that there will be delay or that resources may not be available, but that the adoption may break down. We have a success rate in adoption of just over 80 per cent. That is quite a good rate. However, there is no reason why it should not—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I must share this with the Committee because I know that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is such a decent man that he will not be offended. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham has written out phonetically the name of the hon. Gentleman's constituency—Merry-on-ith Nant Con-way—is that a reasonable pronunciation? It has brought some light relief to our proceedings.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

It is Christmas, and I think that we should have a competition. The best pronunciation will get a bottle of wine.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The hon. Gentleman is generous in so many ways. That is just another example. The gist of the second point is that about delay and the possibility that stressing a statutory duty for assessment without putting the resources behind it could backfire. Departments that are very short of social workers might end up doing more assessments and providing less support. That will have a knock-on effect on other children's services, resulting in some of the problems mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre.

Having finally produced a reasonable pronunciation of the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, I urge the Minister to think again about the clause. She does not have to agree with the wording of our amendments, but the problem needs to be addressed.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—I will try that again—[Laughter.]

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

Order. I will not try to beat the hon. Gentleman's pronunciation, but may we please return to the amendments?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The hon. Gentleman referred to the independent evidence that was presented to us. In her memorandum, at column 380, Monica Bradbury, a very experienced professional working in social services, clearly makes the point that, as the Bill stands, individuals do not have the right to receive the services that they might have been assessed as needing. That could not be clearer.

I also refer to the evidence that was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) a second ago. Professor Sonia Jackson sums up the situation very well. She says that it is very unfortunate that the Bill does not place a duty on local authorities to provide support services, but only a duty to assess need. She concludes, at column 428, that there should be a right to adoption support, not simply to assessments.

I wholly endorse the words of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury in urging the Minister to look carefully at what the professionals and a number of experts working in the field have advised us to do. Surely the point of our Special Standing Committee exercise was to collect evidence from such experts, to listen to what they had to say and to learn from it—to be flexible and, above all, to listen.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

This has been quite a debate. What a contrast there has been between what I can only describe as the curmudgeonly attitude of the Minister, who has been so ungracious in the way in which she has received the amendments, and the munificence of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy and my hon. Friends in supporting the amendments. The Minister has become confused about the underlying intention of the amendments—they are genuinely intended to improve the Bill and to ensure that what the Government have led us to believe they intend is carried out. The Minister said that it was crucial to provide adoption support services; we all agree with that. That is why we are debating the clause and why the additions to the Bill have been universally welcomed. Then the Minister said that the Government did not want to place unnecessary burdens on local authorities. Then she started to say that local authorities must act reasonably. She seems to be continually changing her emphasis.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in each case my remarks related to different amendments? For example, the second quotation about not placing undue burdens related specifically to an amendment concerning a written plan following every single assessment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I could have cited many more quotations. My point is that the treatment of the amendments and the Minister's expectations of local authorities seemed to shift the more we debated the amendments. Whatever she says, she failed singularly to show where, in clause 3 or clause 4, a duty is placed on local authorities to deliver those support services that we all agree are necessary. We are not the only ones who are saying that—nor are the organisations whose names the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy recited the only such organisations to share our view of the matter. We have all received such representations, and I could add one more. The Children's Society said:

''There is nothing in the bill requiring the said authorities to comply with the request and to provide support services, which fall within their respective functions. Our experience across a range of health and education authorities is that if there is no requirement to provide services these services will not commonly be provided.''

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Opposition Members, including the hon. Gentleman, have quoted the expert witnesses who testified before us. We accepted some of the representations as individual Members and some of them along party lines. It was a matter of choice. I am referring to the issue of unmarried couples, on which the hon. Member for Canterbury did not accept 29 of the expert witnesses' recommendations. Just because we receive representations does not mean that we should automatically accept them. The child care agencies are not local authorities; they have a responsibility to campaign for children. They would never say, ''There is enough money.''

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point and he is right. The fact that we receive many representations on a subject, be it this subject or others in the Bill, does not necessarily mean that they are right. However, if those making the representations had no evidence to support them that we should take note of, I would have expected the hon. Gentleman to challenge the premises on which they made those representations during the witness stage. I cannot recall, having re-read Hansard, any examples of Labour Members challenging representations that said that the provision of support services after an assessment should be a duty. I am not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman makes that point now.

No one on the Committee is suggesting that an enormous band of local authority social services departments is actively looking for loopholes to get out of providing services to adoptive children. The vast majority of those in local authority social services departments take their responsibilities highly seriously. That is what they are there for, and that is why they do their job. They do their best to translate their responsibilities into hard-line, sharp-end services. However, in the Bill, we are trying to ensure continuity in the provision of support services, a higher general standard and a higher benchmark. Unless there is a duty on social services departments to provide those support services, the provision will still be patchy.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

The hon. Gentleman is coming to an important point of clarification. Opposition Members seem to have said that they want the local authority to be under a duty to meet an adoptive family's needs in every case. That is absurd.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It would be absurd for the amendments to suggest that. Labour Members have used phrases such as ''blank cheques'' and ''flowing taps''. We all know that there are still severe restrictions, despite what the Minister would have us believe about the Government's enormous munificence in providing almost unlimited extra resources to social services departments. If we are to promote adoption as much as we all want, those resources will have to be more widely spread.

It would make a mockery of the intentions behind clauses 3 and 4 if there were effectively a blank cheque and flowing tap for the provision of assessments of need, but no accompanying duty of care to provide those services. That would be more than nonsense, as it would be a cruel hoax on people who desperately need assessments to be made of the support that they require. We are concerned about the length of time that an assessment might take, and the resources that would go into the provision of the assessment. The time of sharp-end people in short supply might be better spent providing services as swiftly, effectively and comprehensively as possible. That is the premise that underlies the amendment.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I still do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He tells us that he does not want to write a blank cheque to support adoption services, but does not make it at all clear where he would draw any distinction.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We are going round in circles. We have made it clear that the wording of the clause, which allows an authority to decide ''whether to'' provide—not whether to provide the extent or timing of provision, but whether to provide at all—is completely out of sync with the provisions that say that an assessment must be made. Our amendments would get rid of any mentions of ''whether to''.

Even more extraordinarily, the Minister will not give me any examples, as I challenged her to at the start of the debate, of circumstances in which she thinks it appropriate for a social services department not to provide support after it has undertaken an assessment of and identified a family's needs. She did not reassure us that there was not a good case for a written review in primary legislation. Such reviews may be part of good practice, and I hope that many local authorities undertake or will undertake them anyway, but we are again expected to wait for guidance that will go to consultation in the spring. Given the undertakings that we have had from the Government so far, I am not confident that they will extensively address the shortfalls that we have identified. On that basis, my colleagues and I are as determined as when we started the debate to press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 8.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 90, in page 4, line 29, at end insert

', which regulations must at all times bear in mind, that, in general, any delay in provision of adoption support services is likely to prejudice the child's welfare.'.

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

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 72, in page 4, line 42, after 'conditions', insert

'as long as the well-being of any person with regard to adoption support services is not affected and there is no avoidable delay.'.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

This is familiar territory that relates to the previous debate. We are concerned about the length and complexity of the assessment procedure that leads to the provision of services. We all agree that it is always in the best interests of the child to intervene as early as possible, be it to remove a child from a dangerous situation or to settle a child with new prospective adopters and give as much support as possible to ensure that a placement works. It therefore seemed sensible to amend the provisions that allude to regulations about the assessments and the reviewing of plans that will be drawn up after the provision of adoption services. Those regulations will be drawn up eventually; we hope to see them in the spring.

No provisions in clause 4 correspond to the essential considerations that we discussed under clause 1 on the paramountcy of the welfare of the child and the fact that delay in acting should generally be seen as not in the child's best interests. The intention of amendment No. 90 is that the regulations, when they are drawn up, must

''bear in mind, that, in general, any delay in provision of adoption support services is likely to prejudice the child's welfare''.

I hope that the Minister and her colleagues would not seek to disagree with that self-evident fact. The question that needs answering is whether the Bill takes sufficient account of those considerations, as I do not see an obvious link between clause 4 and clause 1. Similarly, amendment No. 72 details certain provisions of the regulations along the same lines.

The amendments are probing, and I should be delighted if the Minister would reassure me that the considerations will automatically be taken into account through interpretation of the clause as it stands.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The rights of the child are paramount. That spirit runs through the clauses of the Bill. However, the more I read the Bill, the more I realise that few provisions state that the child has rights. We have seen that the child's consent will be ignored, in effect. We have heard something similar on the child's right to be heard in hearings, and we shall see it again in relation to appeals to the panel under clause 12. Although we talk about the child's interests being paramount, when it comes to the nitty-gritty of giving the child rights, there are none in the Bill. My hon. Friend maintains that the question of delay should be put in terms of what is likely to prejudice the child's welfare. I fully support his view. It is generally agreed that under the Bill delay is undesirable. In reaching a view as to what constitutes a delay, it should be stated that the child's welfare, primarily, should be kept in mind.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clause 4 gives people affected by adoption a new right to request and receive an assessment of their needs for adoption support services from their local authority. It is therefore important to make clear the nature of that assessment and the important contribution that it should make to the provision of adoption support services.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) was concerned with the position of the child, and I assure him that the clause enables children to, for example, request an assessment in their own right. The voice of children in relation to the rights to assessment under the clause can be heard clearly. Different types of assessments will be made for different groups of people. The detail of the assessment process will be set out in regulations made under subsection (7)(b). Those regulations will be drawn up following consultation with stakeholders, as part of the new framework for adoption support services that we are developing, which we shall publish for consultation in the spring.

Clause 4(4) provides that, when the assessment identifies a need for adoption support services, the local authority must decide whether to provide adoption support services to that person. I want to respond to the feeling expressed—in fact, I think it was an assertion—by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. I think that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who is no longer in the Room, was suggesting the same thing—that an assessment would put up a barrier to the provision of adoption support services, or hold up the system.

The Government's view is that assessment is crucial to the provision of those adoption support services and that view was supported by, for example, Margaret Dight of the Catholic Children's Society, Nottingham, in her evidence. Replying to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, she talked about the importance of

''an accurate assessment of need.''

She commented:

''That assessment has to be made by individuals who are fully informed on issues around the adoption process, the implication of a child's background and life experiences and how that will impact on the child in placement and the on-going needs of the family.''

She also said,

''we are looking at detailed, skilled, professional assessments, which need to be done rapidly''—

I agree about that—

''and take cognisance of the skills and knowledge in different disciplines and different organisations.''—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 21 November 2001; c. 104.]

There is a need for assessments to be carried out in a timely manner, but it is also important to recognise the significance of the assessments, not as something holding up the process, but as something to ensure that it is carried out as quickly and effectively as possible.

Amendment No. 72 seeks to qualify subsection (7)(f), which enables regulations to be made setting out the circumstances in which local authorities may provide adoption support services. We intend to use the regulations to enable local authorities to specify, where appropriate, how financial support should be spent. For example, financial support might be supplied to make alterations to the home of a family that is adopting a large group of siblings. That financial support could, under the regulations, be provided on condition that the family spent that money in that way. Subsection (7)(g) enables regulations to be made concerning the consequences of failure to comply with those conditions. The provision allowing conditions to be imposed on adoption support is sensible and important. It should not and will not lead to delay.

Amendment No. 90 seeks to amend subsection (6), which enables regulations to be made in respect of local authority assessments for adoption support and the provision of services. It would provide for the regulations at all times to take account of the likelihood that a delay in the provision of adoption support services would prejudice a child's welfare.

That amendment is not needed. The assessment is not intended to delay the provision of adoption support services. Its purpose is to enable adoptive parents and others involved in the adoption process to find a way into the system and to make it unnecessary for them to struggle to get the help and support that they need. It will also help to ensure that the various public services required to supply joint post-adoption support liaise properly.

Given those reassurances about the nature of the clause and the regulations that will go with it, I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham feels able to withdraw his amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful to the Minister. She has tried to explain a linkage with the considerations in clause 1, which we believe is necessary. On that basis, we look forward to reading the regulations. It would not be appropriate for me to press the amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 186, in page 4, line 42, after 'conditions', insert:

'and provide for an independent review of a decision not to provide adoption support services'.

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

With this we may discuss amendment No. 187, in page 4, line 42, after 'conditions', insert:

'and provide for a review of a decision not to provide adoption support services'.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

Amendment No. 186 is similar to those tabled by others on these Benches, including the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy. It deals with the problem of review. In practice, most of the decisions will be taken by social services departments that form part of a county council or a unitary authority. Such bodies usually have reasonably well publicised complaints procedures. However, those are not the same as review procedures. Some might regard them as an adequate resource for a disgruntled adoptive parent who is unhappy with a decision. I do not.

It is essential for the Bill to contain a clearly defined right to a review. However, the amendments tabled by others would mean that that review could be carried out by persons who had worked closely with the officers who took the disputed decision. That could be problematic. Labour members of the Committee have, on numerous occasions, highlighted the fact that some people have less than happy relationships with their social services departments. It seems appropriate that there should be a mechanism for review that is removed from the body that took the decision. All parties involved would then be reassured as to the independence of the review. That is all that I want to say, because the amendments are self-explanatory.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

As the hon. Lady says, there is a great similarity between the two amendments, and I want to back mine.

On the basis of the Minister's comments, we hope that few people will fail to receive the support that they need. The important point, however, is that it should be made clear to them why they have not qualified and how they could qualify. An earlier Conservative amendment referred to a written review of a decision, but amendment No. 187 does not even do that—we simply want a review mechanism.

Clause 12 relates to reviews and appeals later in the adoption process, which largely involve prospective adopters whose application to adopt has been turned down. The provision is a good addition to the Bill, but it raises the question whether there should be review and/or appeal mechanisms at other stages of the adoption process. As all hon. Members have said, placement is one of the most crucial parts of the process and it is important that it is built on firm foundations so that it can last. If it does not, the child may become the subject of multiple placements, which would have severe consequences for him and require additional support later. For obvious reasons, we should avoid that at all costs.

I am, however, not happy about the basis on which support services will not be provided. The hon. Lady mentioned that matter, and I asked the Minister about it. A fully transparent and accountable arrangement should be put in place for such decisions. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy asked what would happen if the local authority said that a family needed support but had no staff to provide it. What will happen if it tells the family that it does not need support, but the family feels that it does? The problem will remain as far as the family is concerned. Will any family that feels that it needs support first have to submit to assessment by the local authority or could it seek private help elsewhere? There must be a review process for people who do not get the goods that they feel that they need.

When we debated an earlier clause, I echoed many of the representations that were made to us when I said that families involved in adoption that cry for help usually need it. They are best placed to know when something is wrong and when they need help. It can be humiliating for many families to seek help, but it is best that they do and that they receive it. If we are really talking about only a small number of cases in which help will not be forthcoming, as the Minister suggested, a review mechanism would not be cumbersome or prohibitively costly. It would, however, place an extra check and balance on local authorities so that they tried their absolute hardest to provide support services. If they did not, they would have to be accountable for their decision.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am very pleased to see that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy is back.

The sentiments behind the amendments, and many of the arguments deployed, are very sensible. I raised the issue on Second Reading in an intervention on the Secretary of State, who showed a willingness to examine and further consider the operation of local authority complaints procedures. When we have a much improved adoption support system with statutory duties on local authorities, with much improved financial resources, of course local authorities will have to pay due heed to assessments and the level of their resources. It is important, and entirely in line with everything else that the Government are trying to do, to support carers and young people in placements. It is consistent with the operation of openness, clarity and honesty in decision making in these profoundly important areas that we have a clear and efficient system of appeal, where decisions can be challenged and, we hope, improved upon.

The amendments are in line with the Government's other good intentions on advocacy for young people in care. It is very important that the views of young people who are being looked after and of those who were adopted are heard loudly and clearly, and that their rights and interests are respected. If the Minister cannot accept the exact wording of the amendments, I hope that further consideration will be given to an appeals process. Amendments could be tabled later, but if the Bill cannot be changed, perhaps the regulations could be strengthened in respect of this important area of policy.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The amendments are a sensible step forward. They introduce a procedure whereby it is hoped that best practice will be instilled in each local authority. They also provide for an arm's length inquiry into any decision, which will give some comfort to those adoptive parents who feel aggrieved that they have not been provided with certain services. That could be a means of explaining a decision, and would be of some comfort to the parents. It is a useful addition to the Bill, which it improves. I do not think that it necessarily has huge resource implications, but I hope that in due course the Minister will respond on the matter, because this part of the Bill is important and the amendments represent a useful addition to the provisions on service delivery.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I have some sympathy with the idea that it is important to provide an appropriate route for people to express their concern about decisions that are taken surrounding adoption support provision. Where a local authority decides not to provide adoption support services following an assessment of needs, a complaint may be made to the local authority in the usual way. Given that adoption is a mainstream social services function, it is right that the majority of complaints about local authority adoption services should be dealt with through the existing social services complaints procedure. However, I have considerable sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre, which is why the Government are currently improving the local authority social services complaints procedure and speeding it up, especially for children.

The Department undertook a review of social services complaints procedures in 1999–2000. Following that review, we issued a consultation document, ''Listening to People'', in June 2000. The document proposed a range of improvements to the procedure and sought views on them. We shall have the opportunity under clause 111 to amend the complaints procedure established under the Children Act 1989 in response to that consultation. The Bill implements those changes that require primary legislation, and new regulations, directions and guidance will be developed to deal with the need for independence—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Romsey. The guidance will clarify the role of the independent person, stressing the responsibility of councils to take account of what independent persons say during the complaints process.

The amendments are not needed in light of the action that we are already taking to improve the local authority social services complaints procedure. However, I recognise what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said about clause 12. We have promised to consult on the determinations to be made under the new independent review mechanism to be established under clause 12. The Bill's provisions are sufficiently flexible to allow the independent review mechanism to be extended to determinations made by adoption agencies. I undertake to consider the results of consultation carried out under the independent review mechanism, along with the other issues raised by hon. Members today.

I have spoken about the improvements that we intend to make to the local authority complaints service system. This is not an appropriate time to make those changes, but the Bill will enable us to consider the matter further—if, for example, we thought that the complaints procedure changes were not adequate.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I am almost reassured. I accept what the Minister said about independence. However, I am still a little concerned that as changes to the complaints procedure can be made, they could easily be changed again in two or three years' time, perhaps under a different Government, perhaps not, and there will be no overall consistency. It seems to me that a provision in the Bill would be more reassuring for people going through that process. Nevertheless, I accept that we may revisit the issue later in our deliberations, and 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. 95, in page 5, line 3, after 'area', insert

', which should include the respective duties placed on either or both of those authorities and the identification of a lead person in the authority to provide support services to that person.'.

This is another probing amendment. We have spoken at various times about adoptions out of local authority area, and I hope that that practice will increase. Finding appropriate adoptive parents outside the local authority area is better than not finding them at all. The legislative teeth that will be given to the register and the additional resources that we hope will be given to the national register will make long-distance adoptions much more likely. I realise that there must be checks and balances and that there are downsides as well as upsides. One of the questions that has been posed—

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. Is it my imagination, or is it dark and gloomy in the Room? Is it possible to turn up the lighting a little? It is a bit grim at the moment.

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

I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns—it may also be a little chilly. However, the enlightenment provided by hon. Members' contributions is helping the situation. I shall ask the clerk and the badge messengers to consider your points and, if improvements can be made, I am sure that they will be.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That was a very good point of order and an even better response, Mr. Stevenson. Perhaps we should issue scarves, given the temperature in the Room.

When speaking to people involved in adoption, I notice a general confusion over who continues to provide services when a child is adopted out of the area from which he or she comes. My understanding is that the placing authority will continue to bear the duty of care for the child, through adoption allowances, grants to make adaptations for children with disabilities or a dowry, in effect, to someone who lives locally to take responsibility for the child. There are various ways of achieving the same effect.

The problem is that it remains unclear where the buck stops, and it may be less clear to the new adoptive family exactly where the buck stops for services that may be provided. I refer especially to adopted children with complex requirements, such as a speech therapist or an educational psychologist. That theme emerged during the evidence sittings. The child may need counselling for previous experiences of domestic violence, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury vividly described. [Interruption.] Ah, the lights have come on—the enlightenment has indeed occurred.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

New Labour—new lights.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am so tempted to reply to that remark made from a sedentary position.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury gave an example. A London authority placed a child in his constituency and then divested itself of all responsibilities to that child even to the extent of providing bus fares or giving counselling to help that child recover from the problems that led to the adoption. That seems patently absurd, and I wonder whether the parents of that child were fully aware of where the buck lay and that they were duty bound to receive various support services after the adoption.

Support would include multidisciplinary approaches, including educational and health support, which might come from a primary care trust or specialist health providers in a health authority. We must make it as easy as possible for the adoptive family to access that support and to know their entitlements and whom to approach for those services.

The amendment specifies that a

''lead person in the authority to provide support services''

should be identified. That would make it as clear as possible where adoptive families could go for help.

There have been cases in all our constituencies of children with special educational needs that have involved a process of repeated buck passing between the education authority, an authority care trust and social services. I have been involved in cases in which we have been so frustrated that we have brokered a deal, for example, for the placement of a child at a special school, and each of those three bodies has paid a third of the costs. However, it takes a hell of a lot of effort and wastes a lot of time merely to reach that stage. If a lead person were identified for children with complex requirements, we would hopefully have a champion who could cut through such red tape and ensure that the child received the support that he or she needed as soon and as effectively as possible, without all the bureaucracy that I fear so often goes with it.

I hope that my probing amendment is helpful. It is certainly in the best interests of the child and gives as much support as possible to adoptive parents in difficult circumstances, especially those who have taken on the big challenge of children with complex educational or medical needs. [Interruption.] If the Minister could dry herself off, perhaps she would like to respond.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Historically, the process of gearing up to a child's adoption involved assessing the parents, seeing whether the child was suitable and assessing support services to a degree. After the adoption had been sorted out, authorities—some more than others, I admit—tended to forget the case and move on to the next. Social workers are busy people, and there are other adoptions to be made and other tasks to be done. Times move on and sometimes adoption agencies would merge and circumstances would change.

Clearly, we are moving towards a different type of regime and are stressing the importance of continuing services and support to both the child and parents. To that extent, I support my hon. Friend's amendment, as the idea of a champion, lead person and on-going contact who will maintain what can become a weak link is excellent.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I agree with Opposition Members that, when a child is placed with an adoptive family that lives in a different local authority area, it is important to define clearly where the responsibility for assessing needs for the provision of adoption support services lies. It is important that adoption support services are provided for in legislation and in terms of resources.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The hon. Lady mentions the importance of cases where people move on to different authorities, but circumstances can change for adoptive families too. An adoptive family in which the parents thrive may be destitute three or four years later. What may not be seen as a necessary on-going contact might suddenly become important, perhaps several years later, regardless of whether the same authority is involved.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about whether there is a time limit on the right to apply for an assessment, and I shall respond to that in a moment. First, I shall continue the argument that I was making about circumstances in which adopted children move from one authority to another.

Adoptive families tell us that when they adopt children from other local authority areas they do not always receive a satisfactory adoption support service. I hope that no member of the Committee would disagree that the standard of service in the case cited by the hon. Member for Canterbury was unacceptable. We must use the Bill, the framework that follows it and the resources that deliver it to overcome precisely such problems. It is not good enough for families not to get the necessary support.

We have not touched on the important contribution of national adoption standards to raising standards of adoption support. I draw hon. Members' attention to adoption standards E1 and E6. E6 states:

''Councils, with the relevant agencies listed in 1), will provide or commission a comprehensive range of pre- and post-adoption services''—

the hon. Member for Huntingdon made the important point that we should not stop at the point of adoption—

''consistent with any national framework or regulation. These will facilitate and support adoption and meet the needs of children who move between local authority areas. Criteria for access will be clear, concise and understandable.''

That brings us to point that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised about what those criteria should be. Subsection (7)(h) enables regulations to be made to set out a clear system for assessing needs and providing adoption support services in cases where a child is placed with an adoptive family in a different local authority area. We will make regulations under subsection (7)(i) to set out the accompanying funding arrangements. We will consult stakeholders on the regulations as part of the development of the new national framework to ensure that we get the detail right.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I hate to labour a point that I have made in previous sittings, but the clause does not extend to Scotland. What happens to a child from a Scottish local authority? Will the Minister be able to make regulations that affect Scotland?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

A child who came from a Scottish local authority to an English or Welsh local authority would benefit from the requirement on local authorities to provide an adoption support service, as we discussed under clause 3. I shall correct myself if I am wrong, but I believe that an assessment could be requested for adoption support services. The Scottish Executive and Scottish Parliament must determine which provisions are made for adoption support in Scotland, but they are concerned about precisely the issues that we are discussing.

I referred to the importance of ensuring that there was no gap in provision when a child was adopted in another local authority, and I said that we would consult on the regulations. There is a certain logic to saying that the local authority in which the child lives should provide adoption support up to the point of adoption and that responsibility should subsequently pass to the local authority in whose area the adoptive family lives. However, that might not always be appropriate, which is one reason why it is important to take time to consult.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham spoke about a local authority providing therapeutic support or support with a disability or illness. There could be an argument for continuing such support when a child moves to another authority.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Indeed, but there could be a much more common case. We shall discuss funding arrangements later, but a local authority that operates the new national register will be dissuaded from encouraging prospective adoptive parents in its area to take on a child from another area if it finds that it will have to fund the adoption support services.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As I said, we will also make regulations under subsection (7)(i) setting out the accompanying arrangements. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point—it is necessary to ensure that the funding arrangements promote the provision of good adoption support services and do not give an incentive to local authorities not to find adoptive families or not to provide the services that children deserve.

In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon about circumstances changing, it is possible for a family to request another assessment if their circumstances change. If an adoptive family moves, they can also request an assessment from the new authority in whose area they find themselves.

Hon. Members have raised other points around the issue of local authorities having a duty to co-operate with each other. Subsections (10) and (11) of clause 4 place local authorities under a duty to co-operate in the provision of adoption support services. Interestingly, given the comment that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made earlier, that is equivalent to section 27 of the Children Act 1989, in that it makes it a duty for local authorities to comply with their statutory obligations on the identified needs of a child.

The amendment also provides that the regulations must identify a lead person to provide the support services. I have sympathy with the idea that, where the adoption support plan is complicated, it is very important that the family concerned have someone to whom they can turn to find their way through the maze. That is why the Government made it clear in the White Paper that looked-after children and their new adoptive families would have a key worker, so that families would be able to use that worker as a gateway for access to adoption and support services, should they wish to do so.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

If the key worker moves job, or if other circumstances arise in which contact is lost, does the authority have a duty to pass on the name of the new key worker? As time goes on, people retire or move jobs. I should be interested to hear the Minister's view on that.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It is appropriate for the family to have a key worker, but obviously people retire and move on. Therefore, the family should be entitled to a person and if that person moves on, another named person should take their place to act as the family's key worker. The person will be important in helping the family to access the services, and we shall issue guidance to local authorities on the use of key workers as part of the new framework for adoption support services. I hope that, on the basis of those reassurances, hon. Members will feel that their amendment is not necessary.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The detail in which the Minister has responded to the amendment reinforces my point that the situation at the moment is complex. It is not clear to many people working in the field exactly where the buck stops and it is not clear to many hon. Members present. That makes it highly unlikely that it is clear to the people who need the services in the field. The Minister rightly says that much of the effectiveness will depend on what financial arrangements are made place and whether the money follows the child.

I was heartened by the Minister's response to the legitimate points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. She said, in the context of complex requirements, that changeover-time renewed assessments would be available. I hope that that will be made explicit in the information given to adoptive parents.

It is important that as much information as possible is given to adoptive parents, and to all those in the field of adoption, at as early a stage as possible. Those involved should feel that someone is holding their hand all the way through. The field is very difficult, particularly for those with complex arrangements. The issue has an impact on the cases involving Scotland mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and on support in overseas adoptions. On the basis of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Special Standing Committee

Adoption and Children Bill

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I understand that there were complaints this morning about the heating. Action was taken during the lunch break, and the heating is now pumping out hot air—just as hon. Members probably will this afternoon. I hope that the problem has been rectified, but we shall take it up with the authorities to make sure that the Room is warmer in the mornings.Clause 4 Assessments etc. for adoption support services

Clause 4 - Assessments etc. for adoption support services

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 5, line 18, after 'authority', insert

'and they will have a parallel duty along with the local authority to provide the necessary service.'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 172, in page 5, line 18, after 'authority', insert

'and they will have a parallel duty along with the local authority to provide any relevant support services'.

No. 145, in page 5, line 18, after 'authority', insert

'and the latter bodies and authorities will have a duty to make provision of all relevant services.'.

No. 144, in page 5, line 23, leave out from 'requested' to end of line 24 and insert

'has a duty to comply with the request and make provision of all relevant services'.

No. 183, in page 5, line 23, leave out from 'request' to end of line 24.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

After lunch, it is better to have cold air; we want the hot air in the morning.

We welcome the general idea behind subsection (9) and the proposals for joined-up thinking, which are intended to get the various agencies to work and, I hope, think together. However, practice tells many members of the Committee—whether, like me, they worked on social services committees, or whether they were social workers—that some authorities are better than others at working with other agencies. Some are better at providing services, some are better at providing particular services and some work better among their own than with others. One often finds that agencies tend to provide an excellent service for their own people—some agencies are more parochial than others. One cannot assume that the various health, education or social services across the country will be of the same standard.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

My hon. Friend talks about agencies, but is he using the term in the wider sense? In discussing the Bill, we have normally referred to public sector organisations as authorities and to charitable or semi-voluntary organisations as agencies. I would be grateful if he could clarify that point.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I thank my hon. Friend. I have been using the word in the wider sense, and ''bodies'' would perhaps be more appropriate.

The different bodies will provide different levels of services. To that extent, subsections (9) and (11) need strengthening if we are to get people to work together and to deliver the same sort of service at the same time.

The way in which the various bodies provide their services is governed by many different items of legislation, and there is a lot of room for conflict and interpretation when it comes to getting them to deliver a unified service. That is not a new problem, but it certainly is a problem. At the same time, the Bill puts the local authority in the lead role. The authority will have the best picture of the overall adoption service, so it is right that it should take the lead role.

We feel that the Bill does not give enough strength to the new system. Given the various pieces of legislation, confusion could reign. Unfortunately, there could be another field day for lawyers in determining what legislation takes priority. The amendments are probing. They would add some flesh to the provisions and show how they would work in practice.

The explanatory notes suggest that the Government will issue guidance to the various bodies, with the intention that the local authority will receive an overview of the package of services. It will then be able to decide how best to proceed. Neither the Bill nor the explanatory notes provide any details, however. It would help if the Minister explained how she intends the procedures to work. The circumstances are not entirely new. To a degree, all the bodies currently have to work together, but many examples could be given of how they have not done so.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

There is an interesting parallel with services children. Children of members of the armed forces are another group of people who use local authorities in a similar way. For four and a half years, the Government have had an excellent initiative to try better to co-ordinate provision, but it has borne almost no fruit as there is a lack of a statutory duty such as that for which my hon. Friend rightly calls.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely valid example. I ask the Minister to flesh out how the procedure is likely to work. How will it be varied from what we now have, which everyone agrees needs improvement?

When a request has been made, what mechanisms would come into operation? Nothing that we have received to date has told us how long, for instance, the various bodies would need to respond. The Bill might suggest that they should work in a concerted fashion, but it would be unfortunate if one body took that to mean a week and another took it to mean six months. It would be important for timing to be tied in.

What if one body does not respond? We assume that they will all play ball, but many hon. Members will know that that does not always happen. What if the assessment of one body conflicted with that of another? We are not talking about distinct scientific practice, but the difference between descriptions of the work of social workers, education people and health workers. They will often work together with similar disciplines, but who is to decide whose assessment will take priority in the event of conflicting views? How would those different views be sorted out? What would the timing implications be?

Should not the applicant have some form of redress within the system? An oft-repeated complaints by children or prospective adoptive parents involved in the adoption system is that they feel that they are not given an adequate hearing. Would they have rights to go to the panel to be created under clause 12? Such rights are not mentioned in the explanatory notes or the Bill, but surely it would be appropriate for people to have some say? If they did not feel that they were adequately listened to, they could seek some form of redress through an independent review. Outside parties could come in and take a decision.

I come to the core question behind the amendment. What is the point of such valid new provisions if the bodies concerned are not under a duty to provide services? Even if they believe that they should provide services, they may decide not to. They may decide not to provide them at the same time as one another or in a concerted fashion.

The importance of the clause will lie in the detail, and the same is true of many others. The subject has not been satisfactorily dealt with, and there are problems, so I would be grateful for the Minister's further explanation.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

There is much sense in what the hon. Gentleman has said, and in the amendment. A Government who are noted for their commitment to what works and to joined-up government should take such issues on board. In my experience, to some extent, the ability of public, voluntary and private sector bodies to work together can make a policy work to the great benefit of children and their families, or, it is sad to say, work actively against that.

We have a great reforming Government who are making tremendous improvements to public services, of which the Bill is only one aspect. However, we have to get to grips with organisational inertia, boundaries and bureaucratic structures. The way in which organisations put themselves together, see themselves and operate works against the best interests not only of well thought out policy, but of children, young people and their families. I would like a major shake-„up. There should be children's departments at local level, and a range of organisations charged with meeting children's needs should be brought together in a framework that stresses the importance of corporate parenting and the participation of young people. I will not stray into such crucial aspects of citizenship in my short speech.

If the Bill is to work well—if all the Government's good intentions to improve adoption services and the support of adopted young people and children and adoptive families are to work—we must ensure that all the organisations involved work clearly together on a positive agenda that puts children's needs first, and way ahead of organisational imperatives or bureaucratic structures.

I do not know whether the amendments will prove acceptable to the Minister but I support the spirit in which they were tabled. The Government need to get a grip on this important issue.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said, because he has a great deal of experience and he hit the nail bang on the head. The amendments are designed to ensure that the different bodies and authorities act in a co-ordinated manner in the interests of the child, which are paramount.

When he moved the amendments, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) made it clear that one sees different standards of service up and down the country. All too often, there is what is now described as a postcode lottery. A person living in one part of the country may receive a very good service from a branch of the public service, while in another part of the country they would not. It is vital that one branch of the local public services knows what the other is doing.

When it comes to ensuring that everything possible is done for children, particularly in the case of adoption, it is vital that the different bodies know what the others are up to. We had an important example of that in Norfolk recently with the Lauren Wright case. I do not want to digress, but the matter is relevant to what we are trying to achieve with the amendments. The main body involved in that case was the local education authority of the school concerned. The health service was involved as well, because Lauren was referred to a consultant paediatrician. The police were also involved, because the case was referred to them, and social services were involved.

The bottom line is that none of those services killed poor Lauren—it was her stepmother. Blame has been attached to various people who worked on Lauren's case in an unfair and unjust manner. A whole day of the Victoria Climbie inquiry will be devoted to the case, and I hope that it will result in a determined effort by the Government to ensure that there is proper co-ordination between services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon was right. He examined the explanatory notes, which state that there should be

''an overview of the package of services being provided''.{**W4**}

The package of services means those provided not only by social services, but by the education service and other bodies such as the health authority. He was right to point out that if we do not get this right, there will be a lot of confusion. Failure to do so could result in a field day for lawyers in interpreting exactly what the two subsections mean.

Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre pointed out, it is important to ask what will happen when the different bodies do not provide the services that they are meant to. What recourse will parents or children have if those services that have been promised or offered are not provided? That may happen for a variety of reasons, such as some confusion caused by the clause.

I would like the Minister carefully to examine that point. The Opposition are very concerned and we are minded to push the amendments to a vote if the Minister is not able to give us a satisfactory answer. The issue is fundamental—there is no point in having a clause that refers to a package of services, an overview of those services and provision of those services unless we know that they will be delivered on the ground.

Why do the notes on the clause, rather than the Bill itself, mention the issuing of guidance and directions? Time and again in this Bill we come across mention of regulations, of guidance and of directions, yet we do not know what they—in this case, the guidance—will be.

I understand that the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) is going to talk about amendment No. 172 in a moment, but I should like to mention amendment No. 183, which, along with amendment No. 144, refers to refer to subsection (11), which says:

''A local authority whose help is so requested must comply with the request''.{**W4**}

That is fine. I am happy with it so far, but the subsection goes on to add:

''if it is consistent with the exercise of their functions.''

''If'' is not good enough. There are too many ''ifs'' in this Bill and too many ''maybes'', ''perhapses'', ''coulds'' and ''mights''. If we are keen for the local authority to provide the services and the help that might be requested, we should not qualify it. That turns a positive subsection into a very airy-fairy one, which might be regarded by some as entirely negative. I hope that the Minister will be able to satisfy us or we shall feel obliged to press the amendment to a vote.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I apologise for having been absent at the start of the sitting, Mrs. Roe.

The Liberal Democrats have so far failed in our bid to amend clause 4 in a way with which we are happy. I entered politics in a spirit of optimism and I shall go on hoping. The amendments highlight another area that a number of the people who made submissions have seen as problematic. It is highly likely that we shall have to address how to deal with a proportion of the children who will require support services from the health authority, the primary care trust or the local education authority. Social services assessment might begin to identify those, but all that the social services department would have to do would be to notify the relevant authority. That does not go far enough, because there is no onus on that authority to provide further assessments, let alone to provide further support services. One could argue, to an extent as devil's advocate, that the local authority might be well equipped to provide the social services assessment. A joined-up council—although that is a buzz word, I have yet to see any form of joined-up government—could provide an assessment of educational needs. However, the Bill does not make it clear whether there is an onus on the council to provide an LEA assessment, even though the same council has to provide the social services assessment. Perhaps the Minister will clarify whether that makes matters easier or more difficult.

A local council is not in a position to assess health needs fully. That can be done only under the guidance of the relevant primary care trust. The Bill is therefore lacking, in that it deals only with assessment of part of what can be a very complex picture. Many agencies have highlighted that problem. We should listen to them, because they deal with the adoption system every day; they are much better placed than most of us to identify problems, and they have identified this as a problem in the Bill.

We have already lost the opportunity to guarantee that identified social service support will be provided. However, in a perverse way, that makes it a less onerous task to change clause 4 so that proper assessments will be provided for the children. The amendments, unfortunately, do not make the provision of support services compulsory. However, an adoption has a far greater chance of success if all needs are fully identified and supported at the beginning of the process. Then everybody can enter into an adoption with their eyes wide open, knowing exactly what the problems are and what support they will receive.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Amendment No. 73 has been tabled by a number of hon. Members. The Committee must forgive me because I have trouble with the pronunciation of some of these English constituencies, but they include the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), for Huntingdon, and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). Oh, and it was also tabled by the rather more pronouncable hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). As I considered it and the other amendments, it occurred to me that they refer to primary care trusts and local health authorities.

I apologise to the Minister for not having raised this matter earlier. I should have done so, and perhaps there is a simple answer, but I have only just noticed it in the amendment. In Wales there are no PCTs. There are local health groups, which are to be changed into local health boards. Health authorities are soon to be abolished and their responsibilities transferred to the National Assembly. The Minister might not have an immediate answer, but I wonder whether she can reassure me that that discrepancy is covered by a catch-all clause somewhere in the Bill.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

It is worth trekking back to what the clause, which we strongly support, is trying to do. We want to put some teeth into it so that it is meaningful, rather than just expressing a wish. I am risking arousing the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw), the statistics show that children who have been in care are disproportionately likely to become clients of the bodies listed in the clause. They are more likely to have special needs in schooling, to be consumers of mental health services and to have many other needs. We are dealing with a grave area, which was touched on repeatedly during the first phase of our deliberations.

I should like to elaborate on the parallel example that I gave, to show why good intentions supported by a lot of effort by Ministers are likely to fail without statutory backing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon made clear, without either the amendment or something in the same ballpark, the clause will not give proper statutory backing.

The parallel group that I mentioned were children of members of the armed forces. Because, typically, they move very frequently, they tend to find themselves at the bottom of every waiting list. I moved 14 times during my 18 years of childhood—that is not untypical for an Army child. The child of a member of the armed forces may who want to go to the dentist, or his wife may want to see a gynaecologist for whom there is a nine-month waiting list, but the husband may be moved six months before they reaches the top of the list. Whatever happens, they are a disadvantaged group.

I do not want to try your patience too far on this, Mrs. Roe. The crucial point is that it is a problem. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who, when he was Minister for the Armed Forces, picked up and ran with this issue within weeks of taking over four and a half years ago. In doing so, he brought all the various agencies together; a taskforce is dealing with the issue and has repeatedly identified the problems. I am sorry to report that there has been almost no progress. At least that was the case the last time that I spoke to the army family federations and other bodies. That is why we tabled the amendments.

Unless we put some statutory teeth into the clause for the benefit of what is, by any standards, an even more disadvantaged group than the children and members of the armed forces, it will remain a piece of well-directed and well-intentioned wishful thinking, but little else.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The clause and the amendments deal with the important issue of how we ensure that when children and families have a need for a range of services provided from different authorities or agencies, they are appropriately joined-up and those support services are provided. That is an aspiration with which I totally concur.

For some of the reasons that we debated this morning, the amendments are misguided and miss the point, but there is no disagreement between members of the Committee about the importance of ensuring that agencies work together properly for the benefit of those children and families who need adoption support.

The clause underpins the commitment that children and others who request an assessment have a right to one. Subsection (9) says that when it appears to the local authority as a result of an assessment that there is a need for health or education services, the local authority is placed under a duty to notify the appropriate ''Health authority, Primary Care Trust or local education authority'' of that need.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), I can say that the coverage of health authorities deals with the issue that he raised in relation to Wales. In consequence of changes made by the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill, we shall make any consequential changes in subordinate legislation to the Bill that we are discussing. I assure him that his constituents and those of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will have that coverage.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I am reassured by what the Minister says, but will she clarify whether the current position should be reflected in the Bill in relation to subsection (9), in that there are no primary care trusts in Wales? There are local health groups, which are similar but not identical to primary care trusts in England.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall certainly reflect on that. The intention is clearly that the local authority's duty is to notify the appropriate health body to ensure that it can provide the necessary support in relation to post-adoption support.

The requirement to notify the appropriate health authority, primary care trust or local education authority of the need is new in the Bill, and represents an important improvement. I hope that that partly responds to the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon about the difference between the current and the new situation. What should happen once that notification is made? The health authority, the primary care trust and the local education authority will have to determine whether to provide services in accordance with their statutory obligations. That means that they must provide services to anyone affected by adoption who is entitled to them under the statutory framework under which they operate.

The alternative is that the Bill would cut across the statutory frameworks for all the other bodies that might provide adoption support. I am not sure that that would be appropriate given the statutory frameworks for health and education provision, which I shall discuss in more detail later.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

As usual, the Minister is courteous in giving way. Surely, she has touched on the issue. We are talking about a group that disproportionately needs particular services but is disproportionately disadvantaged in obtaining them for the reasons that were so eloquently described during our hearings. That is exactly why we must cut across the statutory frameworks. I gave the parallel example of the service families working group, which does just that. However, it has no legislative teeth and has failed to achieve much. That is why we are arguing for legislative teeth.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I suspect, from my experience with the initiative on service families children, that we are putting in place a similar process in the Bill. The most important point is that we bring to the attention of agencies and authorities the nature of the support that is needed and facilitate their provision of the relevant assessments and support. The next most important point is that we bring to the attention of health and education bodies the particular needs of children who need adoption support. That is why the Government will issue guidance and directions to health authorities, primary care trusts and local education authorities to ensure joined-up planning and the provision of adoption support services across the various public services. In other words, we shall explicitly bring the needs of children and adoptive families to the attention of authorities.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Would it not be helpful to discuss how we can change the overall framework to avoid the conflicts that happened in the past? Will the Minister elaborate on how the guidelines will change the structure to facilitate the process?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall come to that later, when we deal with education and other issues.

The guidance will spell out the particular needs of children and families that need adoption support. Furthermore, the national adoption standards—I refer hon. Members to standard E1—state that councils will plan and deliver adoption services with local health and education bodies. Once again, the use of guidance and directions will help to deliver that standard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre made a plea for wider reform and for joined-up work on children's services, and I have significant sympathy with that. The Government have made progress on those issues and will continue to do so in, for example, the work that we are starting on the children's national service framework. That framework explicitly includes social services and will examine how we ensure that health and social services are better organised. Directions under the quality protects programme place significant emphasis on working corporately across the organisation and with other partners, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre rightly said.

The flexibilities possible since enactment of the Health Act 1999 also enable much better joint working when appropriate for children's services in health and social services. If my hon. Friend is saying that we need to do more in order to ensure that services are joined up, I would agree with him, but I point him to those areas where the Government are making some progress.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Minister said that it will be important to bring the needs of adopted children to the attention of local health and education authorities, but where is the sanction or the stick for social services to ensure that those other bodies deliver the services? She must address that point.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was going to return to that, but the sanctions, the sticks and the monitoring rest with the statutory frameworks that surround the provision of those services, as well as through the requirements that we shall make in guidance and directions.

I was moving briefly to subsections (10) and (11), which ensure appropriate co-operation between local authorities in the exercise of their functions in relation to assessments of need for adoption support services and the provision of any services following such assessments. We discussed this morning the way in which we could ensure that as children moved between local authorities, the criteria were such as to ensure that they received the necessary support, and I do not intend to rehearse that again.

Amendments No. 73, 172 and 145 would place a duty on health bodies and local education authorities, following receipt of a notification from a local social services authority under subsection (9), to provide adoption support services in line with the statutory services that they have assessed a person as needing. For reasons that we rehearsed this morning, the Government do not believe that that is appropriate. As I explained, NHS bodies and education authorities will need to determine whether to provide adoption support services in line with the statutory frameworks within which they operate. That means that when people affected by adoption are entitled to receive services under those frameworks, those services must be provided.

For example, it is clearly appropriate that if a child has special needs—the hon. Member for Canterbury was right that looked-after children tend to have a higher need for SEN provision—the statutory requirements under education legislation that ensure that an appropriate education assessment be carried out. Similarly, if a child has a need for mental health services, it is right that the mental health professional should carry out that assessment under that framework. Of course, the additional element will be that adoption will be dealt with in guidance, and directions on the carrying out of the assessment will have been brought to the attention of those professionals.

I shall give a practical example. Last week, a conference was held to help practitioners to consider how they implement the national adoption standards. At one useful session, officials from the Department for Education and Skills spoke specifically about the educational needs of children who would need adoption support services. The important guidance that has already been issued on the education of looked-after children, to see whether some elements, such as the designated teacher, could be appropriately used to support children going through the adoption process. That is a good example of how the different frameworks can be used to work together effectively for the benefit of children.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister has clearly and lucidly illustrated the heart of the problem with her example. She will know from her surgeries that local education authorities are under pressure, as anyone funded from public resources is, and that there are long waiting lists for people with special needs. Parents find that extremely stressful, as is inevitable, as they fight for their child to go further up the queue. The difference between the adoptive and the natural parent is that, whereas the natural parent has to fight only one battle, to get a special needs assessment for the child, for the adoptive parent, that battle is in addition to all the other struggles involved in looking after what are often very damaged children. That is why we believe that there should be statutory support for such children, rather than guidance and guidelines.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That is precisely the sort of role that should be fulfilled by the key worker, as we discussed this morning, to support parents. It is also why the particular needs of adopted children will be brought to the attention of education and health providers so that they can be reflected in the assessment, although the assessment must continue to be conducted within the statutory frameworks.

Amendments Nos. 144 and 183 relate to subsection (11). The amendments are not appropriate. It is not reasonable or practical to oblige a local authority to comply with any request for help, where that request may not be compatible with its statutory duties and obligations under the relevant legislation. However, as I have already said, the Bill provides that the local authority must comply with the request where it is consistent with the exercise of its functions. That follows the approach taken in section 27 of the Children Act 1989.

With those detailed responses to hon. Members' concerns about an issue on which we all share the objective of ensuring that agencies work together to provide support for children and adoptive families, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am not happy with the Minister's response. We are trying to work out what is in the best interests of the child and we must ensure that services are properly co-ordinated. She talked about the statutory frameworks within which health authorities and education authorities operate, but I do not see how incorporating one of the three amendments would do anything other than complement that framework. I would like to press amendment No. 172 to a vote, but withdraw amendments Nos. 73 and 145, and then vote on amendment No. 183.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Let me explain. Before the Committee is amendment No. 73, with which we are considering the other amendments. Only the hon. Member who moved amendment No. 73 has the right to withdraw it. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to vote on the amendment to which he spoke, he must declare that now, and I will arrange it when we have dealt with amendment No. 73. The same would apply if the hon. Member for Romsey wanted to press her amendment to a vote. Mr. Bellingham, what do you want to do?

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I would like to press amendment No. 183 to a vote.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I will allow a vote to be taken on that amendment when we reach it.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Following your guidance, Mrs. Roe. I believe that, following your thought process, I am responsible for amendments Nos. 73, 145 and 144.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Only amendment No. 73.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

My apologies, Mrs. Roe.

My opinion is that the matter should be put to the vote. We all agree on the same things, on a superficial level. We want more joined-up thinking and we want bodies increasingly to work together, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said so eloquently.

How is the additional joined-up working to be carried out in practice, in terms of the nitty-gritty? My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk gave a good example of non-joined-up working in unfortunate circumstances. I am sure that all of us could give similar examples from our own constituencies. We want to know how the system proposed under the Bill will work. The problem is that there have been too many examples of working that is not joined-up. The Opposition do not find it acceptable simply to assume that everything will fall into place once the Bill has been implemented. The existing arrangements need to be reviewed.

The hon. Member for Cardiff, West mentioned PCTs in the context of the difference between England and Wales. The other side to his point is that PCTs are new organisations in England as well. We therefore need to think about what operational mechanisms should be put in place to cater for this new kind of organisation. That is not to say, however, that the mechanisms in place for existing bodies are acceptable.

The Minister made it clear that the purpose of the clause is to ensure joint working, but I am still not sure that it does that. It merely gives a statement of intent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury pointed out, when he described it as having no statutory teeth. That is what it comes down to. Nothing in the clause will actually make joint working work, and we already know that it often does not.

Subsection (9) provides for the notification of bodies of the need to work together, but that is not enough. The Minister said that it was an improvement on what we had. That may be the case, but if the effect of the clause is to highlight the need without providing for delivery, its unfortunate impact could be to make things worse by merely drawing fresh attention to the deficiencies of the system. That is not a recipe for delivery.

I disagreed with the Minister about not wanting to cut across various pieces of legislation. One of our problems is the number of disparate bits of legislation. Why can we not use the Bill to review all those bits of legislation and find out how to put in place a system that will address the matter? I am not saying that that would be easy, but we should face up to it in order to get things right. We should put in place a system that crosses the various disciplines.

The Minister was asked to flesh out the proposals, and I do not think that she did so. She mentioned a doctors' conference, which was a good example of consultation. However, it was not a good enough example of the massive levels of consultation that would be required to get the new structure up and running to our general satisfaction. I feel that the Government have not yet given the issue the thought that will be required in terms of the nitty-gritty. She says that the Government recognise that more joined-up thinking is necessary, but how do we go about that? I suggest that much more consultation is needed.

The sticks that exist in various legislation, or that the Minister said existed, to prevent non-delivery, may be well and good. However, we know that the system does not work to the desirable standard. Therefore, even if those sticks do exist, there are either not enough of them or they are in so many different pieces of legislation that no one knows where to look for them. Why cannot we address them in the Bill?

The Minister said that the amendments were inappropriate, but she did not say why.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I did.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I disagree, because we have been discussing frameworks rather than detail. We must improve the current system, not accept it as a given. I would like cross-provisions to be written into the Bill.

The Minister backed up her argument by referring to future guidance, but she did not say what that guidance would be or when it would be put in place.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Previously, the hon. Gentleman said, rightly, that much work had to be done and many people consulted to get the details right. He now criticises me for saying that we need to consult many people to get the details right. Is that not a contradiction?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I do not think so. I recognised the Minister's example of consultation, but noted that that was not adequate in the circumstances. Much more consultation should be done to put some meat on the bones of the provisions.

The Minister referred to the role of the lead social worker. That is fine and a good idea, but we felt that that had been said rather on the hoof and that not much thought had gone into the practicalities of how to authorise that in practice.

For all those reasons, the clause seems to be losing sight of where we want to go, so I do not want to withdraw the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 9.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I crave your indulgence a little, Mrs. Roe, as I want to raise an odd technical point on the clause. We have considered the clause extensively through the large number of amendments that we have debated, mostly this morning. There are many provisions, however, especially in subsection (7), that will be covered by regulations, and sight of those regulations is a long way off.

Under subsection (7)(f) and (g), local authorities can charge for various support services provided to other bodies. Paragraph (g) refers to

''the recovery of any financial support provided by a local authority''.

So far as I can recall, we have not talked about charging fees. My understanding of the references to the regulations is that local authorities will have the power to charge fees for support services provided. That raises questions about what will be provided free to adoptive families that require support, and about the relationship between local authorities that send adopted children outside their jurisdiction and may pay fees to bodies in the other area, such as the new local authority and other support service organisations. It is not clear how that arrangement will work. Will the Minister touch on the basis of fee charging by a local authority, within its area or outside it?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Before the Minister responds, I would like to make a query. In terms of the local authority's bureaucratic mismanagement, the worst constituency case that I have ever handled resulted in a court action that was eventually settled out of court. None the less, it seems to fit in with the sort of question asked by my hon. Friend. I would be grateful for the Minister's response on fees in relation to it.

A couple wanted to adopt from care a young girl who had been severely abused. The adoption was a success, but an older sibling threatened to commit suicide if she was not adopted too, which is not an untypical reaction. Eventually, the parents reluctantly agreed, although they suspected that the poor girl was beyond their help. After a couple of brave years struggling, the sibling was taken back into care again because the adoption had failed. The younger sister continued to thrive in the adoption placement.

As the result of the then law, the local authority sued my constituents and billed them for taking the child back into care, because the adoption had gone through by that stage. I see the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre nodding—it is clear how the law works. The child was their child, the family were not wealthy, but both parents were in work so they had a reasonable income, and they were sued for an enormous weekly bill for taking their adopted child back into care. It is beyond my ability to find a way of tabling an amendment to any part of the Bill to deal with that, but I thought that this might be an appropriate time to raise the case.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, under the Children Act 1989, local authorities do indeed have the power to recover costs when children are taken into care?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Yes, I do, and I believe that it is fair and reasonable that they should be able to do so. I am not opposing the state of the law in general. I am just saying that it seems completely unreasonable that that path should be extended to a child who has been in care and whom my constituents, again from a London authority, had taken the risk of adopting. I was making a narrow point. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the law is appropriate in most cases.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We have covered the major points, but I shall respond to the questions raised by Opposition Members.

The point raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. On the point about charging for adoption support services, the intention behind the clause has been misinterpreted. Local authorities will not charge fees for adoption support services. There was some debate last week about fees for intercountry assessment, which is a different issue. There is a power to make regulations in clause 4(7)(i) regarding expenses to be paid between local authorities or agencies, but it does not include the power to charge individuals. Local authorities cannot charge in respect of the provision of services unless a statutory power enables them to do so, and the Bill provides for no such statutory power.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister has been in such command of her brief that I wonder whether she misheard my point while she was looking at her papers, because far from answering my point, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford raised something with which I agree.

The Children Act 1989 reiterated an existing power—a power that may go back further than that Act—which the hon. Gentleman and I support, for parents to be billed for the cost or part of the cost of their children being taken into care, if they have the funds to pay. I am sure that all hon. Members would support that. My narrow point focused on the misapplication of that legal power, which is possible in existing law, to a case where the child had been in care for many years, had been adopted and the adoption had then failed.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That certainly sounds like an unsatisfactory situation, although I believe that the hon. Gentleman understands the legislative process under which that happened. One of the reasons why families find themselves in that situation is that they have been given inadequate adoption support, and our debates on improvements to adoption support services are important in that respect. However, we are currently discussing whether a local authority should be able to charge for adoption support services, and I made my case clear in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

If the hon. Member for Canterbury wants me to pursue the particular case that he raised, I shall be happy to write to him.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I would be most grateful for that. I had intended to try to get assistance in drafting a new clause for us to tackle at the end of our consideration of the Bill. However, if the Minister felt able to do something in that area before we reach that stage, drawing on her much greater resources, I would be intensely grateful.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister did not answer my second point. I entirely take her point about its not being the intention to charge fees to individuals. I am querying the charging of fees by other local authorities providing services. Where such services do not come up to scratch, the adoptive child has to be taken back into care by the original placing authority. Where the placing authority has paid out a grant to an adoptive family in another local authority area to make alterations to a house or provide a vehicle, and the adoption fails, what happens to the money expended? It is not made clear how that would work.

If a local authority provides services to an adopted child placed in its area at the expense of another authority, such as a London placement in a Kent authority, what is the form for those services being provided at more than cost? Are such local authorities able to provide those services on a commercial basis, particularly in view of the Secretary of State's recent announcement about commercial activities being provided by local authorities?

A local authority in Kent might play host to a child with complex difficulties who has been placed by an authority in London. The London authority pays money to the Kent authority for the provision of speech therapy services, special educational needs services and additional counselling. I understand that that authority, under the changes in the law, can now provide those services at a profit. The relationship becomes commercial.

However, what happens if the services provided are found to be wanting and not up to scratch and the placing authority in London has to repatriate that child, having spent a lot of money? Under the existing arrangement, it is simply a question of how the London authority might reclaim its outlay, which is deemed a failed investment. However, under the new arrangements there is a commercial liability as well, is there not?

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham asked about the funding implications where an authority pays fees in relation to adoption support arrangements for a child who is placed with it but who must subsequently return to the placing authority because there is a problem. On another clause, we shall consider an amendment that deals with fees, including inter-agency fees, which involve authorities making payments in relation to the recruitment of adopters in alternative authorities. The consultation that followed the White Paper referred to inter-agency fees, about which there has been some concern. Nevertheless, the response to the consultation was such that most people felt that the system should continue, while recognising that it might be necessary to reconsider the guidance provided to local authorities about their financing system in order to ensure that perverse incentives were not built into the system.

I return to the issue of adoption support payments. When a child is placed with an adoptive family living in a different local authority area, it is important that it should be clear where the responsibility for providing adoption support services lies. We shall make regulations, as we said earlier, under subsection (7)(h), setting out a clear system that will apply in such circumstances. We shall consult stakeholders on the regulations in order to ensure that the detail is right. It will be vital to ensure that the new system is supported by appropriate funding arrangements. We shall therefore make regulations under subsection (7)(i) to set out the circumstances in which one local authority may recover from another the expenses of providing adoption support services. The regulations will ensure that the local authority's duties in cases such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman are clarified.

This is a complex area, on which there are many views. We need to work with the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Local Government Association and other stakeholders. It is important to get the details right, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall consult widely on the regulations in order to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Local authority plans for adoption services

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 185, in page 5, line 34, leave out subsection (4).

With the forbearance of the Committee I should like to look at the purpose of the clause. It places a duty on local authorities to prepare and publish plans for the provision of adoption services in their areas. Regulations will prescribe the information that the plans have to contain. I am surprised that we are not to be told in detail what those regulations are. As we have discussed time and again, there is in the Bill mention of regulations, but we do not know what those regulations are. That is a weakness in the Bill, and I ask the Minister to comment specifically on what she believes the regulations will prescribe, what form they will take, how detailed they will be and other appropriate information.

The Minister in question is enabled to direct the form, and the manner in which and the time at which the plan is published by the local authority. That is fine—we are all in favour of that. The local authority can be directed by the Minister to consult—we are happy with that too. However, under subsection (4)(a) the Minister can

''direct that a plan is to be included in another document specified in the direction''.

That could be a more general plan for the provision of services relating to children within the local authority. I do not think that it is on for the specific adoption plan to be included in such a general plan. We need clarity, accountability and clear lines of communication that will enable other bodies to intervene or to become involved if there is an appropriate interface for them, as well as an easily understood framework with some flexibility.

That is why my point is simple and straightforward. We want a specific plan that is quite tightly drafted, focused and fairly precise. It should make it crystal clear that it concentrates specifically on adoption services, not on other child-orientated services. That is why the amendment, too, is simple and straightforward. We must remove subsection (4), which gives the Minister the legal power to direct that the plan that we all want the authorities to adopt can be included in another document. That makes no sense whatever. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that we need something much more specific that will lead to a local authority plan that delivers the adoption services that we all badly want for the benefit of children.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clause 5 is intended to tackle concerns about the planning and management of local authority adoption services. It requires every local authority to prepare and publish a plan for the provision of the adoption services in its area. The detailed requirements that we envisage being in the plan will be set out in regulations and will include providing information about on-going and future work on issues such as recruitment and the assessment of prospective adopters, preparing and placing children for adoption, assessing needs for adoption support, and the provision of adoption support services. Local authorities will be required to review their adoption service plans regularly. In contrast to their services for looked-after children and children in need, there is no specific statutory duty on local authorities to plan their adoption services, even though guidance encourages them to do so.

The hon. Gentleman rightly spent a lot of time arguing for services to be more joined up and integrated, so I find it strange that he is now saying that a statutory requirement to include an adoption plan in, for example, the children's services plan is a bad idea. It is completely appropriate to consider putting the adoption services plan alongside the authority's other work. Wherever possible, the plan will be delivered as part of existing or future planning mechanisms for children's services. As I suggested, we expect local authorities to discharge their new statutory obligation to plan their adoption services by including the plan in their statutory Children Act children's services plans.

The amendment would remove subsection (4) and prevent the appropriate Minister from directing local authorities to include their adoption services plan in another document. That means that authorities would need to produce a separate plan for their adoption services rather than including it in their children's services plan. That would place a new, unnecessary burden on local authorities. It would not mean that the plan was not produced, but simply that it would have to be produced in a less appropriate manner than if it were included in a children's service plan in a joined-up way.

The amendment would also prevent the appropriate Minister from giving local authorities directions in order to modify requirements in the regulations with regard to the content of the plans. It would mean, for example, that the appropriate Minister could not use directions to ensure the production of a tailored plan by individual local authorities or groups of local authorities, such as those involved in consortium arrangements, which, as hon. Members have suggested, is the way that we hope authorities will go.

In the light of that explanation of the purpose of subsection (4) and of the damage that the amendment would do, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am grateful to the Minister for her cogent explanation. I intend to seek leave to withdraw the amendment, but I seek one further piece of clarification first. Local authorities will be preparing adoption services plans, and the explanatory notes say that the appropriate Minister may give a direction, which implies that that would be the exception rather than the rule. The Minister's response to my amendment implied that the plan would normally be included within a wider framework for children's services. I do not necessarily have a difficulty with that, but we surely need a precise focus on adoption services. If she can convince the Committee that that focus will be included in the wider framework for children's services, that will be okay. Why, however, do the explanatory notes imply that her suggested outcome will be the exception rather than the rule?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It would not be appropriate to set out in the Bill the broader framework within which the plan should be made, because planning requirements should, and almost certainly will, change. It is, therefore, appropriate to retain flexibility. In the last part of my response to the amendment, I also noted that it may be appropriate to tailor the plan differently in different circumstances—for example, where a local authority works in a consortium or where there is a need to accentuate what it includes in its plan because of concerns about its provision of services.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I should like to speak about the general use of plans. I am not saying that there will be no use for the adoption services plan. To be fair, the Minister mentioned the items that would go into it, although the language was technical, and I admit that I did not understand most of the issues that she raised. That is an admission of my lack of knowledge of the technical language, rather than a mistake on the Government's part. That said, I am not agreeing that what it is proposed to include in the plan will be correct or will work. That will have to be carefully reviewed.

The provisions may help to foster a joined-up thinking approach, but not necessarily. I say that because I have seen many of the plans that the Government have brought into play in local authorities, and councillors are sick to the teeth of them. Many such plans serve no purpose whatever, other than to involve officers and councillors in constant tail-chasing exercises that waste a lot of time and do little to deliver services to the people whom the council is meant to serve. On top of that, preparing the plans in practice is expensive, and they cost money to review. They then go to the Government, who have their tuppenceworth, and more costs are incurred. The impact of putting together the plans, particularly on smaller authorities, can often be out of all proportion to their impact on services.

I am not saying that we should vote against the clause in its entirety, but there is a long way to go before it is generally accepted that the plans will serve the purpose that the Minister discussed.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I shall not stray into the territory of cunning plans, to which my hon. Friends alluded, although I entirely concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon about the excessive amount of prescription and bureaucracy being placed on local authorities. Only yesterday, I attended a social services conference where a senior director of social services of a shire county revealed that, during the past year, he had received no less than 12 inspections. To cap it all, he has now been approached by a senior official from the Department of Health asking him to co-operate in a study of the number of inspections being carried out by departmental inspectors. It seems to have gone out of control.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

It is also important to mention that the Government have now put in place a plan of plans. Through amendment No. 185, we were discussing whether a plan could be put into another plan. In practice, however, the various council departments settle their plans, and then they have to plan to encompass all the other plans.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It is mind-boggling, and I am sure that it does not achieve anything. It certainly does not lead to the better services that we want to be provided for children involved in adoption, which is the point of our deliberations.

I was surprised that in her recent references to clause 5 and earlier clauses, the Minister did not mention the influence that public service agreements have on adoption services; nor did she tell us of the progress of beacon status. Of the 20 pilot authorities involved in PSAs, eight are involved in setting more stretching adoption targets. How will the terms of clause 5 interact with that? How many of the other 130 local authorities will include adoption targets in their PSAs when the pilot scheme is extended to all local authorities? Can we have more details on the progress of beacon status? I gather that, by September, 12 councils had applied for beacon status for adoption schemes. However, in April 2002, along with everything else that will happening next spring, including all the regulations that will be pouring out of the Department, the Minister anticipates announcing the likely qualifiers.

How many more authorities will apply for beacon status under the adoption scheme? Only a relatively small number seem to include adoption services as part of a PSA or beacon status. That means either that they think they are greatly under-resourced and not in a position to achieve such high standards or that they are not as well advanced as they need to be to cope with the extra duties and responsibilities that will be imposed under the Bill. The Government seem keen to push PSAs and beacon status. Will the Minister update the Committee on the progress on those two schemes as regards adoption services?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Although we have already covered the major issues raised by clause 5, hon. Members asked some specific questions about plans. First, the clause ensures that there will be a statutory duty to prepare a plan for adoption services, which will ensure accountability in that service. However, recognising that the planning needs to be coherent, it would be most appropriate for that provision to be included in the overall planning of children's services. In this case, too, the Government are making progress on reducing the number of plans. All current planning requirements have a clear policy intention behind them, often associated with grant regimes. However, we are actively seeking ways of reducing the burden on local authorities. Part of the remit of the children and young people's unit is to simplify the planning requirements affecting children.

On the subject of local PSAs, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right. Many local authorities have chosen to push adoption targets into their local public service agreements, which enable local authorities to free themselves from restrictions and requirements by stretching their adoption targets. On the subject of beacon status, I shall write to him and to other members of the Committee with the details of the Government's beacon council programme and the extent to which that supports us in the work to share best practice between local authorities, to improve adoption services and increase the number of children adopted from care.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Arrangements on cancellation of registration

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 188, in page 6, line 19, at end add

'and the relevant body will be under an obligation to at all times retain full records.'.

The clause points out that, by virtue of the cancellation of its registration under part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000,

''a body has ceased to be a registered adoption society'',

and that

''the appropriate Minister may direct the body to make such arrangements as to the transfer of its functions relating to children and other transitional matters as seem to him expedient.''

That makes sense, but I am concerned about the retention of records. The relevant body may be wound up or may disappear and the records may be lost, when they should be retained and passed on to the successor body.

The amendment would make it crystal clear that records must be retained. If they are not, it could cause problems for the successor body. The amendment is simple and straightforward and I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As the hon. Gentleman said, the clause enables the appropriate Minister to issue directions to the voluntary adoption agency that require it to make appropriate arrangements for the transfer of its functions relating to children. Those directions will ensure that the voluntary adoption agency's records are transferred to another adoption agency and that an appropriate continuity of service provision is preserved for those receiving services from the agency before it ceases to be registered.

This clause is linked to clause 7, under whose provisions the appropriate Minister may direct the relevant local authority to take action when a voluntary adoption agency is inactive, defunct or has ceased to be registered. Directions may be used to require the local authority to take over the voluntary adoption agency's records.

The amendment is unnecessary, therefore, and problematic in that it would place an obligation on

''the relevant body . . . to . . . retain full records.''

It does not make it clear what the relevant body may be. On the basis that it is flawed and that the points made by the hon. Gentleman are covered, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Will the Minister give more detail? She says that the question of records is covered, but will it be covered in the regulations, as it does not seem to be covered in the Bill? The records will obviously be kept by the successor body, but will she make clear the mechanism for ensuring that those records are maintained and kept intact?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I think that it is clear in the Bill. I outlined that directions would make explicit the responsibilities in relation to clauses 6 and 7, and gave the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he sought.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Inactive or defunct adoption societies etc

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

There are no amendments to the clause but the clause does contain some vague passages. Subsection (1) says:

''This section applies where it appears to the appropriate Minister that—

(a) a body which is or has been a registered adoption society is inactive or defunct''.

It goes on, in paragraph (b), to refer to a body that has had its registration cancelled under part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000, which is a positive act that one can determine. However, I am not clear how it would appear to a Minister—to use the terminology of the Bill—that a body was ''inactive or defunct''. Will the Minister give some examples of when that might appear to be the case, if she were the appropriate Minister?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It is important that we have the safeguard that ensures that the records and activities of an adoption agency that goes out of business can, if necessary, be transferred to a local authority.

I think that it would be fairly obvious if an adoption agency ceased to operate, and therefore came under subsection (1)(a). It would be drawn to the attention of local authorities, which could draw it to the Minister's attention, or it might be drawn directly to the attention of the Department. It might come to the Department's attention through its responsibilities for registering adoption agencies. There are a range of ways in which that might happen.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Although I appreciate what the Minister says, something that has gone wrong in the past when agencies have closed down is that records have been lost. Has she considered how that will be put right in future?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We have not only considered it but ensured that it does not happen, by placing clauses 6 and 7 in the Bill and appropriate regulation-making powers later. The hon. Gentleman is right in his concerns, which is why it is important that clause 7 ensures, if necessary, that those responsibilities can be passed to a local authority.

I shall conclude my list of the various ways in which the body's state might come to the Minister's attention. It could be brought to the Department's attention through inspections, which would cover voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I take the Minister's point, but she has not sealed all the hatches. A wide range of adoption agencies exists: some of them are big, some are small and some are specialist, dealing with a small number of children for overseas adoptions for some communities in this country. She said that the local authority or another adoption agency might notify the Department, but she should take into account the friction that exists between some people in the adoption world. It might suit some people's book that a particular adoption agency no longer continued in practice. We need a keener definition of ''inactive or defunct''.

The Minister failed to tell us what would happen if a Minister decided that it appeared to him or her that an agency was ''inactive or defunct'' and that agency reared its head and said, ''No, we are not inactive or defunct.'' If the Minister had taken measures determining that it was inactive or defunct, what recourse to appeal would there be and how would it work? Again, we are not dealing with mainstream cases. However, owing to the nature of the subject, I can envisage cases in which specialist adoption agencies in particular found shutters being closed on them as they went about their normal business. It does not mean that they are defunct or inactive merely because they have not fulfilled such a high quota of adoptions in a certain period.

The Minister may not be able to give me a full response, but the problem needs consideration. There should be a clear right of appeal for an agency when Ministers deem it appropriate that it be subject to such an order.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clearly, the Department does not want to whisk business away from adoption agencies that function appropriately. In most cases in which a voluntary adoption agency or other adoption agency ceased operation, there would be a quite sensible process of transferring functions to another adoption agency. The provisions are safeguards for cases in which that does not happen.

It is not possible for voluntary adoption agencies to operate without some recognition of their existence, as they are inspected and approved by the social services inspectorate. From April 2003, they will inspected and regulated by the National Care Standards Commission in England and the National Assembly in Wales under part II of the Care Standards Act 2000. We can therefore be confident that they will be drawn appropriately to Ministers' attention, and any necessary safeguarding action will be taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Adoption support agencies

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 7, leave out line 17.

I suppose that the amendment is probing. The paragraph that I seek to delete contains a catch-all phrase—an Uncle Tom Cobbleigh phrase—that covers anyone else who happens to be thought of at the time. The clause is about adoption support agencies and defines bodies that should not be regarded as such. Subsection (2) lists entirely logical exceptions, although I note from an earlier discussion that paragraph (d), with which we are not especially concerned now, does not include local health groups in Wales alongside health authorities and others. No doubt we shall come to that subject at some other stage.

The phrase that I object to is in subsection (2)(f), which reads:

''any person, or description of persons, excepted by regulations''.

I thought that the explanatory notes might clarify who those people might be. About the providers in the list, they state that

''These providers are not to be registered under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act as they are already regulated'',

and that

''Subsection (2)(f) provides a power to make regulations to add to this list''.

We have had no sight of the regulations. We have no idea who the person or persons to be excepted by the regulations might be. If one were making simple law, it might be more logical to state that all the relevant people would be excepted in the regulations, rather than listing people in the clause and then adding anyone else whom we might want on the list under regulations. The drafting of the clause does not specify what we want it to achieve.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Before my hon. Friend moves too far from his point about regulations, will he fill me in on the impact that those regulations will have on the clause? I have been trying to work it out.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which highlights the fact that we do not have sight of the regulations, so we have no idea what will provide for the exemptions. The Committee should have guidance on the subject. All that the explanatory notes say is that there will be power to introduce such regulations.

I object to catch-all phrases in legislation that give Ministers the power to amend the law in a way of which Parliament might not have conceived. I seek guidance as to what is meant by subsection (2)(f).

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I agree with what the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said, and I hope that I pronounced his constituency correctly. Regulations and statutory instruments are part of the process of all legislation, but the Bill seems top-heavy in terms of legislating not by the back door, but not by the front.

If draft regulations exist, will the Minister supply the Committee with them by our next sitting? Time and again, on clause after clause, we hear of draft regulations that will be put together at some time in future for consultation, regardless of whether consultation like that that has recently taken place with members of the public or another form of it. If she did supply us with them, we would have at least an idea of some of the regulations.

I appreciate the fact that regulations are pieces of secondary legislation, and understand the legislative process, but I am sure that the Minister's officials will have some draft regulations in mind. If they do, surely it would be good to produce them for the Committee at this stage.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall respond to the last point first. The Bill has emerged from a White Paper accompanied by national adoption standards that clearly set down what we want to see. It has been subject to significant scrutiny during its passage through Parliament, including our discussions in the Special Standing Committee. I recognise the concern that regulations that come out of the Bill should be properly consulted on, but we have had this argument before. The suggestion that we should prepare regulations in advance of a piece of legislation that sets the statutory basis for them is largely unworkable and unprecedented.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I have been in the House long enough to know that what the Minister says is right. I did not say that letting a Committee see regulations in advance was normal, but that it would be good in this case. The Bill is the second attempt to make such provisions. The Minister lists with great pride the number of consultations that there have been, so there is even less reason for not producing draft regulations.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Regulations are secondary legislation. It is right that they be informed by the scrutiny of primary legislation as it passes through the House. It would be perverse for the Department to be so presumptuous as to determine in advance the likely result of the scrutiny then to be reflected in the regulations.

Clause 8 amends the Care Standards Act 2000 to make provision for the registration of adoption support agencies under part II of that Act. Later, we may discuss the significance of that. The hon. Member for North Dorset is concerned about the possibility of exemptions to the need to register. The thinking behind the clause is that adoption support providers already regulated through other means, such as approved voluntary adoption agencies, NHS providers and the Registrar-General, will be exempt from the requirement to register as an adoption support agency. That will help to avoid the unnecessary duplication of registration.

The providers that are exempt from the requirement to register are listed in subsection (2)(a) to (e). The hon. Gentleman suggested that it might have been better if we had not bothered to list them, but I suspect that we would once again have been criticised for not placing provisions in the Bill. However, it may not be appropriate for other organisations in the future to be registered in the way set out in the Care Standards Act. That is why subsection (2)(f) provides a power to make regulations to add to the list of adoption support providers that are not obliged to register as adoption support agencies. Why are they not listed in the Bill? Had we been able to see into the future and to know which providers would be affected, we would of course have been able to list them.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

Surely, we could amend the Bill when legislation to create another statutory body is passed.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We debate adoption legislation only rarely, and it is right that it should make it clear, as subsection (2) does, that it may not be appropriate to duplicate regulations for other organisations in the future. Had we not included subsection (2)(f), I suspect that we would quite rightly have been asked about future organisations that it might not be appropriate to register.

Those are the reasons for the clause taking the form that it does. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication of regulation, with its associated burdens.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am not particularly comforted by the Minister's response. I thank the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy for his intervention and for pronouncing the name of my constituency correctly—at least he does not call it Dorset, North, as some do.

To return to the thrust of the amendment, I am not especially happy with the Minister's response. I understand that the Department of Health probably considers the provision to be a good way of proceeding, for reasons of administrative convenience. The Minister did not share her thoughts on this, and we can only speculate on what those other organisations might be. I fear, however, that one of them might be some form of English regional government, which could be added to the list without reference to the House.

Although I am unhappy and dissatisfied with the Minister's answer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 7, line 17, at end insert—

'(g) organisations operated wholly or mainly by adoptive family members.'.

I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept this modest amendment. I am struggling hard to improve my record on advocacy, and I had thought of getting a makeover, but I could not afford one. However, my barber did the best that he could at lunch-time with such raw material as remains.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

What did the hon. Gentleman have for lunch?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

It was instead of lunch.

All that I seek is an exemption. It is surely so obvious that no one could object. At our hearings during the earlier phase of this Special Standing Committee—unlike the hon. Gentleman, I did not keep statistics—I asked the representatives of one organisation after another whether they thought that small self-help adoption groups should be regulated; and in every case the answer was no. Several people gave similar answers, saying that bodies like theirs needed to be regulated but that families who provide their own self-help adoption services did not.

I do not have to tell the Committee—most hon. Members are very knowledgeable about support groups—that whether it is a bereavement group, a group with alcohol problems or a mother and toddler group, bringing people together with a shared experience is an important part of building confidence. Adoption is a parallel. Bringing groups of adoptive parents together is a thoroughly sensible way of helping them through the problems associated with adoption, and many local authorities rightly encourage it.

It may be that the Minister will say—let us put our earlier discussions behind us—that the exemption is not necessary because local authorities will, of course, be light-handed in dealing with such groups. It seems to me, however, that an exemption needs to be placed in the Bill, and I shall make one analogy to illustrate why. We are forced to argue by analogy—[Interruption.] I will gladly give way to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I was making a sedentary comment to my hon. Friend.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I see.

As with so much of the Bill, the measures with which we are dealing are essentially frameworks for regulation and do not spell out what should be done. We therefore have to say what could happen and what has happened under parallel or similar legislation. The Children Act 1989 is the most recent and relevant legislation, and we have often referred to it in our debates. When that Act came into force, a string of small playgroups in my constituency were closed by over-zealous social workers. I arrived just in time to save one from closure; I discovered that it was being closed because it had insufficient provision of lavatories. The mathematical equation in the regulations showed that the playgroup had just below the right number. We were quickly able to show that the formula in the Department's guidance for the number of lavatories was not to be interpreted mechanically, and that group was saved. Two other groups, however, had already gone down—[Hon. Members: ''The pan?''] It is 10 minutes to 5 on a Thursday afternoon, and I am delighted to give way to the Minister.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Was the hon. Gentleman flushed with success?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I reassure the Minister that, although I have no expertise in that area, I was pleased to be on the front page of my local paper, which associated me with rescuing a playgroup from that lavatorial problem.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Is my hon. Friend aware that, although in Army circles it is appropriate to call such machines lavatories, the law does not recognise that word? In law, they are called toilets.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am reassured. I am learning all the time. I am glad to say that that playgroup is now thriving. I have visited the lavatories in question and they seem adequate for the job.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he had no expertise. How can he say that they looked adequate?

Mr. Brazier rose—

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. It would be helpful if the Committee returned to the amendment.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I should mention that the playgroup shared premises with my surgery.

You are right, Mrs. Roe, to return the debate to the amendment. My point is that legislation that the whole Committee would agree was passed in good faith—after lengthy consideration in Committee, during which hon. Members of all parties made very constructive contributions—has had an unfortunate effect on small groups of the kind I have been discussing. Those groups were not, of course, mother and toddler groups run by parents, but playgroups. We should take care that the Bill, whose principles have strong support on both sides of the House—notwithstanding a few votes on matters of detail—does not produce an unintended consequence.

Having had a bit of a laugh about my visits to the barber and a few other things, I remind the Committee that there really is scope for the clause, unless it is amended, to do a lot of damage. Adoption self-help groups are extremely important. Getting groups of people together, typically in the house of someone who is an adopter—the treasurer and secretary, if the group bothers to have a treasurer, are likely to be adopters—is important. Those groups do not need heavy-handed regulation. Surely it is reasonable for them to be exempted from the regulatory framework, however much we support the principle of regulation for more formal and structured adoption groups.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I do not disagree with the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman and I hope that I can reassure him that the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 8(1) makes it clear that an adoption support agency for which there would be a registration requirement is an undertaking. The term ''undertaking'' has the same meaning as in section 121 of the Care Standards Act 2000. It includes any business or profession, whether voluntary or profit making. It does not extend to a self-help group meeting in a person's own home.

The amendment would insert a new subsection (2)(g) in clause 8, excluding organisations operated wholly or mainly by adoptive family members from the requirement to register, but it is not needed. Informal groups that meet in people's homes will not be classed as adoption support agencies. Those wishing to hold a support group meeting in their own home will not be required to register as an adoption support agency. The Government have no intention of, or interest in, preventing individuals from meeting in their homes in a supportive environment. We would encourage that. I agree that such groups can play an important role.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I anticipate that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury may want to ask the same question as mine. The Minister used the phrase ''in their own home''. For an extended group of families it might not be physically possible to meet in one of their homes. They might need to use the village school, community centre or school hall. Would there still be no restriction in that event?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The emphasis that I placed on meeting in a group member's own home did not imply that that was a condition. The important point is that the groups should be informal self-help groups that do not provide counselling or some of the other services that the clause is rightly intended to regulate. There has, of course, been some demand for regulation of such groups.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

Many of the groups first came into being through groups of families coming together for mutual support. When does a group cease to be a group of families and become a group that requires registration?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Lady is right. What starts as a self-help group may develop into a group that offers counselling or other services to others. The point at which a group begins in a substantial way to provide adoption support services to others—this emerged clearly when we took evidence—is the point at which it would come under the auspices of the Bill. It would be a question of fact in each case, but I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wanted—that groups of adoptive families informally joining together for mutual support, not for the provision of services as I have outlined, would not be subject to the registration requirements.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am delighted with the Minister's assurances. If the amendment is otiose, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy put it, it can easily be withdrawn. My key question is a follow-up to that asked by the hon. Member for Romsey. In quoting a moment ago from the Care Standards Act 2000 the Minister referred to voluntary organisations—rightly, because a high proportion of organisations that need to be regulated are voluntary. The crucial transition that she described relates to the provision of services. However, an over-bureaucratic, domineering local authority could easily argue, for example, that a self-help group involved counselling. My direct question is: why can we not employ a definition that turns on whether the group is wholly or mainly run by adopters? That would create a clear dividing line.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The details of the registration will be the subject of regulations and national minimum standards at a later stage. However, the hon. Gentleman misunderstands one point. The registration will be undertaken not by some supposedly irrational or unreasonable local authority, but by the completely rational and reasonable National Care Standards Commission.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am grateful for the Minister's clear assurances. I hope that she has covered all the points. I retain a slight uneasiness after my earlier experience, to which, Mrs. Roe, I promise I shall not refer again. However, on the basis of the Minister's categoric assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.