Adoption and Children Bill

Public Bill Committee, 18 December 2001.

Adoption and Children Bill

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Under the terms of the programme resolution, we now come to clause 9.

Clauses 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. - Clause 11 - Fees

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 9, line 9, leave out 'prescribe' and insert 'recommend'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this we may take the following amendments: No. 4, in page 9, line 16, leave out 'prescribe' and insert 'recommend'.

No. 5, in page 9, line 18, at end insert—

'( ) Regulations under section 9 may prescribe the requirement for adoption agencies and local authorities to publish their fees.'.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I hope that I speak for all the Committee in saying that this is a much pleasanter Room in which to conduct our deliberations. It is lighter, warmer and, dare one say, a little more intimate, so that it is possible to hear what is happening on the other side of the Room.

Clause 11 relates to the fees that can be charged in relation to assessments made by adoption agencies and the provision of services under the Bill, most particularly with respect to

''the adoption of a child brought into the United Kingdom for the purpose of adoption''

''a Convention adoption, an overseas adoption or an adoption effected under the law of a country or territory outside the British Islands.''

My thoughts on the clause stem from a sympathy with some adopted parents about what they perceived to be high charges levied on them for such services. We heard evidence earlier in our proceedings of divergence in the charging regimes of various authorities and other bodies. It seemed to me that we needed to agree that there should be greater transparency.

Under the clause, regulations made under what will become section 9 ''may prescribe the fees'', which means that an all-embracing schedule of fees will be set centrally. I agree that people should know what fees they are to be charged, that those fees should be published, and that there should be no shocks for the users of the service. I agree that there should be no wide divergence between the fees charged by different providers of the relevant service. I am sure that all members of the Committee would agree that the fees charged for the services should not act as a barrier to

those who want to adopt children. However, I disagree with the concept in the Bill that somehow the Minister and his or her officials know best and will prescribe the level of the fees.

The Care Standards Act 2000 is quite a good guide for the type of procedure that we are considering. The explanatory notes to section 112 of that Act, which refers to charges for local authority welfare services, state that

''the powers of local authorities to charge for certain non-residential social services are to be treated as social services functions as defined in the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (''LASS ACT''). This will allow statutory guidance to be issued under section 7 of the LASS Act for charges for non-residential services. The need to produce statutory guidance follows the publication of the White Paper ''Modernising Social Services''. This recognised that the scale of variation in local authorities' home care charges was unacceptable''

and that the Audit Commission had highlighted the full extent of the variations. It is right that guidance should be issued by the Minister in such circumstances, and that the Minister should be able to recommend fees, but I do not believe that it is necessary that the Minister should prescribe what those fees should be.

The final sentence of the explanatory note to clause 11 on page 15 states that the charges

''will not include any element of profit.''

That means that, for every body concerned in charging fees, the Minister will be able to make the fine-tuned decision as to what an element of profit would be, and to ensure that the figure prescribed does not include it. I suspect that there is not an official or a Minister who would know intimately the exact cost structure of every agency involved in the procedure, enabling them to ensure that there would be no element of profit in a prescribed national fee. Under a prescribed national scale, we might end up with agencies either making a loss, or setting fees so high to avoid making a loss but making a profit and seeking in some way to hide it in order to ensure that they meet the conditions about not making a profit.

We should work towards the Minister recommending levels or ranges of levels of fees, and requiring, as proposed in amendment No. 5, those fees or scales to be published. That way, there would be no element of surprise to anyone coming to the adoption procedure; they would know their likely costs from the outset.

I am looking for transparency and an indication that we want not to prescribe the fees but to recommend scales within which they should operate. This is not a matter of the Minister knowing best, but of the user of the service—the potential adopter—needing to know the potential costs and that they will not constitute a barrier. The whole process should be open and transparent.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The clause amplifies the general regulation-making power in clause 9 for the charging and payment of fees by adoption agencies. Like the amendments, it covers two separate situations in which it is appropriate for the Government to be able to make regulations.

The hon. Gentleman tended to concentrate on the first aspect, which relates to the ability of adoption agencies to charge for prescribed activities surrounding intercountry adoption. The second relates to prescribing fees that may be paid by adoption agencies to other persons and organisations that provide facilities as part of the adoption service. The clause is therefore not about the charging of fees to individuals who enter the adoption system. I made it clear last week that the Government have no intention to charge domestic adopters for any part of the adoption service.

Judging by the hon. Gentleman's amendments, he seems to think it possible that regulations will not prescribe requirements. By their nature, regulations must prescribe requirements; they cannot simply set out recommendations, although recommendations may be included in guidance when the guidance does not have statutory underpinning.

Amendment No. 3 would prevent the appropriate Minister from setting out in regulations the fees that may be charged and paid by adoption agencies to the persons that provided adoption services. The powers in subsection (1) relate to the second aspect that I described and could be used to make regulations to change the inter-agency fee system, for example. That fee is a payment made by an adoption agency to another adoption agency that has recruited an adoptive family on its behalf and covers the cost of recruiting and assessing that family. The Government believe that the inter-agency fee system operates well, but we have promised to keep it under review. The power will enable us to make any changes to the system that we consider necessary after consultation with those involved. The amendment would prevent us from taking action if it became necessary.

Amendment No. 4 would provide that regulations might not prescribe the fees that local authorities may charge for intercountry adoption services; it would enable those regulations only to make recommendations. I have explained why it is inappropriate for regulations simply to make recommendations. It may help the hon. Gentleman if I describe what we intend to prescribe.

We do not intend to prescribe specific fee levels. We may prescribe that local authorities can charge fees for intercountry adoption in the first place, and specify the services that local authorities may charge for, such as assessing adopters, obtaining medical reports and police checks and preparing post-placement reports for the child's country of origin. We have no intention to set or recommend any particular fee level under the regulations.

Under current legislation, all agencies are bound to charge only reasonable fees; that will continue under the new provisions. Adoption agencies may not make a profit, but each adoption agency will have slightly different costs which they should be able to reflect in the fee charged so as to recoup their costs. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, a nationally set or recommended fee might result in some agencies

receiving more money than they need, while others, which are not able to cover their costs, are discouraged from assessing intercountry adopters. However, those engaged in intercountry adoption must have some certainty about what adoption agencies can and cannot charge for. That is what we intend to establish through the regulations.

Under amendment No. 5, the regulations would require local authorities to publish their fees. I have some sympathy with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I think it unnecessary. On the whole, fees charged by adoption agencies to adopters, prospective adopters and other adoption agencies are already in the public domain. The level of fees charged between adoption agencies is announced annually by the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies, is agreed between the agencies, and is set at £14,931. The inter-agency fee charged by local authorities is agreed by the National Joint Council for Local Government and is set at £10,539. Information on those fees is clearly already in the public domain.

The intercountry adoption guide issued by the Department in April makes it clear that all adoption agencies charging fees to adopters and prospective adopters for intercountry adoption should clearly state what the fee will be before the process starts. The guide offers advice on the type of costs that should and should not be included, and encourages adoption agencies to consider charging fees in instalments. Agencies are also encouraged to provide applicants with a written statement detailing what is included in the fee to achieve transparency, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is important in the circumstances. It is a requirement under current legislation and under clauses 91 and 92 of the Bill that adoption agencies may not derive a profit from that or any other work.

The powers in clause 9 are sufficiently flexible to enable the appropriate Minister through regulations to require adoption agencies to publish their fees or make them known to prospective adopters at the start of the assessment process. We believe that the system works well, but would be willing to consider whether that element was necessary if we received further evidence during consultation on the regulations.

Given those reassurances and explanations about the provisions and their intention, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am slightly reassured by the Minister's comments, but remain unhappy with the word ''prescribe''. I accept that regulations must do something, but a better term might be that they give ''statutory guidance'' to adoption agencies and local authorities.

I tabled the amendments and rehearsed the arguments in Committee because of the evidence of the wide divergence in fees charged by local authorities for services relating to intercountry adoption, especially home studies. I am pleased to hear that wide consultation will take place and that when regulations are drafted account will be taken of some of my arguments. The Minister suggested that if others made

the same points about the level and transparency of fees, the regulations would take account of them. In view of those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Welcome back to the Chair, Mrs. Roe.

It would be useful if, before we let the clause go, the Committee were to put on record some of the comments of adoption agencies and other interested organisations that are worried about fees. There is some confusion about the fees for different services, whether for cross-boundary adoptions in this country, or intercountry adoptions, and whether they are the fees of adoption agencies. The Minister was right about our discussion in Committee last week, in which I raised the disparities between local authority charges for home studies. They range from zero to more than £4,000, in the case of one authority, and of a London agency that is contracted by local authorities.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) tabled. Transparency in fees is essential. It would have been better had the Government at least introduced a fee-capping system. We know about the discrepancies in the costs of services in different parts of the country, but questions remain. The Minister said rightly that local authorities and adoption agencies should not be able to profit from various services, but with such wide discrepancies between fees, a loss leader must be assumed. It is hard to take that on board.

The Children's Society and the Adoption Forum have raised the issue. The Adoption Forum has pointed out that the fees local authorities must pay each other in respect of approved adopters across boundaries average about £16,000 and can be as much as £25,000 per child. As we have discussed, much of the total is the result of buying services in kind, rather than handing over a blank cheque or a sort of dowry, but there are big discrepancies. The other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) recounted the horrendous case of a London borough that seems to have dumped a child on the local authority in his constituency, with apparently no compulsion on that London borough to stump up for on-going support services—only for the bus fare.

It has been suggested that the problem with the fees charged is that they can act as a brake on local authorities' sending children for adoption out of area. In the past—to a degree, it will be so in future—the first choice has always been to try to find a child an adoptive family in the locality. There are good reasons for doing that, which include keeping the child in a familiar environment, perhaps near to other siblings. However, in other cases, the need to take the child as far as possible from a violent household and abusive

parents who are still on the scene makes it far preferable that a cross-boundary adoptive family be found.

The Children's Society has raised the concern that

''local authorities seem to believe that they can always make placements more cheaply''—

than adoption agencies—

''but are not able to calculate the actual unit cost, which must include premises, utilities, training, supervision and management costs.''

What grasp does the Department have of the actual cost of placements? Local authorities have not been forthcoming about figures, so it is difficult to judge whether there is an element of profit and to make comparisons with the costs of services provided by voluntary adoption agencies. It is worth noting that such agencies provide a valuable service and that, in effect, they subsidise adoption services to the tune of £3.5 million a year—a sum derived mainly from charitable donations and fundraising. We must retain those agencies if we are to maintain choice for prospective adopters and the ability of children and young people to choose the best placement for them.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I strongly endorse my hon. Friend's argument, but does he accept that his case is even stronger than he has suggested? For years, many of us have called for a larger role for voluntary organisations at the expense of some of the least effective local authorities; absurdly, however, voluntary organisations write to us saying, ''Please stop asking for that. We are overburdened already and are finances are tight.'' They struggle to do what they are already doing, although we all know that they do it far better than the bulk of—not all—local authorities.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is absolutely right. We all agree that voluntary adoption agencies provide an essential service. The adoption system will be enhanced by the Bill, and although some the clauses are complicated, they are rightly so. However, we must ensure that we do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Voluntary adoption agencies must be able to get on with their job and increase their capacities if they are to play a vital role in increasing capacity overall, which is what the Government and we are keen to achieve. My plea to the Minister is to be mindful of the fact that these are, by and large, charitable organisations that work with voluntary contributions and many volunteers. We must support their work, not hinder it. We must be aware of the financial implications of the provisions we make.

The Children's Society raises another interesting concern, stating:

''Anecdotally we have evidence that families are not being considered for children because the local authority does not have the budget for interagency fees. There are even instances of placements being abandoned during introductions because the local authority refused to find the interagency fee. This is hardly child centred practice. If the National Adoption Register is to work effectively the issue of interagency fees must be addressed before it is fully operational.''

My understanding of the new national adoption register is that a local authority that does not take a child who has been available for adoption for three weeks is obliged to put him on the register so that an

adoptive family may be found outside the area. I hope that we shall debate the clauses that deal with setting up the register, although given the rigours of our timetable, we might not. However, I do want to know how monitoring will be carried out, given that we have no sophisticated device for tracking children through the adoption system.

Who will make sure that children are put on the register at the prescribed time to enhance their chance of adoption—especially if a local authority that is, among other things, financially strapped is reluctant to stump up as much as £25,000 to place a child with an adoptive family in another local authority area? Those worries are echoed by other organisations and in a briefing note from Barnardo's.

I raise those concerns, of which the Minister must be aware, because I hope that when drawing up regulations and prescribing fees she will be mindful of the absolute necessity of making sure that voluntary adoption agencies are given every aid to get on with their job. We need to be convinced about the disparity between the fees charged by the different authorities, and we need an assurance that the level of fees charged will not act as a brake on local authorities—many of which have strapped social services budgets—using all their resources at the earliest possible opportunity to secure an out-of-area placement if that is in the best interests of the child. Furthering the child's interests is essentially why we are here.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I fully endorse my hon. Friend's arguments. The Government's intention is clearly to introduce fairness into the charging structure, and no one has spoken against that today. However, it is important to appreciate the differences between voluntary organisations and local authorities.

Many local authorities have a more solid base and constitution and better forward funding than voluntary organisations and charities. The latter often have more brittle leadership; unlike local authorities, they are not uniform among themselves, and they often have different overheads structures and operate with various degrees of efficiency. One of the impacts of the clause may well be that voluntary organisations will have to put their house in order and improve their internal efficiency to achieve uniform charging structures. However, we would not want the provisions to be the cause of the destruction of the charitable part of the system.

Will the Minister consider carefully the charging structures, as my hon. Friend suggests? Will she consider other associated matters, such as the notification period for the new charges? If a new structure is to be put in place, voluntary organisations should have a long period in which to consider not only how to apply the charges, but what internal changes may be needed, before the changes come into effect.

Jacqui Smith: Opposition Members have made some interesting but slightly contradictory points. They seemed to be arguing both for capping the fees and for ensuring that inter-agency fees are sufficient to support the important work done by the adoption agencies. I shall go through the points raised.

The Adoption Forum might have suggested in its evidence that the Government should consider capping the cost of home studies for people from abroad who are looking to adopt. When we debated the intercountry provisions a week or two ago, I spelled out what regulations the Government intend to make on the types of cost that it would be appropriate to recoup in relation to intercountry adoption. I also made clear that a nationally set fee would not be appropriate, given that agencies' costs for making assessments for intercountry adoption will vary from case to case. It is important that individuals should know what can and cannot be charged for, and that they should know in advance what the costs are likely to be. It should be transparent that no profit is being made, and there should be a clear understanding about fees.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister talks about transparency and not making a profit, but a local authority has the incentive in the case of adoptions from care of an extremely expensive child leaving its books. There is no such incentive on fees. She must know that a large proportion of the cost of social work is in overheads; profit is an intangible concept. There is no incentive, without Government regulation, for local authorities to keep their fees to a reasonable level. Indeed, they have every incentive to fill some of the gaps in their budgets by charging high fees for such work.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That is why it is important, as I have said, that the regulations stipulate what can and cannot be charged for in relation to intercountry adoption. We must recognise that it is not unreasonable for local authorities to prioritise—by not charging people for domestic adoption—the important adoptions out of care. Intercountry adoption is important too; it plays a valuable role. However, the financial decisions made by local authorities in assessing those people involved in intercountry adoption are different from those that they make for domestic adopters of children out of care.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made the point about cross-boundary adoptive placements, and the concern raised by the case cited last week by the hon. Member for Canterbury. We made it clear last week that we shall make regulations under clause 4(7)(i) to prescribe the funding arrangements for the provision of adoption support services where a child is placed with an adoptive family living in a different local authority area. The requirement that all adoption agencies provide adoption support services will help to overcome the difficulties that have occurred when children have been placed under local authorities that do not have appropriate arrangements for adoption support.

The hon. Gentleman's third point related to inter-agency fees. There was a slight contradiction—

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am sorry to keep interrupting the Minister, but she cited a specific constituency example that I had given. Will she confirm that she is not suggesting that an authority such as Kent, which receives large numbers of children from London agencies, should end up picking up the bill when a child has been adopted from a London authority without some cash transfer?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That was precisely what I said we needed to consider in making regulations on adoption and post-adoption support. In order to ensure that we achieve what we want to achieve, we must where necessary promote adoptions across local authorities.

That brings me to the important point about inter-agency fees. Part of the incentive to recruit adopters is in the level of inter-agency fees. A local authority that recruits adopters can benefit through the inter-agency fee system. Kent could do so. However, there is a difficulty with that, particularly in relation to voluntary adoption agencies—and I agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) about their importance. The agency fee is an important source of income for voluntary adoption agencies. Despite the fact that some have argued that inter-agency fees should now be abolished, in the course of consultation on the performance and innovation unit report there was a strong response to the effect that the system of inter-agency fees should remain. I return to my previous point about the levels of inter-agency fees. Hon. Members might have noted that the inter-agency fee charged by local authorities is £10,539, but that charged by voluntary adoption agencies is £14,931. That reflects some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Members about the lack of ability to cover any overheads that adoption agencies may have.

We believe, for the reasons that I have suggested, that the inter-agency fee system operated by adoption agencies that recruit adoptive families should continue. However, we have promised to keep that system under review, and the powers in clause 11 will enable us to make any changes to the system that we consider necessary. The introduction and development of the register may well, at some point in future, cause us to consider whether there are other appropriate ways to deliver some of the incentives and objectives of the current inter-agency fee system.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made a point about resources. The payment of an inter-agency fee secures for the local authority the adoption of a looked-after child. To that extent, it may well bring long-term savings for that local authority. That is important, and the Government intend to encourage local authorities to recognise the long-term financial benefits—apart from the very important benefits to the child—of quickly using whichever adoptive families may be available, regardless of inter-agency fees. The payment of an inter-agency fee in the short term may well bring long-term financial benefits. That should be reflected in authorities' accounting and financial systems.

I think that I have answered the questions raised by hon. Gentlemen and explained the intentions behind the powers in the clause. On that basis, I ask the Committee to agree that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Independent review of determinations

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 9, line 25, leave out—

'Regulations under section 9 may establish'

and insert 'There shall be established'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 58, in page 9, line 25, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The amendments are alternatives to each other. Amendment No. 58 is the more straightforward of the two, and I shall therefore deal with it first.

The clause is designed to establish

''a procedure under which any person in respect of whom a qualifying determination has been made by an adoption agency may apply to a panel''.

In later discussions on the clause, we will discuss what should constitute qualifying determinations, what form the panel should take, how appeals against its decisions are to be made and how much should be included in the Act rather than in regulations made under it. However, there can surely be no argument that the Bill should clearly provide for a panel rather than for the possibility of one. Will the Minister tell the Committee in what circumstances there might not be a panel? Will she also please confirm that the Government intend to bring the clause into force as soon as the Bill is enacted?

As with many other aspects of the Bill, it is of some concern that the proposed regulations have not been shown to the Committee. That is less important in some circumstances than in others. For example, in some areas, regulations made under the Adoption Act 1976 will clearly be adequate—or acceptable after a bit of tweaking. This provision is different, because it concerns a new regime—a new mechanism that is a core part of the Bill. It is designed to address one of the most serious complaints about the system: people do not have redress against the decisions of social workers. If the measure is to be taken seriously, the Government should agree to the amendment and ensure that the panel system is constituted by the time the Bill is enacted. The issues involved are complex, so I suggest that they should be considered now rather than after the new regime has been established. The amendment would deal with that by ensuring that the regulations are introduced under the Bill rather than leaving the Government to make that important decision at a later date.

Amendment No. 139 is a slightly more complicated alternative although its primary purpose is the same: to ensure that the procedures and constitution of the panel are established in the Bill rather than when or, indeed, if the Government decide to do so. It goes further, however. Clause 12 relates only to regulations made under clause 9(1). Clause 9(1) provides that regulations may make provision for any purpose relating to

''the exercise by local authorities or voluntary adoption agencies of their functions in relation to adoption . . . or the exercise by adoption support agencies of their functions in relation to adoption support services.''

Clearly, that will cover local authorities exercising their powers wrongly, although I assume that appropriate regulations will be introduced on those activities—regulations that we have not yet seen. Will the panel's jurisdiction cover only regulations made under clause 9, so that if an issue is addressed in the Bill rather than in regulations, the panel would have no jurisdiction? Surely that cannot be the intention, so I seek clarification on that.

Even if the issue of accountability is addressed in regulations, what will happen if an issue is not covered by clause 9(1), such as a right to go to the panel in connection with the giving or withdrawal of parental consent or the cost of expenses relating to the adoption process? I appreciate that the Government do not intend to grant panel access for either of those issues. The explanatory notes say that the right will apply only to parents who are refused permission to adopt and to the release of protected information. However, whether or not the Government want to restrict access to the panel, would it not be wise to draft the clause so as to give maximum ability to expand the remit of the panel later, if that is thought appropriate? It seems unwise to restrict further changes to the panel's remit, which is why we should remove the reference to clause 9.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I support the amendments. This is an important part of the Bill. The whole idea of an independent review panel was one of the central themes of the Government's White Paper, which proposed that an independent body should convene the panel. However, I have a few questions for the Minister.

How many panels will be set up? Will voluntary organisations be represented on them? Will there be any legal representation? Will they include representatives from local authority social services departments? I know that it is difficult for the Minister to be precise but it would help if she could give the Committee a flavour of the constitution of such panels. It is important that there should be an independent review, but it must be truly independent. Otherwise, we will fail those people who have been refused the opportunity to adopt.

This is not meant to be a union speech on behalf of lawyers, but if a disappointed adopter was dissatisfied with the panel's findings, would he or she have a right of redress in the courts? Could they make an application, for example, to the High Court if the

panel had misdirected itself or failed to consider some important evidence? I am not saying that that should be the case; I am just asking the Minister to assist the Committee.

There is also the important question of cost. There is no doubt that even members of a fairly informal panel who go through the evidence when convened and consider the paperwork beforehand will have to be reimbursed for their time, especially if they come from a professional background. How will costs be worked out? Will the local authority or the adoption agency be required to meet part of the costs? Will disappointed adopters be required to do so?

Such important questions should be investigated, and I am sure that the Minister will deal with them in her reply. I fully support the contention of the hon. Member for Huntingdon that the panels should be established as soon as the Bill becomes law. It is important that there be no lacuna between the introduction of the law and the right to an independent review via the panel. An independent panel is an exceedingly useful step forward, but such questions need to be answered.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The clause enables the appropriate Minister to establish an independent review mechanism to review determinations made by adoption agencies. The determinations that may be reviewed will be specified in regulations, following consultation with stakeholders in the adoption field. I will come to hon. Members' specific questions in a moment.

As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) said, the Government promised to establish the independent review mechanism for prospective adopters in our White Paper, ''Adoption: A New Approach''. The mechanism will be important in support of the efforts, with which all hon. Members agree, to build confidence in the adopter assessment process and to encourage more people to come forward to adopt.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon said, rightly, that we saw the panel as a way to review adoption agencies' determinations about the suitability of prospective adopters, and also their qualifying determinations on the disclosure of information held in their records that identifies third parties, as part of the new scheme for access to information underpinned by clauses 53 to 62. Any other determinations to be reviewed by the independent review mechanism will be set out in regulations. We will consult stakeholders while developing the regulations to ensure that the detail is right.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked about limits to the panel's jurisdiction. Under clause 12, the jurisdiction is not limited to the regulations made under clause 9. The independent review mechanism may, in theory, be used to review any determination made by an adoption agency.

I shall describe how the panel is likely to operate. The appropriate Minister may delegate the operation of the independent review mechanism to a public body or a private or voluntary organisation, and may make payments to that organisation in connection with its

operation. That will help to ensure the independence of the review mechanism, which the hon. Member for Huntingdon rightly said was important.

Amendment No. 139 would place a statutory duty on the appropriate Minister to establish the independent review mechanism. Similarly, amendment No. 58 would require the appropriate Minister, as soon as he exercised his power under clause 9, to make any regulations in respect of the functions of adoption agencies and adoption support agencies, and to establish the independent review mechanism through those regulations. Neither amendment is appropriate or needed.

In response to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, I say that the number of panels will depend on the number of determinations. It is expected that panels will be convened on the basis of need. Their constitution will be a matter for consultation, but it is expected that their make-up will be similar to that of decision-making agencies.

The question about reviewing the decision of an independent review might partly be based on a misunderstanding of the intention of the independent review mechanism. The mechanism will provide a way to review the decision made by the original adoption panel. The result of that review will then go back to the agency decision maker for consideration alongside the decision made by the original adoption agency panel. The adoption decision maker will clearly have to bear that in mind. I will correct myself if I am wrong, but if the prospective adopter felt that there had been a legal problem with the process, he could use the complaints procedure and, eventually, judicial review. Further consideration of the make-up of the panels that the Government promised in the White Paper will also be subject to the fundamental review of adoption assessment.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Will the Minister answer my basic question on whether the Government intend the panels to be set up by the time that the Bill is enacted?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman is young and impatient—that is not a criticism, as sometimes those are good qualities—and I am coming to that matter. He has asked me twice about the implementation date. Given the work that I have outlined, I do not think it realistic to pledge to set up the panels by the time at which the Bill will receive Royal Assent, but I understand that the panels need to be established early in the Act's implementation. They will be brought forward for implementation before other parts of the Act are implemented. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that that is appropriate, given the need to consult on some of the issues.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy asked about the costs of establishing and administering the independent review mechanism, which will be met centrally from the extra resources made available for adoption. We will consult stakeholders while developing regulations on the independent review mechanism, to ensure that the

provisions on charges are right. The Bill includes an enabling power to make regulations about charges, which can be used following consultation.

Adoption agencies may be required to contribute towards the cost of convening a review panel. That may be instead of the costs that they would have incurred anyway in setting up another panel to consider a second hearing of the agency's own panel, which usually takes place under the current legal framework. In that sense, it should not create any additional expense.

In the White Paper, we promised to develop the independent review mechanism. We have also said that, when we draw up the regulations to underpin the mechanism, we will consult stakeholders in the adoption field on how it should operate and on the determinations that it should be used to review. We will establish it as quickly as possible once we have completed the consultation process. On the basis of those assurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Huntingdon will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Before I ask the Committee for its consent to my withdrawing the amendment, I want to make a few points. The Government have reiterated the limited purpose of the provision. When we reach the next group of amendments, we shall discuss whether that is right, and in what contexts there should be a right to go to the panel. However, I am still confused about the Minister's statement that access to the panel would not be limited by clause 9, when subsection (1) states clearly:

''Regulations under section 9 may establish''

the procedure in question. How, therefore, is anything other than clause 9 relevant?

The Government gave no real explanation for their view that the amendments were not needed. The effect is that the Government will have no obligation to set up the panel. The rights of the child are to be paramount. However, panel rights, even in the limited context in which the Government will apply them, which will mainly concern prospective adoptive parents, will not necessarily be established.

I agree with the Minister that consultation on the workings of the panel is required. I should like that to go further and to involve consultation about what the panel should deal with. Why has consultation not yet taken place? Should the Bill be enacted with provisions for the new panel before the Government have consulted on how it is to work? Things are being done the wrong way round.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I should like to add one point. I agree with my hon. Friend that several questions are left open. The Minister referred to the costs of the review. Will she clear up a discrepancy that she did not deal with in her earlier remarks? Subsection (3)(a) states that the regulations may make provision as to

''the duties and powers of a panel (including the power to recover the costs of a review from the adoption agency''.

The power to recover the costs is quite specific. Explanatory note 54 uses the phrase

''including the power to request a contribution towards the cost of a review''.

Will the costs be partly or wholly recoverable?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As I have made clear, the costs of setting up the review process will be funded centrally by Government. The extent to which the costs of an individual review will be recovered from the adoption agency will be part of the subject of the consultation that I outlined in my previous response.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

It may be part of the consultation exercise. Why, then, do neither the Bill nor the notes put it in that way? Those descriptions are clearly in conflict. What is the Minister's thinking? As far as her Department is minded to do so, is it likely that the costs will be wholly recoverable, or will it be only a contribution to the costs? Can she give an early indication on this?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I endorse my hon. Friend's words. To sum up, it appears that the workings of the clause, and in particular subsection (1), have not been clearly thought through. Consultation that should probably have happened by now has not happened. All my hon. Friends have some concern about how the clause will be put into practice. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 59, in page 9, line 29, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

'(2) All determinations are qualifying determinations for the purposes of subsection (1).'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 138, in page 9, line 30, after 'subsection (1)', insert—

', but shall in any event include determinations relating to:

(a) the suitability of prospective adopters at the adoption panel stage;

(b) the suitability of prospective adopters at the pre-adoption panel stage;

(c) the supply of information concerning the child to any person including the child;

(d) the costs and expenses relating to the adoption process;

(e) the movement of the child between successive foster carers;

(f) the suitability of a child for adoption with particular prospective adoptive parents;

(g) the process of an adoption agency in its dealings with the child and prospective adoptive parents and natural parents, including delays;

(h) the giving or withdrawal of parental consent;

(i) assessing whether the child's views have been adequately considered;

(j) the content of and access to the Adopted Children Register, Adoption Contact Register and the Adoption and Children Act Register;

(k) the process of intercountry adoptions.'.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am delighted to move the amendment. I should like to start by putting on the record a small point about timing. This is an example of the knives not working well. For reasons that I fully understand, the Government were unable to continue the debate after 5 o'clock on Thursday. However, the

group of clauses is very important. Clause 12 is probably the second or third most important part of the Bill. It covers material—the independent review—that has been central to many of the submissions made to the Committee, but we will run out of time to discuss it at 1 o'clock because we were unable to continue any later on Thursday.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Does my hon. Friend agree that he has just described a disgraceful state of affairs? The Bill is not controversial, but it is highly complicated and we need more time to debate it.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. We have already debated the programme resolution. We are now debating amendments Nos. 59 and 138.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

You are quite right to bring us to order on that, Mrs. Roe. On the whole, the Committee has been good-natured, because all parties support the Bill's aims. I was merely saying that it is a pity that we must cover such an important area so briefly.

During the years that I have been co-chairman of the all-party adoption group, we have heard from many outside groups about the sheer frustration that is felt at the lack of any independent form of review of local authorities' decisions on adoption. It is not quite true to say that there is no form of independent review. In theory, people can seek judicial review, which is always unbelievably expensive and almost always fails, or go to the ombudsman, who, however, has no statutory power. The Opposition welcome the clause, but as it is drafted, without our amendments, it has little in the way of teeth.

The Minister, in replying to the previous group of amendments, implied that there was a chink of light. We had understood from earlier comments made by Ministers in her Department that the independent review, welcome though it was, was likely to be restricted to the question of whether or not a couple got a place on the register, and was unlikely to be extended further. However, the Minister said a moment ago that the Government were still considering what to put in regulations made under clause 12. I hope that the amendments, which are probing in nature but none the less go to the heart of what the Bill is intended to achieve, will give her some good ideas.

Because of the lack of available time, I do not intend to go through amendment No. 138 from paragraphs (a) to (k)—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Go on.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

My hon. Friend tempts me. We have a lot of other amendments that we would like to discuss, but I am still tempted to go through the suggestions contained in the amendment, because all they are all sensible. However, I would like to focus on paragraph (f), which concerns the suitability of a placing a child for adoption with particular prospective parents.

I should like to take the Committee back to a point that has been made several times during our deliberations, mostly by Labour Members. The hon.

Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill's earlier version, spoke of being sent off, when a social worker, to seek a child who was one eighth of a particular middle eastern ethnic origin. More recently, a similar case arose, which is extremely relevant to the amendment. It was widely publicised in the national press. The identity of the baby—it was a baby when the case began—was concealed for obvious reasons. I shall call the lady by her Christian name of Natasha. She was a single potential adopter of independent means and she could afford to offer the baby a loving home, but she was of mixed race complexion, as was the baby. Her complexion was not identical to the child's, but they were both part European and part middle eastern.

One of the points most frequently made in debates on adoption is that few babies are available and that they should therefore be easy to place. Natasha's attempt to adopt the child took two years of struggle, and she eventually gave up. If the Government were to restrict themselves to the limited measure, welcome though it is, of considering merely whether people such as Natasha should go on the register, such scandalous cases will continue. The scandal was not that Natasha was not allowed to adopt, but that no one else adopted the child. I would exasperate you, Mrs. Roe, if I were to go beyond the amendment and describe the sheer ghastliness of the case, but the child was passed to foster parents who left the country with it but eventually brought the child back, who considered adopting it and then decided against adoption. The case went around in circles.

I draw the Committee's attention to that case, especially in connection with paragraph (f) of the amendment, because for the review mechanism to have teeth it must go beyond determinations of a panel. The Opposition fully recognise that the Government cannot commit themselves to allowing appeals on every aspect of adoption. That would be unrealistic, not least because the social workers tied up in the appeals would be taken from a limited pool of staff, and we would want them to be carrying out their mainstream adoption activities and their other work. We need some sensible guidelines, which would allow appeals in cases such as Natasha's.

I shall focus again on subsection (3)(f). The Government obviously could not allow every potential adoptive parent to appeal. Six or seven couples might all put in for the same child and one could not allow them all to appeal, but there would be nothing wrong in the Government allowing appeals in two circumstances that arise from time to time, but not in most matchings.

I give two examples, but the Government might want to issue better guidelines. First, foster parents might want to adopt a child that they have been fostering for some time but are refused. I am not saying that every foster parent should have the right to adopt the children in their care, but they should have the right to appeal if they are refused after a successful fostering. The Minister will know of the research done by Cardiff university, as it was commissioned by her

Department. One of the university's reports showed that a number of local authorities were so strongly prejudiced against foster parents being allowed to adopt that, as recently as 18 months or two years ago, their policy was never to allow it. Under paragraph (f), that is one circumstance in which they could automatically allow an appeal.

The other example—I return to Natasha's case—is when no one else is allowed to adopt a child. You would rightly restrain me, Mrs. Roe, if I were to return to our debates on clause 1 and the balance between subsection (4)(e) and the provisions on delay, but the amendment addresses that situation clearly. The Government have recognised that delay is inherently bad for a child waiting for adoption. Surely, in a case in which an adopter or adopters have made it on to the panel with or without an appeal, and a child awaiting adoption drifts—in this case, absurdly, a baby, the easiest in theory to adopt—because overzealous social services departments are unable to find parents whom they consider to be an ideal match for the child, there should be an automatic right to appeal. Such people are on the list, having been approved as suitable, but are then told that they are unsuitable although there is nobody else in sight for that child.

I have focused mainly on paragraph (f), because that is the matter about which I feel most strongly. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon has a lot to say about it, and time is needed to discuss the many amendments that we have tabled to this critical clause. However, I should like to speak very briefly about three elements of amendment No. 138.

Paragraph (c) concerns

''the supply of information concerning the child to any person including the child''.

We received some very telling testimony during our evidence-taking sittings, particularly from the Nottingham branch of the Catholic Children's Society. It should be possible, if local authorities refuse to give information to parents, for the parents to be able to appeal against that refusal. I know that the Committee was sympathetic on that point during those sittings.

Similarly, paragraph (e) concerns

''the movement of the child between successive foster carers''.

The worst single case that was put to us in the written testimony was the example of a child who was moved more than 200 times. That example almost beggars belief; it brought people such as me, who have no professional background in this area—unlike many Labour Members, whom I greatly respect—into the arena and led me to help to set up the all-party adoption group. Surely, the clause provides an opportunity for checking up on extraordinarily bad practice where it, sadly, occasionally happens. I commend paragraph (e).

Paragraph (i) is about

''assessing whether the child's views have been adequately considered''.

We have had a long and interesting debate on that matter. The Government were right to resist the amendment to give the child a veto, for reasons that

were very succinctly put by Labour Back Benchers as well as Front Benchers. A child should not have an absolute veto. However, if there is evidence that a child's views have not been adequately considered, there should be scope for an appeal.

We are subject to ridiculously tight time constraints, so I shall not go through all the items listed in amendment No. 138 or discuss amendment No. 59, which says that all determinations should be qualifying determinations. When the Government come to set the regulations, one of the most effective tests of whether they are really serious about making the Act happen—I know that the Ministers do intend to be so—will be the extent to which they allow determinations to be qualifying determinations for the purposes of appeal. I understand why they cannot open the floodgates on everything, but they must be willing to go beyond the mere decision as to whether people get on to the list. Obviously, they will have to do so in a way that sets sensible limits on the absorbing of time into the appeal processes. However, taking paragraph (f) as an example, I have tried to illustrate how the Government might consider aspects that are going wrong and achieve an 80:20 principle. In that way, only some classes would reach appeal, but they would include most of the worst cases and require only a limited time.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Amendments Nos. 59 and 138 represent alternatives to one another. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, who said that this was the third most important part of the Bill. Unfortunately, however, the clause is unlikely to retain its importance after the Government have stymied and emasculated it and given it a limited reach.

Amendment No. 139 suggested that changes should be made to keep the doors open to possible alterations to the role of the panel. Amendment No. 59 would simplify a complicated set of rules. The current impact of subsections (1) and (2) is to create a double bar to entry: to qualify, the subject of the appeal to the panel must fall within the clause 9 regulations referred to in subsection (1), and determinations must be qualifying determinations, which are themselves the subject of regulations. The effect of that combination reduces the role of the panel and overly complicates the issue.

The amendment simply suggests that all determinations should be the subject of a possible review before the panel. To understand why that would be the right approach, we need to take a step back and consider why the clause was drafted in the first place. On one hand, the purpose of the Bill is to emphasise the senior importance of the child, who under clause 1 receives paramount status. Hon. Members will recall that, on various occasions, I have queried whether that is actually the case, given the Government's reluctance to give children practical rights in such matters as consent and representation. Under clause 12, the rights of the child are not emphasised as the Bill as a whole suggests should be the case.

The Government have stated their intention that the panel provisions should apply only to parents turned down as suitable to adopt and in relation to release of information. A child may bring to the panel a request for release or non-release of information. Will the Minister confirm that that is the Government's intention? A child could also have access to the panel to have his or her say on whether individuals are suitable to become his or her adoptive parents. Those issues would seem to fall within the scope of issues that the Government want to include, but the application has not been discussed in the context of the children's rights; the explanatory notes refer to parental rights alone. Children should be included, however, and I would like the Minister to give her comments on that.

The wider point that we are making is that restricting access to the panel under clause 9 and the terms of reference to the panel may be a method for considering the actions of the local authority or institution rather than allowing children and adoptive and natural parents to assert their rights. I reiterate that that is a different question to that of which aspects of the Bill should be included as regards access to the panel.

Clause 12 as it stands acts as a method for restricting which matters may come before the panel. Amendment No. 138 suggests specific issues that might be covered by the panel, but amendment No. 59 simply asks why access to the panel should be restricted at all. If a determination has been made to which the child or adoptive or natural parents object, why should they not have a right to review by the panel? Amendment No. 59 suggests that they should have such a right. Such rights to appeal are now commonplace. Is it to be possible to appeal to a panel in respect of a parking ticket but not of most parts of the adoption process?

If the Committee decides to reject amendment No. 59, it will be saying that the Bill should not provide for all decisions to be capable of appeal to the panel. If that is the Committee's decision, my hon. Friends and I suggest that amendment No. 138 be inserted instead. Confidence in the care system is at low ebb for a wide variety of reasons, not all necessarily related to the subject matter of the Bill.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

The hon. Gentleman says that confidence in the care system is not at its highest. Does he not think that allowing everyone under the sun to go before the panel, which principally relates to prospective adopters, would cause the kind of delays to which the hon. Member for Canterbury referred? That would hardly be in the best interests of the child.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to clarify that point. Amendment No. 59 would not bar the making of regulations on how these matters should be conducted. The regulations could specify limits to the process. I tabled the amendment because adoptive and natural parents should have the right to go to the panel.

Mr. Brazier: To illustrate this argument, I gave a clear example of the regulations that one could make based on paragraph (f) of amendment No. 138, which refers to

''the suitability of a child for adoption with particular prospective adoptive parents''.

If it were the case that no other prospective adoptive parents were allowed, the issue would be not be whether there was a delay but whether the child was adopted. On the question of whether foster parents should be allowed to adopt, a delay might occur if the child was being allocated to other parents. From the child's point of view, adoption by his foster parents would represent an opportunity for continuity rather than another move.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I thank my hon. Friend and agree with him.

I said that confidence in the care system was generally low, but for reasons that are not necessarily related to the subject of the Bill. However, if the Government are to achieve their targets on adoption and achieve a degree of permanence that would increase people's confidence in the system, the system needs to listen to people and must have clarity and transparency. Respect and enthusiasm need to be accorded in greater measure to those who are willing to take children, and we need to take on board what the children want to a greater extent than is suggested.

For those reasons it is important, first, that the Bill should clearly state who has rights to appeal to the panel. Secondly, it should set out the issues on which a person can appeal. Thirdly, the two issues on which the Government would currently allow an appeal to be made—namely prospective adopters being turned down by adoption panels and access to information—are not adequate.

Amendment No. 138 is intended to identify the issues on which my hon. Friends and I believe there should be a right of appeal. Those should be specified in the Bill. We have not seen the regulations to be made under this part of the Bill, but even if we had, that would not be adequate for reasons of transparency and public confidence in the system. If prospective adoptive parents know how they can legitimately question the system before they become involved in the process, they might have more confidence in it. One often hears horror stories of people being bullied or even humiliated by the authorities; some people complain of being ignored or getting lost in the system. The clause presents us with a chance to say, in the Bill, that those people will be listened to and that they are not irrelevant to the process.

If the purpose of the Bill is to give paramount importance to the rights of the child, it is in some ways even more important that adoptive parents—and, I suggest, natural parents—should have a means of checking decisions. It would be unfortunate indeed if the Bill were to give social workers greater scope for ignoring the wishes or aspirations of other parties to

the adoption process. Balance and transparency will be required for the Bill to work; the clause currently shows neither.

In setting out the issues that we think should be included as capable of being raised before the panel, I do not intend to argue points that the Committee has previously determined. However, the Committee's failure to agree many previous Opposition amendments has made it more important that access to the panel should be given, so that confidence in the system can be retained.

Proposed paragraph (a) to clause 12(2) reflects proposals that the Government intend to introduce by way of regulation. The explanatory notes state that such proposals deal with the approval of potential adopters only at the formal stage of the adoption process. That is important because I understand that at that stage of the process only 6 per cent. of applicants are turned down. That is because most potential adoptive parents tend to be weeded out at the informal stage of consideration—the ''counselling-out stage''. It has also been brought to my attention that, as things stand, some 90 per cent. of applicants fail to be approved in the early stages, and that only 10 per cent. go forward to the formal stage.

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

My understanding is that it may well be that only 10 per cent. of those who initially express an interest go forward, but that is because many people express an interest, go to meetings, decide that it is not for them and do not proceed, rather than are weeded out by social workers.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The hon. Lady makes a fair point, from which I do not dissent. However, representations that I have received make it clear that although 90 per cent. of applicants are not ''counselled out'', a significant percentage are lost in the lead-up to the formal stage. Many people feel that their concerns are ignored during that process, but they are as entitled to have their concerns addressed as someone who reaches the formal stage. If people choose to drop out because they honestly decide that they do not want to become adoptive parents, the procedures involving the panel are irrelevant.

The Committee should seriously consider whether the clause unamended, with no proposals for regulations other than those set out in the explanatory notes, will have much effect. It will have an impact only on the 6 per cent. or small minority who reach the formal stage. The majority of disappointed prospective parents will have no redress. That cannot be right, even under the Government's restricted interpretation of who should be eligible to apply to the panel.

Moreover, viewing the procedures cynically, adoption authorities could knock out more applicants than they currently do at the pre-formal stage, giving even fewer people the right to appeal. Clearly, that is not the purpose of the clause. Proposed paragraph (b) attempts to correct matters by making it clear that all prospective adoptive parents should have the right of appeal, whether or not they have reached any

particular stage of the adoption process. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the proposed regulations will cover all stages of the adoption process.

Proposed paragraph (c) provides that the panel should be able to decide on issues relating to

''the supply of information concerning the child to any person including the child''.

In the explanatory notes, the Government propose that there should be a right of appeal to the panel in relation to information defined in clause 54. I assume that that right will apply to adoptive parents, natural parents and children, and possibly to other interested parties. Will the Minister confirm that the regulations will provide for that, and explain why she thinks that it is inappropriate to provide for that basic right in the Bill? That issue is very important, as has been seen in previous discussions in Committee and, presumably, as we shall see in our discussion of clause 54. All parties should know where they stand and what their rights are, and the relevant provisions should be included in the Bill, as paragraph (c) proposes.

Proposed paragraph (d) deals with

''the costs and expenses relating to the adoption process''.

Many parts of the process involve costs. The costs of overseas adoptions are greater, but the panel process also involves costs, to which I shall return when we discuss amendment No. 140. The issue of costs needs to be covered in more detail than the Bill currently provides. For example, does the Minister propose that regulations should provide for some sort of process similar to court taxation, so that costs can be justified if required by one of the parties to the adoption?

Proposed paragraph (e) deals with

''the movement of the child between successive foster carers''.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury spent some time discussing that issue, and there is a lot of overlap with the Children Act 1989. Why should a child who has been moved from pillar to post in the way that he described so well not have the right to bring his case before a panel that could review the fostering arrangements, or ascertain why headway has not been made in relation to his adoption if that is what he wants? The provision might also be relevant to foster carers who are thinking of adopting a child and who want to object to the removal of that child from their care.

Proposed paragraph (f) is the inverse of proposed paragraphs (a) and (b); all three deal with the suitability to each other of the child and the prospective adoptive parents. We have to cater for the unfortunate but not uncommon cases in which prospective adoptive parents do not share the adoption agency's view on whether a particular child is a correct match for them. That might lead to prospective adoptive parents' access to what they regard as more suitable choices being restricted.

Proposed paragraph (g) aims to give general redress to those involved in what is necessarily a bureaucratic process. I emphasise—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman want to comment?

Mr. Shaw :The hon. Gentleman is criticising the Bill for its bureaucratic processes, but I have never heard of a more bureaucratic process than the one proposed in the amendment.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The hon. Gentleman might think so, but he will have heard me say that the process is ''necessarily'' a bureaucratic one. It is not possible to describe the process of adoption, which is purely a creation of statute, as anything other than bureaucratic. We aim to make that bureaucracy work as well as possible. We want a system that caters for the needs of all parties and speeds up the process.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's sincerity, but to describe adoption as a bureaucratic process is wrong. It is about understanding, sympathy, building relationships and working with people. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) says it is an art; I think it is a craft. In any case, it is far beyond a bureaucratic process and we should not describe it as such.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that having heard several of my contributions, he appreciates that I do not see the adoption process—from the point of view of the adoptive parents, the child or the natural parents—as a bureaucratic process. However, surely he recognises that the mechanics of adoption involve bureaucracy; that is all that I mean.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend has touched a raw nerve among the professionals on the Labour Benches. Of course, adoption is a bureaucratic process as it stands: were it not, we would not be considering a Bill to make it less bureaucratic. The fact that the average time for adoption has fallen from two years and 10 months to all of two years and nine months suggests to any right-minded person that the process is excessively bureaucratic and that we need to bring those times down. Notwithstanding all the sensitivities involved in dealing with individual cases, to which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) refers, it is bureaucratic. The Bill aims to make it less so.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification and agree with him.

That being so, the adoption authorities should be aware that if they slow things down, if they do not allocate adequate resources to the process, or if they do not proceed as envisaged under the Bill, we will be able to call them to account. However, that should be done not in an annual report of the sort that notes that X authority takes on average 20 days longer than Y authority to complete some part of the process, because that would be meaningless to the people caught up in the system. It may be a bureaucratic process, but our aim in the amendment is more to achieve a better appreciation of the human aspects of the process, than to provide individuals a right to cut through the bureaucracy. The people caught up in the system should have an outlet through which to voice their concerns. That is the purpose of the amendments.

Proposed paragraph (h) deals with parental consent. We have debated the matter and I shall not go over old ground. I do not need to remind the Committee of the complexity of the issues, but I note that there should be a straightforward forum such as the panel that can review the circumstances surrounding consent if that is required.

Proposed paragraph (i) goes to the heart of the Bill because it would maintain the paramountcy of the interests of the child. The Committee will know that I have argued on several occasions that the Bill needs to give children the right to consent to their adoption. I acknowledge that that suggestion has been repeatedly beaten down by Labour Members, but that makes it more, not less important that the Bill provides specifically for children to have the right to take their concerns to the panel. They should have the chance to say that the process has not adequately considered their views. We have heard about people's right to seek judicial review, but that route is all but impossible for children to take given their age and financial standing. The most appropriate forum for them would be a relatively informal panel hearing.

Proposed paragraph (j) deals with the contents of and access to the two existing registers and the new register to be set up under the Bill. There will be circumstances in which one party or another feels that too much or too little information has been included or not included in the registers, or that the information is not accurate. Are regulations are being prepared to deal with such situations? The panel would be a good forum for such discussions, whereas dragging such cases through the courts would surely be inappropriate.

Proposed paragraph (k) deals with the process of intercountry adoptions. The issues surrounding such adoptions have been discussed by the Committee at some length, and I am sure that hon. Members agree that they are often complicated. We have heard that prospective adoptive parents sometimes feel that their case has been made overcomplicated by the relevant adoption agency, or that their applications have been put to the bottom of the pile for some reason. It is right that such people should have the right of access to the panel.

I have attempted to explain to the Committee that the amendment would give the various parties to adoption the right to seek redress through the relatively informal and cheap mechanism of the panels. It would be helpful if the Minister were to give the Committee some idea of the difference in cost between access to such a panel and access to judicial review. I assume that the difference is massive.

The amendment is designed to give people greater confidence in the system. People will be encouraged to adopt if they are able to have confidence in a process that characterised by transparency, because they will know that their concerns about any cases in which they feel that they have been dealt with unfairly will be listened to. That is why I commend the amendments.

Jacqui Smith: Opposition Members, despite complaining about the amount of time available for consideration of the clauses, have taken us on a considerable detour around a range of issues, some of which we have previously debated, some of which will be discussed in relation to later clauses, and some of which are only tangentially related to adoption and children and the principles of the Bill.

The argument enshrined in the amendments comes down to whether the Government are right in their intention to focus in the first instance on the two key issues of the ability of prospective adopters to get a review of a decision to turn them down, and the ability to have adoption agency decisions relating to access to information independently reviewed. I believe that the Government are right to focus their attentions on those issues.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Is the Minister saying that that rules out appeals on individual matchings? She said that couples who have been turned down would be able to appeal, but I presume that by that that she means instances in which they have been turned down for a place on the register rather than for a particular matching with a child. Will she clarify that point?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am going to talk about matches. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands which determination would be reviewed. The review will not deal with the determination on whether a couple should be placed on the national adoption register, but with the approval of a couple as prospective adopters. That approval will be a prerequisite to a person's inclusion in the national register.

The argument is about whether the Government should focus on certain important issues—which, as hon. Members have rightly said, we need to tackle—relating to the independent review process, or whether we should widen significantly, and in some ways inappropriately, the extent to which the independent review mechanism is to be used.

In response to the hon. Member for Huntingdon, I would like to reiterate the view that in legal terms the matters to be reviewed do not need to come under the clause 9 regulations. Any determination made by an adoption agency could in theory—should the consultation suggest that it is appropriate—be eligible for review under the independent review mechanism. The question we need to ask is whether that is appropriate and whether it will deliver the objectives that we have set for the independent review mechanism. It is right to focus our action on certain areas.

The hon. Member for Canterbury made a range of points relating to some of the paragraphs in the amendment. Proposed paragraph (f) deals with

''the suitability of a child for adoption with particular prospective adoptive parents''.

I am sympathetic to the cases he raised, but the independent review mechanism is not the appropriate place to consider that issue. In the national adoption standards, we have already stated that children who need adoption should not be left waiting indefinitely

for a perfect family, and we discussed at length in relation to clause 1(3) the need to ensure that there is no delay in the process.

The hon. Gentleman asked about foster parents deprived of the ability to adopt. If a foster parent applied to be approved as an adopter for the child that he had fostered and was turned down, he could use the process that we are setting up to have the decision reviewed.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister has moved on from the point about couples turned down for a specific matching when no one else is available. She says that there are guidelines, which I accept, but the central point is that there is no other recourse for such a couple. If, as in the case of Natasha, they see a two and a half-year-old baby for whom there is still no adopter in sight, where else but in the appeal mechanism could they find new recourse? No one could argue that the mechanism is to address delay, as the delay is all in the care system.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was trying to make the point that the recourse—the lever—should be focused on the interests of the child. The national adoption standards and clause 1 ensure that the sort of delay that the hon. Gentleman suggests has occurred in a specific child's adoption will be considered unacceptable and avoided. I will go so far as to say that the appropriateness of individual parents having recourse to review in respect of an individual match might be the subject of consideration when we consider the regulations. It is important to focus the independent review mechanism where it is most likely to have an effect.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that the mechanism for reviewing the needs, best interests and future of the child remains the statutory review process, but should it not be reinforced?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Opposition Members seem to want the independent review mechanism to be a panacea for all their perceived difficulties with the care system. The Government are taking a range of other actions to overcome some of those difficulties, so it is not appropriate to use the independent review mechanism in that respect.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The Bill contains clause after clause based on the paramountcy of the rights of the child, which I support whole-heartedly. Conservative Members are saying that it is important that, within the context of such a Bill, other parties to the adoption process should have some redress. The more we slant the Bill towards the rights of the child—I do not argue with that—the more important it is to give other parties some means of redress. The Minister spoke about a recipe for delays, but in most instances, the people going to the panel would be those who felt that they had been subject to delays and they would regard the panel as a means of resolving such problems.

Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) pointed out that giving the independent review mechanism a wide range of responsibilities was not the way to reduce delays. As the hon. Member for Canterbury said, it may become a way to siphon people and attention away from the important issue of getting children adopted as quickly as possible by the most appropriate families and towards a review process that should not focus on those issues.

The amendment proposes a new paragraph (c) to clause 12(2), which reads:

''the supply of information concerning the child to any person including the child''.

As I said, we intend to use the independent review mechanism to review adoption agency determinations similar to those mentioned in that provision. We shall discuss that in more detail in later sittings, perhaps this afternoon. To respond to the question about whether the child could appeal under the access to information provisions, our view is that there is no reason why a child who has been refused access to information and who is of a sufficient age and understanding should not appeal to the review panel on the limited basis that we shall discuss later.

On proposed paragraph (e), the hon. Member for Canterbury suggested that we should somehow use the review process to deal with what I agree is an unacceptable situation—that of a child having no stability in his placement. I would argue both that that is not an adoption agency determination and that the measures that the Government are taking in monitoring placement stability and in prioritising it in the quality protects grant are more effective in achieving our shared objective than the independent review process would be.

The hon. Members for Huntingdon and for Canterbury made much of the importance of proposed paragraph (i),

''assessing whether the child's views have been adequately considered'',

but it is unclear. The adoption agency will not make a single determination as to whether the child's views have been adequately considered. The matter is covered by clause 1(4)(a), which requires the adoption agency and the court to have regard to the child's ascertainable wishes and feelings throughout the process of a decision being reached on his adoption.

My other problem with the amendments is that they seem to seek to sidetrack the complaints procedure that is already in place. Adoption is a mainstream social services function and the majority of complaints about local authority adoption services will be most appropriately dealt with through the existing social services complaints procedure. As I have told the Committee, we are improving the procedure. We shall discuss the underpinning of that improvement through clause 111. Voluntary adoption agencies also have a complaints procedure as part of the inspection and approval process, and that will continue.

As I have explained, the powers in the Bill enable the appropriate Minister to establish an independent review mechanism, and they are flexible enough to allow development of the procedure in future. The Government are right to focus the independent review mechanism on the areas that have attracted the most concern and where it can make the greatest difference. For that reason, I ask Committee members not to support the amendments.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am not entirely happy with parts of the Minister's answer. Her opening suggestion that we had cast the debate too wide was unfair. The appeals mechanism is often the only way for people in the system, including parents trying to adopt and sometimes the children themselves, to see that they are getting out of it—in the interests of the child—what the Minister and all Committee members want them to.

The Minister offered half a concession: she said that individual matching is something that the Government could consider. I hope that she will consider it, not in all cases but in such narrowly drawn instances as I have tried to suggest—and which my hon. Friends and I support—particularly where foster parents are trying to adopt and no other parents are concerned. She also stressed that a category would be included under the demanding of information, about which Conservative Members feel strongly. Therefore, on the basis that we approve of the clause overall—I was the first person to trumpet in public the welcome fact that there could be an independent appeal for some matters —and in the hope that the Minister really will consider individual matching, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Amendment No. 82 is relatively straightforward. There must be some sort of provision to deal with the formation of the panel and with the relevant procedures. As I have said, the panel should be established in the Bill, and if the panel is brought into being, the regulations made under clause 12 must be put into practice—hence the reasoning behind the amendment.

On amendment No. 83, we have already discussed what should count as a qualifying determination, and whether qualifying determinations should be created pursuant to regulations or established in the Bill. The Committee decided that it should be a matter for regulation, but subsection (3), which relates to the panel procedure, does not include any provision for time limits that should apply when a person wants to refer an issue to the panel. Furthermore, without the amendment, nothing in the stated procedure requires that regulations—regulations that we have not yet seen—should specify any time limits.

Given the need for fairness and transparency to encourage adoption and speed up the process, it would be appropriate to all parties to include a provision on time limits: for example, potential adoptive parents who want to complain to the panel will want to know that their appeal will be heard within a set period; conversely, we must also appreciate that the adoption

agency will want to know that its decisions are final and binding and that it will not have the threat of an appeal hanging over it for all time. For those reasons, it would be appropriate to include time limits as the amendment proposes.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clause 12(3), as the hon. Gentleman says, will enable the appropriate Minister to make regulations covering the duties and powers of the review panel, its administration and procedures, the appointment of panel members, the payment of expenses to panel members, the duty of adoption agencies in connection with reviews, and the monitoring of reviews. The wording of amendment No. 82 is unsatisfactory because it would oblige the appropriate Minister in establishing the independent review mechanism to make regulations in respect of all the matters that I have just described.

We have promised to consult stakeholders in the field of adoption on the detail of how the independent review mechanism will operate, and following that consultation to make regulations to establish the review mechanism. We will introduce appropriate regulations if we decide, as a result of consultation, that they are necessary in relation to any of the areas covered by subsection 3(a) to (f). However, we may conclude as a result of consultation that regulations in all those areas are unnecessary or not in the interests of the users of the independent review mechanism. I regard that as unlikely, but the problem with the amendment is that it would require the Government to make regulations even doing so was inappropriate. For that reason, we cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 83 would amend clause 12(3) to require that the regulations may establish maximum time limits for convening a review panel, according to the type of determination being reviewed. I am not unsympathetic to the amendment, but it is unnecessary because subsection (3)(a) enables the appropriate Minister to make regulations relating to the duties and powers of a review panel, and subsection (3)(b) enables the making of regulations to provide for administration and procedures. Those powers may be used to establish maximum time limits for convening a review panel.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Is it the Government's intention to set time limits?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

It is the Government's intention to consult on the basis on which the review should work. I believe that subsection (3)(a) and (b) contains the power to establish time limits. It is appropriate to establish in regulations or in another form the time limits that should be maintained in the independent review process. We shall consult on and be able to use the powers in subsection (3)(a) and (b) to make regulations if it is appropriate to establish maximum time limits. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I thank the Minister for her clarifications. I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment, but I note that we will debate under amendment No. 82 whether there should be a panel. In

fact, we have had that debate. I suggested that the Bill should say that there must be a panel, but the Minister successfully argued that it does not have to say that. I cannot see how a panel could be constituted without regulations, which is why I thought that the wording should be ''shall'' rather than ''may'', but I accept the Minister's explanation.

As for amendment No. 83, I thank the Minister for making it clear that powers exist to establish time limits. It would have been nice to have confirmation that the Government will establish those time limits, even if they intend to consult in the meantime to determine their exact nature. None the less, in view of the Minister's comments, 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. 49, in page 9, line 43, after second 'an', insert 'independent'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 50, in page 9, line 44, after second 'the', insert 'independent'.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The amendments are probing amendments relating to arrangements that the Minister may make with an organisation under which the panel's functions are performed. We merely wish to explore the independence of the organisation asked to perform that role. It is essential that anyone asked to make a determination for the panel is at arm's length from those who have an interest in the proceedings. Neither the Bill nor the explanatory notes make it clear what arrangements will be made in that respect. Will the Minister assure us of the organisation's independence?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Subsection (4) enables the appropriate Minister to delegate the operation of the independent review mechanism to an organisation, which will help to ensure the independence of the review mechanism. I cannot say to which organisation that is likely to be delegated—that decision will be taken further down the track. However, if the hon. Gentleman merely seeks reassurance that the clear objective is to ensure that the review mechanism is independent, I can give him that assurance. The objectives that we have set down would not be fulfilled were that not the case. Subsection (8) provides that the organisation may be a ''public body'' or a ''private or voluntary organisation'', and subsection (6) provides that the appropriate Minister may make payments to the organisation running the review mechanism.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that his amendments are unnecessary. In the White Paper, we promised to develop the independent review mechanism and explained that an independent body would operate it. The clause gives us the ability to achieve that objective and delegate the operation of the independent review mechanism to an independent body to meet the White Paper commitment. That is clearly the Government's intention.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

As I said, this is a probing amendment. With so much of the consultation yet to come, the cart is often put before the horse and we discuss matters the full details of which neither we nor the Minister know. However, it was worth putting on record that the independence of the organisation is a key factor, and we look forward to the Minister assuring us of that when the final details come out in the wash. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 140, in page 10, line 11, at end add—

'(9) Subject to subsection (10), where, on application to a panel constituted by the appropriate Minister under this Act, the panel makes or refuses to make a decision, an appeal shall lie to the High Court.

(10) Where an application is made to a panel constituted by the appropriate Minister under this Act, and the panel considers that the matter is one which would more conveniently be dealt with by the High Court, the panel shall refuse to make a decision on the matter, and in that case no appeal shall lie to the High Court.

(11) In circumstances where an application to a panel concerns a child, then that child shall be a party to the proceedings of the panel unless the child has consented to waive his or her rights to be a party.

(12) Every person who is to be directly relevant to or affected by the decision of a panel shall be a party to the proceedings of the panel unless such a person has consented to waive his or her right to be a party.

(13) A panel shall be convened to review a qualifying determination not later than three months following a request by a person who was directly relevant or affected to or by the decision of the panel.

(14) The reasonable costs and expenses of the application to the panel or of any appeal to the High Court of the child and any organisation who is a party to such proceedings shall be paid by the appropriate Government Department.

(15) The reasonable costs and expenses of a successful application to the panel or of any successful appeal to the High Court of any person, other than a person set out in subsection (14), shall be paid by the appropriate Government Department.'.

Many clauses—not all—restate provisions that have been in force for some time under the Adoption Act 1976, but several new procedures and issues are introduced by the Bill, including the paramountcy of the child's interests, the concept of special guardianship and the panel itself. As a result, plenty of room will be left for legal interpretation after the provisions are brought into operation.

The important point that I want to consider is the composition of the panel. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy addressed that point, but I am not sure that the Minister answered the question of who would serve on the panel. I very much doubt that it will comprise a selection of High Court judges. Will it comprise a selection of justices of the peace who practise family law, a collection of retired social workers, or a mixture of all those people? The constitution of the panel will be important to the way in which the panel will work and the extent to which the legal side of the panel can be applied in practice.

It is highly likely that issues will come before the panel that are of a technical or legal nature and that leave a lot of room for legal interpretation. In such cases, applicants to the panel should have a right to appeal to the High Court. Proposed subsection (10) regards the matter from the other side, in that the panel might feel that an issue would be more appropriately dealt with by court judgment than by itself. Proposed subsections (9) and (10) would provide for that.

Subsection (11) returns us to the heart of the Bill. The child should come first, but the detail of the clause belies that intention and safeguards for the child are relatively few. The constitution of the panel should in some way involve children, and in all cases children should have the right to be party to the proceedings unless they have decided to waive their rights to representation. Subsection (12) takes that concept further. Although a child may always be interested in some way, that may not necessarily be the case for another party: for instance, a prospective adopter may want to appeal against not being allowed to adopt.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that introducing such a procedure would delay the process even more, and is he not confusing a review of a decision and a legal appeal against it, which is not envisaged in the clause?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The proposed new subsections deal with both the panel stage and the High Court stage. However, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Bill should highlight the paramountcy of the child, but the intention of clause 1 is not applied in the nitty-gritty of the clause; I have said time and again that its mechanics do not work in practice, and that is what I am highlighting now. For instance, if a prospective adopter wishes to appeal against not being allowed to adopt, the child should have the right to be a party to the hearing. That should not be so for the natural parents.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

The hon. Gentleman has referred time and again to consulting the child, and under this clause he has spoken of the child consenting to waive his or her right to be a party to proceedings. The average age of children when they are adopted is three or four; rarely are they as old as 13, 14 or 15 when, under the Gillick principle, they would be able to determine a decision for themselves. As the Minister said, the Bill already deals with involving children. The idea that children whose average age is three they should be consulted left, right and centre is ridiculous. It would be time consuming and build in further delay.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I heartily thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He makes an important point. How can a child be represented? The answer is that the child may deserve legal representation. I do not agree with him that a two, three or four-year-old child would not have an opinion.

Mr. Shaw indicated dissent.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I can speak only from my own experience, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that three-year-old children often have a view on what they

want. Furthermore, I suggest, but not from experience, that a three-year-old child who has been abused will certainly have an opinion.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the point that he makes about two and three-year-olds is absolute rubbish?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I cannot agree with that.

I have discussed time limits under previous amendments. I did not specify a particular period in previous amendments, but in amendment No. 140 I have taken the concept slightly further and suggested a period of three months. The Minister has kindly discussed the issue, but I would be interested in her opinion on such a time limit. Most issues that go to court have time limits, except for crime. I suggest that the same should apply in this instance, which would provide fairness for all parties.

Proposed subsections (14) and (15) deal with the cost of the meetings of the panels and any appeals to the High Court. Proposed subsection (14) suggests that the Government should pay the reasonable costs of the child and the adoption agency in all cases. Many adoption organisations and agencies have contacted us to say that the concept of appeal is fair, but the Government need to realise that that needs funding. Some organisations think that court or panel cases could bankrupt them.

Those organisations are also concerned that paying for the legal costs of court cases is hardly the best way to use their often hard-raised charitable funds, or an attractive way to encourage fundraisers to contribute further. That is a problem for charities. How does the Minister propose that the costs of panels be apportioned for charities and children? When any other person, say a prospective adoptive parent, wins their case at the panel or in the High Court as proposed, the Government should pay the reasonable costs of the opponent, too. That is the purpose of proposed subsection (15).

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I understand why the amendment was moved, and it was for the best of reasons, but there are problems. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) has pointed out the difference between a review and an appeal. It would be unrealistic for the High Court to second-guess every panel decision. If the provisions were limited to a point of law, misdirection or conduct, I would be able to accept them fully, but the High Court bench is already hugely overburdened, despite the recent appointment of several new High Court judges to deal with human rights legislation. The machinery is not there.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I understand the hon. Gentleman' concerns about the reasons for taking a case to the High Court, but surely he is not suggesting that the High Court being too busy to deal with a case is a good reason not to take the case to it?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The amendment appears to be a carte blanche for a second-guessing operation by the High Court. If I understood the Minister correctly, there is a right to judicial review in any event, so the point has

been dealt with. I understand and appreciate the reason for the amendment, and applaud the fact that the rights of the child appear to be paramount, although in a slightly misguided manner—I am not sure what consent one could receive from a child aged one—but, with great respect, I say that the amendment is misplaced.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I would not have spoken to the amendment but for the case of a couple I met in my surgery on Friday. A couple who had hoped to adopt a brother and sister came to me with a tale that neatly fits into our proceedings and demonstrates why I hope that the Minister can consider the amendment.

The prospective adoptive parents lived in my local authority area, but another local authority some distance away had placed two children with them. One child was disturbed, but the couple had managed to cope. However, their way of dealing with the brother

and sister in their family environment did not meet the game plan of the social services department that had placed the child. That department had therefore taken the children back, and the siblings had been through a series of foster carers who had all met the same problems—

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

Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.

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

Clauses 12 to 16, 115 to 119 and 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Roe, Mrs. Marion (

Chairman

Bellingham, Mr.

Blackman, Liz

Brazier, Mr.

Brennan, Kevin

Dawson, Mr.

Djanogly, Mr.

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Gidley, Sandra

Llwyd, Mr.

Loughton, Tim

Love, Mr.

Moran, Margaret

Munn, Ms

Shaw, Mr.

Smith, Jacqui

Walter, Mr.

Winterton, Ms Rosie

Special Standing Committee

Adoption and Children Bill

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. You may be aware that the knife came down viciously again at the end of our previous sitting, leaving 10 clauses completely undebated, and the debate on one only partly finished. We were completely unable to consider with the part of the review panel that deals with the adoption register, and many other important areas.

This afternoon, we are starting on a completely different part of the Bill, for which the Government appear to be ill-equipped, given that many of their amendments are starred. Is there no way, within the terms of the programme resolution, that extra time could be given to those important parts of the Bill that we have had no opportunity to debate before we move to a part of the Bill on which the Government have performed a major U-turn at the 11th hour, so that they are not ready for their own amendments?

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

Whether the Government are prepared to present their case to the satisfaction of a Committee of the House is entirely a matter for them. I am advised that there is no scope to reconsider the programme resolution, and therefore I must consider the matter closed.Clause 53 Information to be kept about a person's adoption

Clause 53 - Information to be kept about a person's adoption

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 193, in 53, page 31, line 32, at beginning insert—

'In relation to an adopted person'.

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

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 194 and 195.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We move to the parts of the Bill that deal with access to information. Clause 53 introduces the access to information provisions, setting out the information that adoption agencies must keep and the regulation-making powers around transfer. It would perhaps be helpful if I were to set out the intention behind the clauses that relate to access to information and the amendments that we have tabled to them and, for the benefit of our discussions of these amendments and others, worth while to compare the new provisions with the current legislation.

The Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983 provide that an adoption agency may disclose information in its possession as it thinks fit for the purposes of

carrying out its functions as an agency. Adoption agencies may, for example, disclose information to an adopted person about his background, although guidance is that such information should not include the information recorded on his birth certificate, as provision for such disclosure is made separately in the Adoption Act 1976. Information about the adopted child's progress may be provided to birth parents. The guidance makes it clear that the child's new identity and whereabouts should not be disclosed.

The adoption agency regulations give adoption agencies wide discretion, but practice is varied and inconsistent. Often, the provisions work well, but in some cases they do not. Agencies have passed on sensitive identifying information without consulting the person who would be identified. People involved in adoption, including children and birth relatives, have been traced and contacted against their wishes. That may be disturbing and could disrupt the adoptive placement; in a small number cases, there is a risk of physical harm.

Access to information in the context of adoption is a sensitive matter. Nowadays, many adoptions include some element of contact between the adoptive and the birth families—often involving an exchange of information about the child's progress through letterbox contact, but in some cases the two families may meet. The majority of adopted children are adopted after infancy and know that their birth families have information about them. However, in some circumstances it may not be appropriate to share identifying information, especially if a placement could be disrupted or the child's welfare affected.

The measures in the Bill that provide for safeguards on the disclosure of identifying information are intended to balance the interests of all parties. Striking the right balance has been difficult. Information that identifies people is potentially sensitive; we need to consider how to safeguard it in some circumstances and how to provide access to it in others. We have tried to ensure that the system is fair and balanced and that it provides some flexibility.

We set out to develop the provisions with the following aims in mind. We want to ensure consistency of adopted people's access to information about the background to their adoption, which is a commitment the Government made in the adoption White Paper. When identifying information might be provided, we aim to give every individual involved in a person's adoption a right to express his or her wishes. We want to give adoption agencies some discretion, supported by guidance, to determine whether to withhold or disclose identifying information. We want also to balance an agency's exercise of discretion by providing a right for an independent review of its adoption determination.

The Government made it clear when introducing the Bill in October that the access to information provisions were new; we also outlined the fact in our memorandum of evidence to the Committee's evidence sittings. Continuing our consultative approach to the Bill, we also made it clear that we would welcome views on whether we had struck the

right balance. [Hon. Members: ''Hear, hear.''] Opposition Members mock the notion that Governments might consult and listen to people. That may have not have happened during the 18 years of Conservative Government, but it is what the Labour Government are doing.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

If the Minister is so proud of her record on consultation, why did it take a month from the pre-scrutiny witness sittings, at which every witness threw up their hands in horror and every document presented in evidence expressed horror at the changes that the Government were suggesting? It took the Minister until the 11th hour on Thursday—her very last opportunity—to table the amendments. She did not have the courtesy to tell the Committee that she was doing it, let alone inform those members of the Committee who had tabled their own amendments to the same effect.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As I have said, this is a complicated area of policy. It is right that the Government took the time to reflect on the evidence taken in the evidence sittings; we wanted to ensure that we got it right. I wrote to all members of the Committee last Thursday afternoon outlining the proposals that the Government intended to bring forward. I made our intentions clear. I thought that that was appropriate. According to the programme motion, we have at least three sittings to discuss the matter, so I feel sure that hon. Members will have ample opportunity to probe the Government on their amendments and to table their own.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am grateful to the Minister for telling us that the amendments are the result of the Government's desire to consult. However, when the Bill was presented the Government said that its original provisions were there because of the danger that those who had been adopted might go back and be violent toward or attack their birth parents. Will she explain which consultation exercise led her to believe that that was a danger?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware if he has read my letter and looked carefully at the amendments, the Government still consider that it might be appropriate, in a small number of cases, for adoption agencies to exercise discretion over the release of information that will enable people to access their birth records, although we have made a significant change in the proposals.

Although I accept that there was disagreement at the evidence-gathering sittings about the Government's approach to birth records, some of the evidence given then, and subsequently, suggested concern about such disclosure. The Government have changed their position in the light of representations under the Special Standing Committee procedure. We could have decided just to convene—dare I say it—a bog standard Standing Committee. However, we did not; we took evidence and we acted on that evidence.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister has referred to evidence that backs up the Government's decision to amend the Bill. First, will she tell us what that evidence is? We were not made aware of it by any witness during the evidence-gathering sittings. Secondly, will she tell us exactly when the Government changed their mind, given that last Thursday morning her Department was busy briefing Radio 4's ''Woman's Hour'' that there would be no changes and telling that programme why the Bill had to stay in its original form? When did that damascene conversion happen?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The idea that it is appropriate for a Government Department to brief a news programme about a proposal before it presents it to Parliament is rich coming from the Opposition.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Perhaps my hon. Friend would note that although Opposition Members constantly bleat about lack of time, when they do have some time, they waste it on fatuous arguments. Will she accept my sincere congratulations, as someone who raised serious objections to these clauses at the very welcome evidence sittings, on having listened to the evidence that was presented to her and making the appropriate changes? Perhaps we can now move on to the serious business.

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

Order. The hon. Gentleman takes the words out of my mouth. Since I have been in the Chair, I have heard no fatuous contributions from any hon. Member on this Committee, for which I am eternally grateful. Can we now return to the terms of the Government amendments?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was describing how the amendments relate to clause 53, which provides the basis for the Government's approach to all the information provisions that we shall discuss.

The adoption stakeholders were concerned principally with the proposed restriction on the adopted person's right of access to his birth records. Some also commented on the need for prospective adopters to have better and fuller information on the child whom the agency proposed to place with them. Clauses 53 to 62 provide for the adoption agency to be the single gateway for access to identifying information, including birth records. The Registrar-General retains his duty to record and keep the adopted person's birth records under clauses 74 to 78. The Registrar-General will, of course, retain his duty under the Adoption Act 1976 to maintain the registers.

The Government believe that the adoption agency is best placed to provide identifying information, to contact the interested parties, to deal appropriately with such sensitive information and to arrange for the provision of counselling. The evidence that we heard broadly supported that view. That model is an improvement on the current situation, whereby access to the birth records of the adopted person is obtained through the Registrar-General without any involvement from the adoption agency. In addressing the issue of access to birth records, we have carefully

considered the representations made to the Committee and how to address the significant concerns that have been expressed.

Under the current legislative framework, the adopted adult has a right—provided by section 51 of the Adoption Act 1976—to obtain information from the Registrar-General that enables him to access a copy of his birth certificate, which identifies his birth parents and their address at the time of his birth. The only exception to that is when the Registrar-General decides that it is appropriate to withhold the information on public policy grounds. In such cases, the adopted person can challenge the Registrar-General's decision by recourse to the High Court.

Committee members know that we have been concerned about the small number of cases in which access to birth records might pose a significant risk to the birth parents. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) asked me about evidence given at the evidence-gathering sitting. I refer him to an amendment to the evidence that was given to us on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services, in the name of Rob Hutchinson, the chair of the ADSS children and families committee. He said:

''The principle of openness is now well established in adoption practice. The Association of Directors of Social Services recognises that adopted adults greatly value their right to obtain their original birth certificate and believes that this right should be preserved. However, some concerns remain about the small minority of cases where individuals involved may be placed at some risk.''

We believe that our new proposals balance that very small number of cases with the need for people to be able to gain access to, and copies of, their birth certificates. We have listened carefully and have weighed the evidence now available to us. As a consequence, we have decided that adopted people should retain the right to access the information that they need to enable them to obtain copies of their birth certificates, and we propose to amend clause 58 to provide for that.

We intend broadly to mirror the current legal position, although the route of access will now be through the adoption agency. When an adopted person aged 18 makes a request, he will be able to obtain the information that he needs from his adoption agency in order to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. The only exception will be in those cases where the adoption agency considers that exceptional circumstances justify recourse to the courts to withhold information.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I recognise and welcome all that my hon. Friend is saying about the role of adoption agencies. Can she confirm that those adults, however unwise others might think them, who wish to have access to their birth records without any counselling process, will be able to make application through the adoption agency, without being subjected to unwelcome social work intervention?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Although we have made provision for the single gateway to be through the adoption agency, that does not imply a necessity to receive counselling through that agency. In such circumstances as the adoption agency considers justify the withholding of information, the adoption agency will need to seek the permission of the High Court not to disclose that information. The High Court will make an order only if it is satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional. I hope that that change will allay the concerns that have been expressed and will, in the cases in which a court gives its consent for information to be withheld, provide a safeguard.

As for other identifying information about the birth parents and others, we now propose that all adults involved in a person's adoption should be treated in the same way. The provisions in the Bill were based on our aim to give all such people a right to express their wishes about the sensitive information that identifies them. However, that was complicated by the need to provide for birth parents to be able to object to the release of their information while others were asked for their consent. That distinction was based on the presumption that that information about the birth parents would be released unless they exercised a right of veto. As we now propose to retain the right of the adopted person to access his birth records, we consider that the adoption agency should ask the birth parents for their consent to the release of identifying information held by the agency—but not in the case of the birth records information. That mirrors our intentions with respect to the disclosure of identifying information about everybody else involved in a person's adoption.

Under our proposals, a person would be able to ask the adoption agency to provide identifying information about anyone involved in an adoption. Where they decided to proceed to process such an application, adoption agencies would be required to take reasonable steps to seek the views of the person who would be identified, including establishing whether they consent. If their consent were forthcoming, we would expect the information to be disclosed, unless the agency felt that it was not appropriate to do so. Where consent was refused or could not be obtained, the agency would be allowed to disclose the information if it were safe and appropriate to do so.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I would like to return to the matter of releasing identifying information on behalf of the adoptive person. Will the Minister confirm that she would not anticipate that adoption agencies would feel in any way compelled under the clauses, when an adopted person was seeking identifying information, to contact the birth parent to seek permission in order to protect themselves against the fact that they have not gone to the High Court? Would she anticipate that in the majority of cases there would be no need for an adoption agency, when approached by an adopted person, to contact the birth parent before releasing the identifying information?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The provision relating to the High Court deals with the provision of information necessary to gain access to the birth record. It would not be necessary to contact the birth parent in such cases. I was moving on to other identifying information. There is now a distinction between those two categories.

The other area about which concern was expressed in evidence-gathering was that of the quality and range of information about the child that is made available to prospective adopters. Doubts were expressed about the way in which the Bill provides for that. In particular, there were concerns that information needed to inform prospective adopters prior to agreeing to a proposed match might be held back until the time of the adoption order.

It has always been the Government's intention to use the Bill's provisions to ensure that prospective adopters receive full and appropriate information in advance of the adoption order. In the light of the concerns expressed, we have tabled a new clause to provide for the disclosure of information during the adoption process. To ensure that the means used to achieve our aims allow for some flexibility should the process of providing information to adopters need to be improved in the future, the clause provides an enabling power through regulations to require adoption agencies to release certain information to prospective adopters at three key stages.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

This morning, we were talking about rights of appeal to a panel, and one of the matters we discussed was the release of information. That is one of the areas in which the Government have acknowledged that they will be giving rights of appeal to the panel. That being the case, has the Minister thought about the timing of people's ability to appeal to the panel? In other words, if an adoption agency is considering releasing information, at what point would someone be able to exercise the right of appeal that the Government have said they will grant under clause 12? Will the Minister please explain how that mechanism will work?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The review mechanism might be used in a complicated range of ways. For example, if an adult had approached an adoption agency and that agency had sought consent from the person for about whom information was being sought and had gained that consent, but then for some exceptional reason decided not to provide the information to the person who had requested it, that person could then resort to the independent review mechanism.

Alternatively, if the person being asked for their consent had failed to give it, but the adoption agency still believed—we are providing for discretion—that the circumstances were such that the information should be made available to the person who had asked for it, that would be another opportunity for an appeal to the independent review mechanism.

I talked about prospective adopters, and outlined the fact that we will discuss a new clause that will enable us to set regulations to state the information that should be released to prospective adopters at three

key stages. I am sure that we will have the opportunity to discuss packages of information as we discuss the new clause. As I informed the Committee in my letter, our amendments also ensure that the adopted adult can access the information that his adopters receive, if he wants to.

Striking the right balance in the provisions has been difficult. Information that identifies people can be sensitive, and although many adoptions include some contact between the adoptive family and the birth family, in some circumstances it is not appropriate to share identifying information, especially when the adopted child's welfare is at risk. The amendments reflect understandable concerns and provide for the creation of a fair and balanced system for access to sensitive identifying information on someone's adoption.

Under current regulations, an adoption agency must keep indexes to all its case records, including those that detail the making of an adoption order, for at least 75 years. All other records must be held for as long as the agency considers it appropriate. All the records must be kept in a place of special security. We know that practice varies greatly. Some agencies keep only patchy records, while others have lost or disposed of information for past adoptions.

The adoption White Paper pledged that the Government would provide people with a consistent system for access to information about their history. The provisions enable regulations to be made to prescribe the information that an adoption agency must keep in relation to someone's adoption, the form that it should take and the way in which it should be kept. The provision also enables the making of regulations that govern the transfer of information between adoption agencies.

The amendments will make the group of clauses apply to information about an adopted person, rather than to information that an agency must keep in relation to a person's adoption. That ensures that we can regulate all the necessary information under the clauses, as I have spelled out. It makes it clear that the group of clauses relates to a scheme for the disclosure of identifying information once an adoption order has been made. The information will be about the adopted person, his birth parents, his adoptive parents and any other person involved in his adoption, such as the adopted person's siblings, grandparents or the social worker.

The amendments will enable us to set out regulations that apply to the information to be kept, and that govern the transfer of information when, for example, one agency is to cease and it is essential that its records pass into the safekeeping of another agency. In such cases, regulations provide a better and more flexible legislative means of detailing the responsibilities that we intend to place on adoption agencies for keeping information in relation to a person's adoption, its form and the way in which it is kept. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Several hon. Members rose—

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

Order. Before we proceed, I should say that the Clerk and I have had further consultations. I want to add to my response to the point of order made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. As I said, there is no mechanism under the terms of the programme motion by which more time could be given to consider the business dealt with this morning. It remains open to Committees to amend programme motions, but that first requires a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee. No such meeting has been requested.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Stevenson. No doubt, a letter requesting such a meeting will be in the post shortly.

In response to the Minister, I expect that that is probably the longest scripted U-turn that any Committee has heard for a long time—a U-turn that contained no hint of contrition or mea culpa—from a Minister who, a week ago, said that the Bill was perfect and did not require any amendment. Now, at last, we see its flaws. We welcome the amendments. We would have welcomed them four weeks ago, as would scores of adoption agencies and other voluntary bodies with an interest in the Bill. The Minister is well aware of the comments that were made in representations to the Committee, to which we were all privy.

The south-east post-adoption network said:

''The proposed legislation is a retrograde step that is likely to cause harm to the psychological wellbeing of adopted individuals.''

The National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents said:

''We are utterly incredulous by the manner in which changes have been made and appalled by what is placed before you purporting to be an appropriate response for at least the next 30 years.''

The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering said:

''It would not be putting it too strongly to say that there is consternation among BAAF's member agencies and others at this proposed change.''

The representative of the Fostering Network said:

''I think that this is such a draconian proposal.''

All that evidence was available to the Committee five weeks ago. Why has it taken the Minister five weeks to come up with this U-turn? Worse still, why does she constantly refer to this great letter? To turn into some sort of triumph simply returning to the status quo that has existed for the past 25 years and worked perfectly satisfactorily—she has not been able to cite a single case where it has not worked— shows incredible brass neck.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Has not my hon. Friend the Minister stolen the hon. Gentleman's thunder? The speech that we have just heard is one that the hon. Gentleman was hoping to deliver in the event that there were no Government amendments. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), I was unhappy with the Bill and welcome the changes. My hon. Friend the Minister has not presented the changes in a fanfare

of glory. The Government have listened and introduced changes and the hon. Gentleman is clearly disappointed with that.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am not at all disappointed about what has happened. I am disappointed at the discourtesy shown by the Minister to the Committee and all the voluntary organisations—

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Let me first respond to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). If other hon. Members were seriously unhappy with the Bill, they should have had the independence of mind to table their own amendments five weeks ago, or at least to put their names to our amendments. As we all know, this is not a party-political Bill because it received the support of all parties on Second Reading.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

One at a time.

In the spirit of co-operation, we have sought at all stages to improve the Bill, which is why we welcomed the pre-scrutiny witness sessions. At those sessions, the evidence was so categorically weighted in one direction that we immediately tabled our amendments to reverse this misguided part of the Bill, as the Government have done at last.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I have a couple of points. First, does the hon. Gentleman really think that his approach is a good way to ensure that the Government will do what he wants them to do, because it seems to me to be tactically inept? Secondly, in all his concern for the adoption agencies, voluntary organisations and people who have been caught up in this issue, does he not understand that those people would have more respect for the process if he simply welcomed the legislation and allowed us to get on to the meat of the debate?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Everyone would have much more respect for the process if the Minister had responded favourably and positively at an early stage. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that today represents the first opportunity to discuss clauses 53 to 62, which deal with access to information. That would have been the most contentious part of the Bill if it had not been changed. The last day for tabling amendments to this part of the Bill came at the end of last week and, because it was a non-sitting Friday, the amendments were not published until Monday.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I shall in a minute.

Unless hon. Members had had a conversation with the Minister, they would not have been able to see those amendments or respond to them with their own amendments until Monday, which would have been too late for this afternoon's debate.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is why I wrote to hon. Members on Thursday afternoon?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The Minister wrote her famous letter to us after the Committee rose on Thursday afternoon and the letter was available in Members' pigeonholes after the Committee adjourned on Thursday afternoon. I believe, however, that it was available earlier to Labour Members.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman should check his pigeonhole.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We could either sit in Committee between half past two and five o'clock to debate clauses and amendments and challenge the Minister, as we should be doing, or we could nip downstairs every five minutes in the hope that the Minister had changed her mind at the last moment and that there might be a letter in our pigeonhole. What nonsense! We sat opposite each other the whole day, but the Minister gave no indication whatever that the Government had had a change of heart. That would have given all hon. Members the opportunity to see the amendments, which are not contained in the letter, as it is merely a general statement about what they intended to do—although they have not even done that in respect of clause 57, for example. Opposition Members would have had the opportunity to see whether the amendments fell in line with what we sought, and been able to table our amendments in reply. We have not had that opportunity and it is a gross discourtesy to the workings of the Committee.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

My I help my hon. Friend? I was observing the Committee diligently and I think that letters were distributed personally to Labour Members that afternoon, while our letters were left in our pigeonholes.

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

Order. It is perfectly in order that hon. Members should examine why the Government tabled the amendments and the circumstances that led to that. I shall be calling a clause stand part debate. When hon. Members have made their points, can we return at the earliest opportunity to debating the amendments?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Of course, I am happy to do that, Mr. Stevenson.

The Minister's opening remarks on the amendments gave us a wide background to what brought about the Damascene conversion, but she has yet to give the reason why the conversion happened at such a late stage. It would be useful to hear what the criteria were.

I said at the outset that these are the amendments that we have sought for the past five weeks. They contain some of the amendments that we tabled. For the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford to say that we must be disappointed is to misunderstand what we are trying to do in the Committee. If we had voted against the Bill in its entirety and opposed it on principle all the way through, he might have had a point. Our task, however, has been to improve the Bill and to remove from the present group of clauses some draconian measures—as they were described—that would have set back the adoption process by 25 years.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, because the amendments that I have heard being debated have been constructive and were meant to improve the Bill. There have been no wrecking amendments. In previous Standing Committees of which I have been a member, if the Government were minded to amend the Bill, the Minister gave a draft to Opposition Members, which resulted in open discussion. That is the way forward if we are serious about the Bill.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is absolutely right and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have served on Standing Committees that have been debating issues of significance, particularly complicated, technical and legal matters, when the Minister has had the courtesy to write in advance of amendments being tabled giving a full explanation and producing additional explanatory notes to explain the Government's thinking.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford talks about wrecking amendments, but everything has been in order—otherwise you, Mr. Stevenson, or your co-Chairman, Mrs. Roe, would have ruled them out of order.

Kevin Brennan rose—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I will give way in a moment. Labour Members seem very excited this afternoon. Perhaps they have been briefed to be excited and animated. The only wrecking amendment on the amendment paper this afternoon would appear to be a Government amendment to clause 57. It is so incompetently out of order—it would delete the whole clause—that it has not been selected. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford should stop throwing stones at people in glasshouses.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I do not want to take the Committee's time, but the hon. Gentleman claimed that the Minister had said that it was a perfect Bill and that it did not need to be changed. Later, he said that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford had accused the Opposition of tabling wrecking amendments. I have listened carefully to the Committee's proceedings and I heard neither of those remarks. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has to make his mark, but we are not here so that he can engage in political point-scoring for a starring spot on ''Woman's Hour''.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what we here to do. The producers of ''Woman's Hour'' will be even less amused by his comments than they were by the way in which the Department of Health treated them last week. However, that is aside from the issues that we are debating.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I do not want tempt your patience, Mr. Stevenson, but it should be placed on record that adoption is a subject on which ''Woman's Hour'' has taken a considerable interest. It has had several programmes on the subject and I have been privileged to take part in a couple of them.

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

Order. I attempted earlier to guide the Committee gently. The last thing that I want to do is to intervene too often. That is not why I am here. However, a debate on the content of ''Woman's Hour'' seems to be far wide of the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

You are obviously not a devotee of ''Woman's Hour'', Mr. Stevenson—

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

Order. I would not want that remark to remain on the record, nor would the hon. Gentleman.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I apologise, Mr Stevenson. I return to the point in hand. Opposition Members have no objection to the amendments—[Interruption.] Government Members treat the Committee as though everything should be rubber-stamped and think that we have a cheek to raise objections. Our objection is that we saw the Government amendments only yesterday, by which time it was too late for us to table amendments to those proposed changes. That is not a good way to run a Standing Committee. It is particularly bad when the Committee has not had the opportunity to debate more than one fifth of the Bill because of the draconian programme motion. That is the truth of it.

We will support the amendments, but we would like more explanation about further the amendments resulting from the Government's change of heart. However, the Government have a duty to all members of the Committee to explain any further changes in plenty of time.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I also welcome the amendments, which the Minister should be congratulated on tabling. It is disappointing that Opposition Members were not afforded the same privilege as Labour Back Benchers last week and it would have been courteous to treat us identically by giving us advance warning. However, one must give credit where credit is due because the Government have listened and learned from the debate. Several Labour Back Benchers should be congratulated on having had the courage to stand up to the thugs and bully boys in the Labour's Whips Office—the same ones who intimidated the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), pinned him up against a wall and frightened him.

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

Order. My patience is running out a little, and I am sure that hon. Members will understand why. I urge the hon. Gentleman to return to the terms of the amendments.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

It is difficult to return to the terms of the amendment without putting them in the correct context and I am sure that you will sympathise, Mr. Stevenson.

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

Order. I am jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box, which I did not want to do. I have no problem with hon. Members debating amendments in context, but the hon. Gentleman should return to the wording of the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Indeed. I welcome the amendments. The Minister may genuinely have thought that she could push the Bill through as it stood, but let us give her the benefit of the doubt and suggest that she took her time to introduce the changes because she wanted to get the wording absolutely right. As a result, there were discussions in her Department and experts were brought in, in an effort to draft everything in the most perfect order.

None the less, I welcome the amendments and pay tribute to Labour Back Benchers who had the courage to stand firm. A rebellion was brewing and the Government would have lost their provisions had they not made concessions.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 194, in page 31, line 33, leave out 'a person's' and insert 'his'.

No. 195, in page 31, line 37, leave out from 'information' to 'is' in line 38 and insert

'kept by an adoption agency by virtue of subsection (1)(a)'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 31, line 41, at end add—

'(4) All records and other relevant information must be securely held by the relevant adoption agency on a permanent basis; furthermore, all such information must be passed on to any successor agency.'.

The Minister mentioned records and the secure holding of relevant information. However, I am not clear from her comments whether there will be an obligation on adoption agencies to keep records permanently and to ensure that information is passed on to any successor agency. Will she clarify that aspect of her earlier remarks? If there is an element of doubt, I humbly suggest that a simple way forward would be for the Government to accept the amendment to make it crystal clear that the relevant information must be securely held.

Different agencies are involved in the adoption process. Local authorities will have systems in place to ensure that records are properly stored and logged. Although other agencies may be good at their jobs, they may lack record-keeping facilities, attention to detail and access to the resources needed to ensure that the right systems are in place. They may have completely different standards of information storage and retrieval and it is essential that we include in the Bill a requirement that information be securely held.

It is equally vital that information is passed on to a successor agency, as we discussed a fortnight or so ago in relation to a later clause. When debating Bills, one has the problem of dealing with some clauses before others, which sometimes leads to confusion. I know that there is a reason for it, as was mentioned during the debate on programming.

I want the Minister to consider my amendment carefully. It would tidy up the relevant aspect of the clause.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I support the amendment. Will the Minister suggest what the security arrangements are for holding the records? Presumably, thousands of

adoption records are held in locations around the country. Have the Government taken an interest in the subject before, or should it be of more concern than we have heard to date?

Although the amendment refers to adoption agencies holding information ''on a permanent basis'', my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) will be aware that such agencies sometimes close down. Several have in recent years. In such cases, what happens to the records? In the past, they have been lost. Sometimes they have not been handed to the new agency as they should have been. What security measures are there? Might lost records have found their way into the wrong hands? I would be grateful to hear the Minister's views on the important questions that surround the amendment.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall respond first to the points made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). In my introduction to the previous amendment, I spelled out the fact that adoption records should be kept in a place of special security under current regulations. There is no detail as to what such a place should be, however. The hon. Gentleman suggested that information might reach the wrong hands, but no evidence suggests that that is the case and that adoption agencies do not hold information securely. The clause will enable us to make regulations to cover the nature of information that adoption agencies need to keep and the way in which they should keep it. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk mentioned transfer.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Is it intended that such records could be sent using electronic communication? Clearly, that could give rise to a new series of security problems?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman makes a salient point, and one in support of stating the details in regulations as opposed to in the Bill. It is likely that the way in which information will be held and transferred will change with technology. Regulations enable a more flexible approach to ensure that safeguards remain as changes happen.

Clause 53 allows regulations to be made that govern the transfer of information between adoption agencies when, for example, one agency is to cease operation and it is essential that its records pass into the safe keeping of another. If a registered adoption society were to cease operation, the local authority in the area where the society was based would be responsible for safeguarding the information. That will reflect the present position under regulations, except that when now the Secretary of State is notified of the transfer of records, in future it will be the National Care Standards Commission. Hon. Gentlemen may recall our discussions under clause 6 and 7 last week about the ceasing of an adoption agency, the safeguards that need to be put in place, and the role of local authorities in relation to inactive and defunct adoption agencies.

I have outlined why we believe that regulations provide a better and more flexible legislative means to detail the responsibilities that we intend to place on

adoption agencies. We intend to consult key stakeholders, including adoption agencies, on the regulations, which we will ensure are based on best practice. The consultation will also enable us to set, through regulations, the prescribed periods for which records should be held. I remind hon. Members that they are currently held for 75 years.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk contains a contradiction. It requires that the agency hold the records permanently, but that it should pass them on to any successor agency.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The idea of holding records permanently is self-explanatory. If an organisation closes down, by definition it cannot continue to hold records permanently, so it hands them on to a successor body. That is the point inherent in the amendment. It is slightly unfair of the Minister to pick holes in it.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Heaven forbid that I should be unfair. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

My intervention is on that same point, so I think that the Minister had better hear both before replying. The amendment does not use only the word ''permanent'', but reads, ''on a permanent basis''. That means as though the basis were permanent, not permanent itself.

Jacqui Smith rose—

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Will the Minister give way?

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

Order. The Minister is replying to an intervention.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am sure that all hon. Members would want to avoid giving legal experts the opportunity to argue about whether permanence is in conflict with the necessity to transfer records from one agency to another. That is why it is important that, in the regulations, we can state more clearly and flexibly the provisions that need to be made for the long term.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I can give an objective view of the wording. The words ''on a permanent basis'' mean while the agency exists. If it ceases to exist, the information has to be passed on to a successor agency. That is a belt-and-braces provision. There is nothing wrong with it and no conflict arises from it.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

There is disagreement as to whether the amendment produces a conflict. I do not think that the disagreement is helpful, especially as I hope that I have already reassured the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that his points about the need to maintain records and transfer them appropriately will be properly covered in regulation, following consultation that will enable us to consider the details. I cannot promise that the consultation will enable us to have an in-depth consideration of the nature of ''on a permanent basis'', as opposed to ''permanent'' or any other wording that hon. Gentlemen might devise. On

the basis of those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk will withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

We do not know what the regulations will contain. We have the Minister's word that they will include provisions to ensure that what I want to achieve is secured. The regulations will be debatable, in theory, but regulations are debated only rarely, as the Committee knows only too well. The pressure of work in this House is such that it is difficult for hon. Members to secure a proper debate on regulations that are laid before the House. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) pointed out, my amendment takes a belt-and-braces approach. It is straightforward and simple and it is churlish of the Minister to turn it down, because it is in no sense a trap with respect to what she is trying to do. I am sure that she is 100 per cent. genuine in her account of her aims and that the regulations will be brought forward. The amendment will complement those and I see no harm in her accepting it.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As we are going into the detail of the wording of the amendment, may I ask whether there is a danger that it can be interpreted to mean both that all records and other relevant information must be securely held by the relevant adoption agency on a permanent basis and, in addition, that equivalent records must be transferred to a new adoption agency? That is another potential difficulty.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I do not accept that. However, we are now dealing with important provisions and the Minister has made important concessions today. Being kind hearted, I shall accept her word that the documents, records and other relevant information will be properly stored for 75 years. It would be futile to press the amendment to a vote because too many Labour Members would blindly support the Minister, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 - Restrictions on disclosure of protected etc. information

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 196, in page 32, line 6, at end insert—

'(1A) Any information kept by an adoption agency—

(a) which is necessary to enable the adopted person to obtain a certified copy of the record of his birth, or

(b) which is information about an entry relating to the adopted person in the Adoption Contact Register,

may only be disclosed to a person by the agency in pursuance of this group of sections'.

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

With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 197 to 200, 206 and 209.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We have a goodly chunk here.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Is that the technical term?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Yes, I believe it is.

The amendments will help to bring about our revised approach to access to birth records. They will change the definition of protected information under the Bill to include the information necessary for an adopted person to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. Previously, the Bill referred to that information as section 76 information and dealt with its disclosure separately from other identifying information held by adoption agencies. As I explained earlier, the Government attended to what was said in the evidence hearings and have decided to continue to provide, through the adoption agency, for an automatic right for adopted people to receive the information necessary to gain access to their birth records—that will be provided through the adoption agency. That provision is to be brought about through changes to clauses 54 and 58.

Amendment No. 196 covers the information needed to gain access to the birth record. It ensures, by way of inserting new subsection (1A), that that will become protected information under clause 54. The rest of the amendments are consequential and delete references to section 76 information. The result is that the adoption agency may disclose the information needed to obtain the birth record only under the arrangement set out in the clauses. Later amendments to clause 58 provide that the agency must disclose the information needed to access the birth record on request to an adopted person once they reach the age of 18, unless the agency seeks a High Court order blocking that release. The amendment also extends the definition of protected information to include any information that the adoption agency may have from the adoption contact register. Any such information may be released only under the arrangements set out by the provisions.

Amendment No. 200 makes consequential amendments to omit the reference in clause 55 to section 76 information. Amendment No. 206 amends clause 58(4) to leave out section 76 information and amendment No. 209 is a consequential amendment to clause 61(6) omitting the reference to clause 59, which is to be omitted to achieve the Government's intentions. The amendments enable us to omit the distinction between the section 76 information and the information that we are now considering and to deliver on our new approach on access to birth records and the disclosure of other information. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Again, we welcome the amendments and what the Minister has just referred to as the Government's new approach—actually, we are reverting to what happened 25 years ago. The amendments should achieve what the Minister tells us they will and what the Opposition wanted all along. They should be known as the, ''rest in peace clause 76 group'', because they have certainly put paid to everything that that clause was designed to achieve. In the interests of pushing the Committee along speedily,

as I know that the Government would like us to finish this evening, I should say that we have no objection to the amendments.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I have a small point to ask the Minister, because she has confused me. I welcome the bulk of what she has just said, but amendment No. 209 amends clause 61 and I do not understand why it must be discussed under clause 54. Will she explain that? If we are able to discuss amendment No. 209, will the Minister tell the Committee something about the payment of fees in respect of disclosure, in the prescribed circumstances, of the relevant information? Who will set those fees, and will there be an upper limit for them?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Although we now appear to be proceeding in a spirit of co-operation and general welcoming of the Government's approach, I would like to correct the suggestion of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that we are simply reverting to the status quo. As I spelled out at the beginning, we are proposing a new single gateway for access to information through adoption agencies, including the information necessary to access a birth record. That was supported by British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering in their evidence. Felicity Collier said

''We support the fact that . . . access to birth records should be through adoption agencies''.—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 20 November 2001; c. 67.]

The ADSS evidence to which I referred earlier also backed that change. Stakeholders have recognised the need to modernise and improve the system. We are not simply reverting to the old system. As I said in my introduction, there are now new issues about data protection and human rights in relation to access to information and it is important that the Bill considers them in relation to not only the disclosure of birth records information but the disclosure of other identifying information to adults.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked about amendment No. 209. In my rush to help the Committee, I did not properly outline what the amendment does. It would omit the reference to clause 59 in clause 61. Because we propose to delete clause 59, it is a consequential amendment. It also covers the disclosure of non-birth record identifying information that the Bill terms ''protected''.

As I explained earlier, in light of our change of approach on birth records, we have tabled amendments making new provision for the disclosure of protected information by adoption agencies to ensure that the disclosure of that information is handled in a sensitive manner that ensures that the views of those to be identified are taken into account. For that reason, and because the new clause spells out that new approach, clause 59 will no longer be necessary.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Minister has not answered my question. I asked why Government amendment No. 209 is not being discussed under clause 61, the clause

to which it refers—unless I am very dim and did not understand what she said. It is part of a group of amendments to clause 54, but if it is indeed relevant only to clause 61 we should be discussing it then, because I cannot ask questions on clause 61 now.

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

The amendment is grouped under this clause because it is relevant. The decision will be taken when we come to the clause in question.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 197, in page 32, line 8, after '(1)' insert 'or (1A)'.

No. 198, in page 32, line 13, leave out subsections (4) and (5).

No. 199, in page 32, line 18, leave out 'or section 76 information'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 190, in page 32, line 20, at end add—

'(7) Nothing in this Act shall permit local authorities to provide birth parents with information relating to an adopted person who has attained the age of 18 years or more and, prior to attaining the age of 18 years, other than pursuant to an order made pursuant to section 25.'.

I tabled amendments Nos. 189, 190 and 191 together. I was advised by the Public Bill Office, whose staff know a lot more about drafting legislation than I do, that they could not be debated together because they apply to different clauses, so I start with the amendment on birth parent access.

I should also like to add that I am not sure what the Government's position is on this issue. Two minutes before I rose to speak, I noticed Government new clause 7. It looks as if the new clause deals with birth parents' access to information, but I am sure that the Minister will tell me if I am wrong. New clause 7 is starred, which means that it must have been tabled some time yesterday. That timing is unacceptable—even more unacceptable than the previous group of amendments, which were at least tabled last Friday and were, therefore, not starred. I believe that I am right in saying that the effect of the new clause being starred is that the Committee will not be able to discuss it today because it was not tabled in time, so the situation goes from bad to worse. That is a shame because it relates to an important issue, which to many people is also emotive.

From my brief consideration of new clause 7, which presumably we shall discuss later—perhaps when we reach the end of the Bill—it seems to me that the Government are introducing the same sort of provisions for parental access as they have introduced on a child's access to information, in so far as the new clause contains a consent provision. If I am incorrect about that, I would appreciate some further explanation from the Minister.

Access for natural birth parents is conceptually different from access for children, in so far as the adoption decision is that of the natural parent and not that of the child. In practice, that is not relevant to adoption on a day-to-day basis in this day and age and has not been for some time, progressively since the

1975 legislation, and it is unlikely to become any more relevant to future adoptions. It is now rare for children not to know who their parents are. The number of babies who are adopted has decreased dramatically and most young people have some connection with their parents. Increasingly, the adoption process is becoming an open adoption system, whereby contact provisions are made. Indeed, the Bill takes that process further with the contact provisions contained in clause 25. It is a great shame that we have not had the chance to debate clause 25, as I have received almost as much correspondence on that clause as on any other issue. We were unable to discuss it because of the timetable, which shows the deficiency of the system.

If no contact is given—presumably because of abuse or where the child may be endangered—the local authority should not then give information to the birth parent once the child has reached 18. Furthermore, in the case of pre-1975 legislation adoptions, where the children involved would all now be over 18, the assumption is that no contact orders will be made. There was not a system for contact orders then and it was not the culture of the time. That culture is an important consideration in relation to pre-1975 adoptions because the ''deal'' under which adoptions then went ahead was that the child was removed from one parent and given to another, with no contact between the two. Frequently, in those times, the children's first names were changed. The individuals who were adopted then as babies—there were many more baby adoptions then than there are today—and are now adults may not know who their natural parents were. Many hundreds, or even thousands of such people, might not even know that they were adopted.

I do not want to say that the system before 1975 was wrong for its time. Whether it was right or wrong, it changed at that time—I accept and support that. For that reason, I am as delighted as any of my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches that the Government have seen sense and gone back, essentially, to the system that was adopted post-1975. However, children obviously have a right to know who their parents are and to have access to their birth certificates. It should be for the child to initiate contact with birth parents, not vice versa. The provisions need to be seen in the light of the further amendments.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Can the hon. Gentleman not envisage that, in many cases, it may be a more favourable proposition for contact to be initiated by a birth relative, rather than by the adopted person? Plenty of research evidence shows that adopted people find it a difficult subject to raise with their adoptive parents and that in 90 per cent. or more of cases where contact is initiated by a birth relative, it is welcomed. Is he not ignoring the evidence?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I do not think that there is evidence, as such, that says that. More to the point, the hon. Gentleman will see that, in amendment No. 191, my hon. Friends and I have gone some way to alleviating his concerns. His point is a fair one. The expression of the approach can often best be made by the natural

parents—the amendment provides for that. Providing for an expression of the position of the natural parent towards contact is very different from making contact. That is the distinction that we need to make.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The hon. Gentleman says that he does not think that there is any research evidence. I can provide him with it. Is he aware that research quoted in ''Adoption, Search and Reunion - The long Term Experience of Adopted Adults'' by Howe and Feast, published in 2000, showed that 90 per cent. of non-searching adopted people who are informed of a birth relative's inquiry agree to have some form of contact? Is he also aware that 74 per cent. of non-searching adopted adults did not feel comfortable asking their adoptive parents for information about their birth family and background?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

. I do not know how well the hon. Gentleman's statistics can be verified. Even if they are correct, that means that 10 per cent. would not want contact. That is a large enough proportion to support my view that the system under which they were adopted should not be changed in retrospect. The question of where we go from here is a different matter. We are considering contact provisions and I do not dispute that it is often appropriate to maintain contact. However, I am not talking about where we go from here and the Bill must take account of the historical position. We must respect the culture and provisions under which adoptions were previously carried out.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The hon. Gentleman says that the provisions would be unacceptable if 10 per cent. did not agree that contact was suitable, but the figure in the research is 6 per cent—a small minority. He talks about the culture of the past, but is he not in danger of setting it in stone? We should move on and accept that we are talking about human beings now, not then.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the relatively short period from the mid-1920s to 1976—from the creation of adoption until the introduction of new laws in the Adoption Act 1976, which we all support. That does not mean, however, that we can simply overturn the basis on which adoptions were made between 1926 and 1976. Rather, we must accept that adoptions were made on that basis. It is easy to say that someone in their 60s should be sent a letter saying that they were adopted, but we must take on board the implications for their state of mind and the potential need for counselling. We should not simply assume, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that they will accept the news. I do not accept that.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I honestly cannot believe what I am hearing. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying that we should accept the standards of a time when women who gave birth outside marriage were ostracised and sometimes put in mental asylums? The standards of that time and the rights that were accorded to women were far fewer than they are now. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that we should accept those standards in the 21st century?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I am not saying that those standards were right or that the basis for adoption was right, but we must respect as an historical fact that adoption was carried out in a particular way for a limited period. We cannot go backwards; we must go forwards, as the Bill does.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

No, it would be best if I moved on.

It is important that information is given in two instances, which are reflected in other amendments. The first is the death of a child. From a humanitarian point of view, information should certainly be passed to the natural parents in such a case. They have no automatic right to information and they should be given one. Secondly, we shall promote a procedure whereby natural parents can provide the adoption agency with written information. In that way, a child who makes contact with the agency can receive the information and have some understanding of their natural family. However, it should be the child who has the right of approach and not the birth parents.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The amendment would add a new subsection to clause 54 to ensure that a local authority would not be able to provide birth parents with any information relating to an adopted adult or child unless it did so under a contact order made under section 25. The amendment appears to suggest that the courts should authorise all exchanges of information concerning an adopted person.

The first point to note is that the amendment applies only to local authorities. It would not cover adoptions arranged through registered adoption societies. More substantially, it would mark a considerable change from the current position by requiring the courts to regulate all exchanges of information of any sort concerning an adopted person. At present, adoption agencies have discretion under regulation 15 of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983 to disclose information for the purposes of their functions as an adoption agency, and the accompanying guidance makes it clear that agencies can use that discretion—for example, to give a birth parent information about a child's progress without disclosing his new identity or his whereabouts. The amendment would require a court order before that could take place.

The Government believe that it is right, subject to appropriate regulations and guidance, that adoption agencies should take the lead in planning and managing contact arrangements. The key principle here is that in considering arrangements for contact, links and the passing of information the central concern must at all times be what is in the interests of the child. Our national adoption standards and the accompanying draft practice guidance are emphatic on that point. Agencies must plan contact arrangements from the child's point of view, and discuss proposed arrangements fully with the prospective adopters and the birth family. The standards and the accompanying draft practice guidance also make it clear that agencies should

provide on-going support to adoptive parents and birth relatives in managing and maintaining contact arrangements that have been agreed in the interests of the child.

I do not think that the answer is to burden the courts with providing for every arrangement for the exchange of information concerning adoptions.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Will the Minister take the opportunity to explain new clause 7? It will not be possible for the Government to move it today as it is a starred amendment. What route do the Government intend to take on that issue?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The amendment was starred because I was aware of the need to ensure that amendments were tabled in plenty of time; although we are unlikely to discuss them until after the Christmas holidays, all hon. Members would still have had plenty of time to consider the implications. Nevertheless, I shall outline in a moment how the proposed system should work and explain the distinction between the proposals in new clause 7(2) on providing information to adults and those in new clause 8 on providing information to children.

As I said, the answer is not to burden the courts. As the hon. Member for Huntingdon said, there has been an increase in open adoptions, and that is set to continue. It may not be the intention, but the amendment could place a considerable burden on the courts—and on the affected parties, who would need to pay all the associated costs. In addition, a child's needs and wishes in respect of contact may change over time and, under the amendment, any substantial change would presumably require a further court order.

The Government's view is that the contact provisions under the Bill for children placed for adoption, or under the Children Act 1989 for contact with children once they have been adopted, should be used when it has not been possible to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement through the offices of the adoption agency, and not as a first resort.

On identifying information about adopted adults, again we acknowledge that it is important that the disclosure of such information is handled sensitively and that the views of the adopted person are sought whenever they can be found. That is why, as I set out earlier, we have tabled new clauses 7 and 8, providing for the disclosure of such information in a way that ensures that the adopted person's views are taken into account. Again, we believe that this is a task primarily for an adoption agency with the necessary skills and expertise operating within the proper framework of regulations and guidance, and not a task for the court.

In response to the hon. Gentleman's question, let me say that it is the intention in relation to new clauses 7 and 8 that the disclosure of identifying information about adults will operate as follows. On receipt of the request, the agency would make an initial decision about whether or not to proceed with the application. We anticipate that where the agency is not minded to proceed with the application, there would be access to the independent review mechanism. If it decided to

proceed, it would be under a duty to take all reasonable efforts to seek the views of the persons who would be identified and to establish their views, including whether they consented to the release of the information.

Once it has obtained the person's views, the agency must decide whether to disclose the information. Where there is consent, information will normally be disclosed, and the regulations and guidance will be slanted in that direction. However, the agency will be allowed to withhold the information when, for example, its direct contact with the applicant means that it has concerns about the disclosure of which the identified person was not aware.

As I outlined earlier to the hon. Gentleman, we anticipate providing access to the independent review where access is blocked in that manner. Where consent cannot be obtained, the agency will have the ability to release the information in appropriate circumstances.

A different approach is necessary to requests for information about a child. Although the process would be similar, we would not make it a condition that the agency had to approach the adoptive family. Where the agency decided to proceed, it would be under a duty to make all reasonable efforts to contact the adoptive parents to find out their views and establish whether they would consent. The agency can also seek the views of the child if it considers it appropriate to do so, having regard to the child's age and understanding.

We will no doubt go into the matter in more detail when we discuss the new clauses. There will be a higher level of protection with regard to disclosing information about a child, certainly in terms of making contact for the purposes of seeking consent to disclose such information, than there will be in the case of an adult. The Government believe that to be appropriate. Where a request is made for information that could identify both a child and an adult, the principle of the paramountcy of the child's welfare, which is also included in new clause 8, must be applied to the decision.

I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some guidance on the Government's approach to the new clauses and that on that basis he feels able to withdraw the amendment.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I thank the Minister for that explanation. It was helpful, but not adequate. The position needs to be fleshed out, and the Minister admitted as much herself. I hope that, over the Christmas recess, the Government will think about how to do that.

The Minister's point on the technicalities of the amendment placing further burdens on the courts was fair. However, that was not my actual point. When the amendment was tabled, it was intended to represent the elegant middle ground in contrast to the Government's brutal approach. I shall not pander to certain Labour Back-Benchers who want to make out that the amendment represents an unusual or nonsensical approach, because it makes more sense than their Government's approach.

However, I appreciate that the ground has shifted and that new amendments have been tabled, although they are not available for debate today. The Minister referred to seeking the views of the child before contact. What if the child does not know that he or she is adopted before the views are sought? That should be considered. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

With this it will be convenient to debate the following: New clause 5—Intermediary services—

(1) Regulations may require adoption agencies to provide an intermediary service at the request of an adopted person, or a birth relative of an adopted person.

(2) Where the intermediary service is requested by a birth relative of an adopted person, the regulations may provide that the Adoption Agency shall use such information as is available to it to contact the adopted person, and notify them of the request of the birth relative to receive identifying information about the adopted person.

But regulations made by virtue of subsection (2) shall provide that information as to the identity of the adopted person shall only be given to the birth relative with the consent of the adopted person.'.

Government new clause 6—Disclosing information during adoption process.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy mentioned the word ''lacuna'' and it was my view when I tabled new clause 5 that that word was applicable. There was a gap on access to information for birth parents. My new clause may be flawed and may not go far enough, but it is my view that birth parents whose children were adopted pre-1975 should have the right to obtain identifying information about their children. The new clause provides both the opportunity for debate on the issue and a statutory basis for birth relatives to have means of showing a desire to contact adopted persons when they reach adulthood. I welcome the Government's effort, in new clause 7, to deal with the issues to which I refer. We may need to cogitate further on the matter and digest it over the Christmas period, but I am glad that the gap has been recognised.

Why do we need to legislate for intermediary services for birth relatives? We rehearsed some points earlier in interventions when the hon. Member for Huntingdon spoke to his amendment. First, there is a postcode lottery across the country as regards the provision of intermediary services from adoption agencies and local authorities. Whether those services are provided depends on where one lives. There is no requirement to provide those services but, as they are provided throughout the country to an increasing extent, it is right that they should appear in the Bill and have a statutory basis.

We need the reference to intermediary services to address past injustices. Every day in this country someone—usually an elderly woman—wakes up and thinks about the child that she gave up many years ago

for adoption. Prior to 1975, many birth mothers gave up their children when they felt that they had no choice, because they lived in a very different society from the one in which we live today. Many still consider that they were pressurised into the decision and have had to live with it throughout their lives. In considering this aspect of the Bill, we should consider their position and show some humanity in debating it. All people affected by adoption must be given opportunities to access knowledge and exchange information with the appropriate consent. Birth parents should at least be able to express the desire to do so.

The research shows clearly that 90 per cent. of non-searching adoptive people who are informed of the birth relatives' inquiry agree to have some form of contact. Only 6 per cent. do not agree that adopted adults should be informed of a birth relative's interest. Apparently, 75 per cent. of non-searching adopted adults have never even heard of the adoption contact register, while 74 per cent. of non-searching adopted adults did not feel comfortable asking their adoptive parents for information about their birth family and background. One does not need a great deal of imagination to understand the clear benefits in allowing birth relatives to initiate that contact.

Research also states that 80 per cent. of non-searching adopted adults thought about their birth parents while they were growing up, and 80 per cent. of non-searching adopted adults said that the contact with a birth relative answered important questions about their origins and background. Five years after the first contact was made, 55 per cent. of non-searching adopted adults were still in contact with their birth relatives. That is a human success story on which we should build. Statistics are only statistics, but behind them are real human stories that we should consider when we debate the Bill.

I referred to a constituent of mine who believes, rightly or wrongly, that her adopted child was abused by her birth mother when in fact the abuse took place when the child was in the care of the local authority and the child received criminal compensation. The hon. Member for Canterbury referred to cases when disclosure of information may have had a catastrophic effect on an adopted child, and I accept that the example that he gave of a 15-year-old girl from his constituency fell into that category. However, I am proposing not to enable such cases to occur but to allow birth parents the right at least to signal their desire to contact adopted persons in adulthood. I do not propose that they should be able to do that while the adopted child is growing up or going through a difficult development after, perhaps, a difficult adoption.

I can cite cases to counter that given by the hon. Gentleman. The Children's Society gave me some information on the matter. I withhold from criticising the society's decision to withdraw from its work in Wales, because it does good work in general. It

provided an example of a young man called Anthony, whose adoptive parents contacted the society when he was 17 years old, because he wanted access to information. They were told at that time that Anthony could not receive the information until he was 18 years old. A few years later, when nothing happened with his case, he committed suicide. Afterwards, the Children's Society realised that Anthony's birth parents had contacted the society when he was 15 to say that they were interested in his progress and would like to know more about him, and would like him to know that they were interested in his progress. I am not saying that that was the cause of his suicide, as these matters are complicated, but my proposals address that kind of dysfunction and misunderstanding.

I refer, too, to the case of George who, in 1994, wanted background information about his origins, which were held on the Children's Society's adoption records. He thought that he might begin a search for his birth mother. She had written to the society three years earlier to say that she would be pleased to hear from him, but the letter was received when the Children's Society did not have the proactive policy that I propose. When George found out about the letter, he was delighted that his mother had written; through the Children's Society, he contacted the last known address, sadly to discover that his birth mother had died six months earlier. We should try to avoid those scenarios and legislate against the possibility of them happening.

I shall mention one other case, of someone who takes close interest in the Bill. In fact, without wishing to breach protocol, I can say that Irene takes very close interest in our proceedings today. She is a birth mother aged 76, who tried to locate her daughter, Anna, whom she had relinquished for adoption 50 years ago. The agency that held the adoption records did not provide intermediary services for birth relatives. Her search lasted for more than 10 years. Eventually the information was obtained and Irene learned that her daughter had died 39 years ago, aged 11. She had to rebuild her hopes and dreams in the light of that information, but for 10 years she had been left looking for it. It should have been provided to her much earlier. I recognise that Opposition Members have also acknowledged that such cases should not continue to occur.

Several times in our sittings, the hon. Member for Huntingdon has spoken about a pre-1975 deal that would be broken if we allowed birth parents access to information or if we permitted them actively to signal to adopted persons in adulthood that they wanted to contact them. That deal has already been broken. It was broken when adopted persons were given the right to seek identifying information about themselves and to find their origins. In addition, the hon. Gentleman's objection ignores the changes that have happened in society. I do not know whether he has seen the fine British feature film, directed by Mike Leigh, called ''Secrets and Lies'', but his attitude perpetuates the culture of secrets and lies. We should be trying to get away from that in legislating for adoption in this day and age. I hope that he will rethink his position over

Christmas and return, suitably reformed—[Interruption.]—or modernised, if hon. Members prefer to say that.

I think that hon. Members have received copies of the personal statement of Pam Hodgkins MBE, the founder of NORCAP. In that statement, remembering the time when she began her work, she says:

''I naively believed that the adopted person had no voice in the original proceedings whilst the birth mother had made a choice. I therefore considered that the balance of the law from the 1976 Act was correct. I quickly learned that whilst the adopted person had no voice fear, shame and the pressure of family and society silenced the voice of birth mothers.''

It is for that very reason that many Commonwealth countries, following the lead taken in the 1976 Act, dealt with the matter of birth parents receiving information. Pam Hodgkins says:

''I was also learning from my practice that there were benefits to all parties when a birth relative was the person offering renewed communication . . . Everything demonstrates the need for change I am advocating now. There is no evidence whatsoever that making these changes would be problematic or harmful. The aged birth relatives uppermost in my mind are mothers in their 70s and 80s who parted with babies who are now 30 to 60 years old and the siblings of the babies adopted in the war years and beyond.''

Without the changes for which I argue, the Bill will uphold a dubious principle and perpetuate a cruel and unusual punishment—the psychological punishment of a life sentence of uncertainty about what happened to one's child. We should bring to an end that injustice, before it is too late for the generation who gave up their children.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I rise to support my hon. Friend's excellent speech. His pursuit of the issue through Second Reading and Committee has been notable. It would be a considerable tribute to my hon. Friend if the Government tabled a new clause to deal with this important adoption issue. He has swept the legs from under those who want to argue that new Labour is full of drones, in thrall to the Whips and at the mercy of Ministers. He has told us that the Committee is the first on which he has served and what he has done on it is a model of parliamentary work.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Perhaps I can drone for a while. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) said that parents often felt pressurised to give up their children. Does he agree that many of them were deceived about what happened to those children? I am thinking especially of child migrants. Between the war and 1967, 10,000 children were shipped to parts of the former empire and the parents were never told what happened to them. Many parents believed that those children were put up for adoption. The sands of time are running out and those people would welcome new regulations.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I agree with my hon. Friend, although I would never use a cliche such as ''the sands of time''. New clause 5 is about reparation—undoing some of the wrongs of the care system. The Government are changing the care system dramatically and we have an opportunity to right wrongs that have been perpetrated in the past.

If we establish mediation systems through new clause 5 or other provisions, I hope that they will not be needed for many decades. I sincerely hope that the adoption system that the Bill will set up will be open to easy access and full of tremendous knowledge and information. I hope that people will not go through the deceptions, lack of information, secrecy and iniquity that has been present in adoption in the past and that we have a much better, freer and more civilised adoption system. That is plainly needed now.

We cannot say that the rights of birth parents are the same as those of people who have been adopted. I was surprised to hear Professor Triseliotis attempt to strike a balance between the two, because the balance of power needs to be with the person who was adopted. The contribution from that eminent person was otherwise tremendous.

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

On that point, does my hon. Friend accept that the quality of the intermediary services will be to recognise that the balance should be with the child, but to enable contact to take place when it is welcomed? Thereby, it will meet the needs of all those involved.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

My hon. Friend exemplifies the point that we both tried to make this morning. The process is not bureaucratic, but skilful, careful, intuitive and very human.

I do not want to say more, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has said everything important. If his new clause is not acceptable for technical or drafting reasons, I sincerely hope that everyone will support the proposals that the Government will eventually make under the clause and, in the process, ensure that the Bill is tremendously improved.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall deal with the issues raised in relation to new clause 5 and then to introduce Government new clause 6.

On new clause 5, there is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West made a powerful contribution to our discussion and highlighted, as have other hon. Members, the fact that the provision of intermediary services to birth relatives who wish to contact an adopted adult is a complex area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre outlined, it may not be possible to lay down cast-iron rights, especially for birth parents, although I appreciate that that is not proposed in new clause 5.

The Government understand the need of birth parents to know how the lives of their children have progressed. For that reason, we would like agencies to take a positive and compassionate view towards the approaches of birth relatives who wish to trace people from whom they were separated. Last year, with the assistance of the Children's Society, the Government produced good practice guidance on intermediary services for birth relatives. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) concluded the forward by saying

''I would expect an agency's response to a request for intermediary services from a birth relative to be sympathetic and as helpful as possible.''

However, in doing so, adoption agencies must carefully consider and balance the needs of all parties concerned. In particular, they must take account of an adopted person's rights to privacy and to protect the family life created through adoption.

The provision of intermediary services to adopted adults wishing to contact a birth relative is an equally complex area. There are many cases—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has ably outlined the examples—where people want help to trace a relative, but others feel strongly that the relative should not be traced or contacted. I have spoken to two people who were adopted between the periods mentioned by my hon. Friend, who said that they would not want to be contacted by their birth parents. One may or may not agree, but we must recognise that some people hold that view, even if they are in a minority.

In the light of conflicting views about intermediary services, it is important to think carefully about what role they should play. My hon. Friend made a powerful argument for the role of intermediary services as part of the adoption support framework that the Government intend to implement. Intermediary services are a support service like other services such as counselling and support groups. As we explored when we discussed clause 3, we have expanded the provisions to ensure that local authorities will have a duty to provide adoption support services and not just for adopted children and their families. As we develop the new framework for adoption support services, it will be possible to consider the provision of intermediary services as part of the debate on the context of that framework and also the provisions of all other forms of adoption support. If, following that consultation, we decide that it would be appropriate to require all local authorities to make arrangements to put intermediary services in place as part of their adoption service, we could make regulations requiring them to do so. To that extent, the new clause is unnecessary, although it has enabled the hon. Gentleman to raise his concerns.

One other important point about the adoption support framework, is that it will enable us to provide support for those adoptions that took place before the provisions of the Bill were implemented. Hon. Members have said, as I have, that the Government new clauses could allow a more proactive approach in ensuring opportunities for contact and the passing of information between adopted adults and their birth relatives; but those provisions will apply to adoptions taking place after the Bill is passed. We have scope within the adoption support provisions to deal with adoptions that happened before the Bill was passed, and for provisions on the disclosure of information after the Bill is passed, which we shall debate later in more detail.

I hope that my hon. Friend realises that I have sympathy with his views, although I would not go as far as him in seeing it as an absolute right. It is one of

those extremely difficult and sensitive areas and it highlights the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre. It is not about a bureaucratic process or about rights; it is about providing support that enables appropriate contacts to be made. We shall be able to consider that as we take forward the adoption support framework.

Government new clause 6 is designed to respond to the concerns expressed by a number of witnesses during the Committee's evidence sittings about the crucial importance of adopters receiving full and appropriate information about a child during the matching process, and to support the adoptive placement well in advance of the adoption order. A number of witnesses felt that the Bill did not address that clearly enough. They said that the provisions of clause 57 on the providing of information following the adoption order did not spell out the entitlement clearly and that it caused a misunderstanding about what the Government intended to be provided to prospective adopters.

The Government entirely agree that it is crucial that adopters receive full information during matching and to help the placement succeed. Under regulation 12 of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983, after making a decision following a panel hearing that a prospective adopter would be a suitable adoptive parent for a particular child, adoption agencies are required to provide written information to the prospective adopter that sets out the child's personal history and background, including his cultural and religious background, his health history and his current state of health, together with the agency's written proposals in respect of the placement.

Our national standards underpin that by making it clear that, before a match is agreed, adopters should be given full written information to help them understand the needs and background of the child and an opportunity to discuss that and the implications for them and their family. It has always been our intention to use the various regulation-making powers under the Bill to provide for that, but in light of what has been said, we think it would be appropriate to amend the Bill to make our intention clear. That is why the amendment removes clause 57. The new clause therefore makes clear that the general regulation-making power under clause 9 may be used to set out the key stages at which adoption agencies are to provide information to prospective adopters and the information that they will be obliged to provide.

As is set out in my letter to the Committee, the Government intend to use that power to make regulations to ensure that a fully comprehensive package of background information should be made available at three stages: where a match is being considered, once a match has been approved and in preparing for the placement of the child.

Let me spell out what we envisage will be included at those three stages. At the linking stage, when the prospective adopters are first visited by the child's social worker and the adoption social worker, there will be a summary report on the child. That will provide information on the child's appearance and

family circumstances, the part played in his life by his birth parents, his home environment, why he had been taken into care or given up for adoption, his behaviour, how he interacts with other children and relates to adults and his current care status. It should not contain identifying information about anyone other than the child, and the adopters will be asked to agree to keep the information confidential.

At the second stage, after the matching recommendation by the adoption and the decision by the agency decision maker, there will be a full matching report on the child. That will provide the prospective adopters with all the information that they need to decide whether to go ahead with the match. It will include a full description of the child's history, personality and behaviour and of his needs, problems and progress at school and in care. It will be supported by medical, psychiatric, psychological and educational information. The adopters will, again, be asked to agree to keep that information confidential.

If the prospective adopters, having had the time to consider the full matching report, wish to proceed to the preparations for the placement, they will be provided with a written proposal setting out the terms for the placement. That will include details of proposed financial and other support arrangements and of any agreement about contact arrangements. If the child's birth family agrees in writing, life story books, which could include birth certificates, photo albums and other identifying information such as family trees may be passed to the prospective adopters, who will be asked to sign a further undertaking to keep the identifying information confidential.

We intend to consult again with stakeholders in the adoption field to ensure that the regulations and guidance set out an appropriately full range of information to help adopters successfully to care for the child. We shall also ensure through regulations and guidance that, where appropriate, adoption agencies pass on to adopters any relevant information that they obtain after the adoption order has been made.

I hope that Government new clause 6 allays the concern—although unfounded—that was properly represented and expressed at the evidence-gathering sitting, that the Government had not made clear their expectations in relation to the information to be provided for prospective adopters. That is our reason for having tabled new clause 6 and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Disclosure of other information

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 189, in page 32, line 23, at end insert—

'Where an adoption agency which has carried out functions in respect of an adopted person is made aware of the death of that adopted person, it shall have a duty to make reasonable efforts to inform the natural parents of that adopted person of that person's death'.

This is very straightforward and I hope that it is not contentious. We have debated at length the disclosure of information to birth parents and will, I am sure, return to it. The amendment tackles a matter that arose during the evidence-gathering sitting by making an addition to clause 55 to the effect that if an adoption agency that has acted for an adopted person has been

''made aware of the death of that adopted person, it shall have a duty to make reasonable efforts to inform the natural parents of that adopted person of that person's death''.

Contentious issues arise as to what information should be made available to birth relatives and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West eloquently made a strong case. I agreed with much of what he said and disagreed with part of it, but his points were well made. The Minister acknowledged that the issue was sensitive and we are dealing with cases that go back many years. I hope that a better system will come from our deliberations, but the issues must be handled sensibly.

However, the point with which the amendment deals is perfectly reasonable and above contention and it was raised in the Committee's witness stages. Birth parents surely have a right to know whether a birth child whom they gave up for adoption is still alive. We can envisage various scenarios. A birth parent who gave a child up for adoption 20, 30 or 40 years ago may decide to seek contact at a late stage or at least to seek information about the child's well-being without making contact. A birth parent may have given up a child in difficult circumstances many years ago, not of their own volition, because they were under pressure. They may genuinely want to seek information about their child and it would be a cruel trick if they found out, after a good deal of effort and investigation, that the child had died some years previously and that all their work, hopes and expectations were completely in vain.

We can continue to debate what other information should be available to birth parents who are actively seeking a child who is still alive. At the very least, however—we are not talking about an absolute compulsion—adoption agencies should make all reasonable efforts to inform the birth parents that the adopted child has passed away. That is reasonable and humane and I doubt whether most members of the Committee would disagree with the thrust of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able, to coin a phrase, to adopt it, even if she has some criticism of the way in which it is phrased.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I have some sympathy with the amendment, although there are problems with it. It would place a statutory duty on an adoption agency that had carried out any function in respect of an adopted person to make reasonable efforts to inform the birth parents where it was aware that that person had died. The reference to an adopted person in respect of whom the agency has carried out any

function would give the amendment a very broad scope. It could, for example, apply where an agency had placed a child for adoption or, in the case of a non-agency placement, notified of the intention to adopt.

As I said, I sympathise with the humane intentions behind the amendment. We all understand why it would be right for the birth family to know about the death of the adopted person, especially as we would want that distressing information to be passed on with care and consideration for their feelings. The national adoption standards state that where adoptive parents have agreed to inform the agency of the death of the adopted child, birth parents, or the next of kin will, if they wish, be informed by the adoption agency. I am pleased that the amendment does not go so far as to place a responsibility on to adoptive parents to inform the adoption agency if their adopted child should die. That would place a considerable pressure on adoptive parents at a very distressing time.

The amendment appears to be similar to schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, which places an obligation on local authorities, when a child in their care dies, to notify, so far as reasonably practical, the child's parents and every person who has parental responsibility for them. In such a case the local authority would have direct responsibility for the care of that particular child. It is a slightly different situation with an adoption agency, which would not have that direct caring responsibility.

However, a similar duty might be placed on adoption agencies where they become aware of the death of the adopted person, under the powers in clause 9. As I suggested earlier, we would want to prescribe the way in which the agencies should carry this out, ensuring that they would not actively seek the information but would act only on information passed to them by the adoptive family. I am prepared to consider that and to consult adoption stakeholders about an appropriate way forward. I hope that with those assurances the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is good news. I thought that the Minister was toying with my emotions when, having said that she had some sympathy with the amendment, she then said that she some problems with it. That is how she always balances her retorts. She appears to want to give some power of veto to the adoptive parents on the availability of the information. I do not

agree that such a power should be given to them. It is a basic human kindness that such information should be made available. I am heartened, though, by the Minister's comments that she is prepared to reconsider the matter. On that basis, we can hopefully look forward to something on Report.

I appreciate that the amendment may be drawn too widely. I am sure that that is easily remedied in terms of which adoption agencies will be involved in the responsibility. The amendment imposes a responsibility, not an outright duty. We are trying not to make things too onerous for adoption agencies. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will produce a more reasonably worded version of the clause on Report. The principle is right and necessary. It is a basic right of all people involved in adoption. On the basis of the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 201, in page 32, line 29, leave out subsection (4).

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

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 202.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Amendment No. 201 removes subsection (4) of clause 55, which provides for information about a child to be disclosed to prospective adopters if it has been prescribed for that purpose. The subsection is to be removed as a consequence of a new clause we have introduced specifically to deal with the passing on of information to prospective adopters. It is no longer required, due to the provisions that new clause 6 includes in the Bill.

Amendment No. 202 is a minor consequential amendment to remove from clause 56 the reference to clause 55(4). If amendment No. 201 is agreed to, that subsection will be omitted from clause 55. With that clear explanation, I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 10 January at half-past Nine o'clock.