Adoption and Children Bill

Public Bill Committee, 10 January 2002.

Special Standing Committee

Clause 56 - Offence

Clause 57 - Disclosing information to adopters

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 32, line 37, leave out

'As soon as practicable after the making of an adoption order'

and insert

'At the time of making'.

Good morning, Mr. Stevenson. I trust that you had a fortifying recess and that you are refreshed and ready to deal with the rest of the Bill.

Clause 57 is about the disclosure of information to adopters. No doubt, the Minister is geared up to say that we have already dealt with that, but in the last, rather rushed, sitting before the recess, when we started debating the raft of clauses—53 to 62—dealing with access to information of different types, we were faced with a number of 11th-hour Government amendments.

I said then that it was all rather confusing, and I see from Hansard and from the fateful letter that she provided to the Committee on 13 December that the Minister agrees that it is an especially complex part of the Bill. It is therefore slightly annoying, Mr. Stevenson—I wonder whether any approaches have been made to you on the subject—that there has been a substantial rewrite of those clauses, including clause 57. If I understand the Minister's intentions correctly, Government Members will vote against clause 57 stand part, having already replaced it with new clause 6—a new clause of which the Committee had very little notice before agreeing it during the last sitting before the recess.

Whenever amendments are used substantially to rewrite parts of the Bill because of a change of heart—a welcome one, in this case—comprehensive explanatory notes should be provided to explain Ministers' thinking, and those clauses should be written in a draft form that includes those amendments, which would make the changes easier to follow. We are now considering an amendment to clause 57, but the Government have tabled an amendment to delete the whole clause—and amendment that has not been selected because it is

technically wrong. My guess is that the clause has been superseded by new clause 6, which we still think is inadequate.

What I am attempting to do this morning is not easy. I want to amend clause 57 and I am happy with the amendment, but I fear that it will be blown out of the water because the Government have already inserted a new clause that sort of relates to the subject but is wholly inadequate. That may sound confusing, but we are in a confusing position. I wonder, Mr. Stevenson, whether the Minister has made representations to you about making further information available to the Committee.

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

I am advised that the answer to that direct question is no.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am not surprised, Mr. Stevenson, but it is a shame. Perhaps the Minister will make further information available to the Committee. She said that this part of the Bill is complicated, and it is to be changed fundamentally. It would, at the very least, have been courteous of the Government to give the Committee a full explanation of their thinking when their amendments were tabled and before we started discussing them at our last sitting before the recess. Had they done so, Opposition Members would have known on what basis we could table amendments to influence the Government's thinking.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I agree with my hon. Friend. Given the Government and Opposition amendments before us, it will be impossible to consider properly this messy series of clauses. I note from the amendment paper that the Government have tabled amendment No. 203 to delete clause 57, but the amendment is not on the selection list.

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

It has not been selected.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend's comment demonstrates the confusion about this part of the Bill. We shall progress, but events will show the inadequacies of the Committee system when at the very last moment at which amendments can be tabled, a Committee is faced with a complete overhaul of the Government's intentions.

To return to the amendment, in her letter of 13 December—afternoon—to the Committee, the Minister said:

''we have decided to table amendments to the relevant provisions in the Bill to provide an enabling power through regulations to require adoption agencies to release certain information to prospective adopters at three key stages''.

She then gave rough details of what those stages were likely to be. However, the Government have tabled no amendments; they simply want to get rid of the clause and to replace it with a new clause, and they will do so, provided the Committee votes accordingly.

Theoretically, new clause 6 will replace clause 57. I have a complaint about an issue that some hon. Members, including me, failed to recognise when we first saw the amendments in the last-minute rush the day before the recess. The new clause states:

''Regulations under section 9 may require adoption agencies in prescribed circumstances to disclose in accordance with the regulations prescribed information to prospective adopters.''

I take issue with the words ''may require''. Making available information about medical records and other matters is such an important part of the adoption process that ''may require'' is not good enough. Furthermore, those words are connected with regulations that we have not yet seen and of which we have been given only a rough idea in a letter that was, in any case, flawed. That does not give me sufficient confidence that what the Minister has sort of suggested she wants will achieve what Opposition Members want.

Let me state the reasons why amendment No. 52 should change the wording of clause 57 to make it clear that it is crucial that information should be available at the time of matching, when the adoption process is in full flight. We suggest removing the words

''As soon as practicable after the making of an adoption order''

and inserting the words

''At the time of making''

the adoption order. That is the key to the amendment.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Before my hon. Friend moves on to the detail, he might consider further the point about ''may'' or ''might''. Ironically, the new clause appears to water down the provisions: new clause 6 says ''may'', but clause 57, which it replaces, says ''must'', at line 38.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is correct. We want to retain clause 57 because it contains phrases such as ''must disclose'', which make matters absolutely clear. There is no ''may'', or ''regulations may prescribe''—the word is ''must'', and we want to retain that. The bone of contention is when the information is to be made available. It should be available much earlier in the adoption process. I shall give some examples of why that is so important.

To be fair to the Minister, she admitted in her letter that there had been concerns about and representations on making sufficient information available to prospective adopters at an early stage. That is supposedly why she came up with the changes, but we feel that they do not go far enough. One representation that all members of the Committee saw was from the Children's Society. Referring to the provision in clause 57 that required information to be given after the adoption order was made, it stated:

''This is too late. In order to consider whether they are able to care properly for a child, adopters must have all the necessary information about the child at the outset of the placement so that they can make an informed decision about whether to proceed. A finding of many disruption meetings is that a contributory factor to the breakdown of a placement is the lack of information given to adopters at an early stage. Anything that can be done to prevent the damaging effects of disruption on young people must be pursued.''—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 21 November 2001; c. 236–37.]

I agree wholeheartedly.

The Adoption Forum, referring to the same problem in clause 57, stated:

''without sufficient information at the time of matching . . . the prospective family''

cannot

''make an informed decision about whether they could or would want to become the child's parents. For example, a family may not feel it could deal with a child who had been sexually abused.''—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 21 November 2001; c. 169.]

If social services departments hold that information—such matters, of course, are sometimes revealed only when a child settles with a new and trusted family—it should be provided at the start, the Adoption Forum suggested. Again, I agree.

Barnardo's is an interesting case, as it was recently pulled up for not providing information. It stated:

''We cannot understand why the proposed timing for this is not consistent with current practice or the requirement of Regulation 12 (1983—Adoption Agencies Regulations). Adoptive parents need written information about the child and their background when they are considering whether to proceed with a placement not after the order has been granted. The Department of Health will be aware that, together with a local authority, we were recently sued for allegedly failing to provide full information at the time of a placement, which subsequently disrupted after the adoption order. We were successful in refuting the claim and the case was dismissed but we believe that we could have been legitimately accused of negligence had the information not been provided until after the child was adopted, as required by clause 57''.—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, November 2001; c. 355.]

Mr. Robin Harritt, who has been in communication with me and made submissions to the Committee, has personal experience of adoption, having been adopted himself. He has spent a long time trying to contact his several siblings, with partial success. He said:

''It might interest the Committee to know that I have only just received some of my personal medical information from Barnardo's after ten years of complaints and legal threat, I still await from Barnardo's, the kind of information that Ms Gunn-Rosso required from Nugent Care''.—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, November 2001; c. 295.]

That was a well known case. Mr. Harritt continues:

''In my search for my siblings I have found that one of my brothers died in his early thirties, from coronary thrombosis, apparently my maternal grandfather also died from a similar disease, everyone in our family needs to know this. I am aware of the service provided by the National Health Service Central Records department at Smedly Hydro, but very few other people who might want to make use of it, have.''— [Official Report, Special Standing Committee, November 2001; c. 298.]

Mr. Harritt draws my attention to a case that the BBC is taking up in a documentary. The subject of a news item on the internet last week, the case of the Gorry family is interesting and pertinent to our endeavours. The news item stated:

''Losing one member of your family in tragic circumstances is devastating, but when a third of your extended family is wiped out, it is a catastrophe.

This is what happened to the Gorry family.

But it was not until a doctor in Australia diagnosed a rare heart disorder in a member of the younger generation, the family realised some carry a life-threatening inherited rogue gene . . . Father-of-two Neil Halliday, who appears to have escaped the disorder, discovered the 'catastrophe' while researching his family tree . . . he discovered that nearly a third''—

of his family—

''had died suddenly while young.

He has since discovered that his brother Kevin, sister Yvonne, mother Phyllis . . . and other members of the family were the victims of Long QT syndrome—a type of sudden adult death syndrome''

Mr. Halliday is now desperately trying to make contact with all the members of the family—some of

whom have been adopted and with whom he has no links—to warn them that there is a serious family genetic problem of which he and, he assumes, other family members have until now had no knowledge. The condition can be treated using, among other things, beta blockers.

Two alarming aspects of that motivated the amendment, which would emphasis the importance of providing the information as early as possible. The first is medical: it is essential that prospective adoptive parents know about a prospective adopted child's medical condition, so that they can assess whether they can cope with it. Later, it is essential that those parents are in possession of as full a medical record as possible, in case the sort of genetic disorder is present that could have a serious impact on the health of the child and his or her siblings in future. People should not have to wait for 10 or 20 years for medical records. It should be implicit that when a match is made, a full medical history is available to the prospective adopters so that the well-being of the child can be properly attended to.

The second aspect was mentioned by Professor Triseliotis, who spoke about his work in adoption during the witness sittings of the Committee. He mentioned the case of a child who had been abused at bath time. The child was subsequently adopted, but went berserk whenever his new parents tried to give him a bath. They could not understand the problem. Of course, the problem was that that child associated bath time with being abused and the horrific events of an obviously tragic case of abuse in his original home.

Surely it is essential that prospective adopters know about such things when a match is being made. Then, they can fully assimilate all the facts about a child and determine whether they can cope with him and give him an adequate environment. That is especially important if the child has a range of special needs and comes from a rather murky background. There should be no ''mays'', no ''it will come along if the regulations allow for it''. At as early a stage as possible, full medical, behavioural and other pertinent records on the prospective adoptive child should be made available to the prospective adoptive parents. Only on that basis can they hope to make an informed decision on whether they can offer the appropriate environment for that child. Only then can they hope to be in possession of all the facts that might affect the future medical well-being of that child and other siblings with whom contact might be made in future.

That would be in everyone's interests. It would not involve an enormous amount of extra work, because if the work is done properly, there may be savings later on the pain, angst and requirements for extra support—and the associated extra costs—if the placement breaks down because all the facts were not properly made available and assimilated out in the first place. That is what we are trying to achieve.

I appreciate that the Minister has gone some way to recognising the importance of such a provision, but, there is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned, a serious flaw: the new clause waters down the Bill's good intention.

Furthermore, the issue of timing needs to be beefed up. That is what the amendment is designed to achieve, and I strongly commend it to the Committee.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I rise to reinforce the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). Possibly because I enjoyed the Christmas break too much, I did not fully follow the debate, and I am a little puzzled. On information, we heard some of the clearest and most eloquent testimony that I have ever heard in a Committee. I shall not bore hon. Members by repeating the points that my hon. Friend drew from that testimony.

People who have adopted have repeatedly made the point that it is crucial that they have all the information available on the child. I shall refer to a constituency case that I have mentioned before. The problems in that case did not relate to information, because the couple were given the information, but the Committee will be able to see what problems would have occurred had they not been given that information immediately on taking on the children.

The case involved two young lads, one of whom had been kept locked in a cellar for six years and was almost unable to speak; the other had been left outside in cold weather so frequently that he developed gangrene in both feet and came close to having to have them amputated, although in the end, doctors managed to save them. Knowing that he would become upset if he got at all cold, the mother would immediately warm his feet. That may sound a little bizarre, and is something that she would not have thought of had she not been given the facts of the case, but the boy found it very consoling.

The case of the poor boy who had been kept for six years in the cellar is more complicated. He had almost no ability to speak, and if the adoptive parents had not been told the ghastly circumstances in which the child had been kept by the people who had passed for his parents, he might have appeared to be completely stupid. In fact, there is no evidence that the child had any genetic failings: if one is shut off from all communication for the first six years of one's life, one does not learn to talk. It is a difficult challenge to teach a child aged six to talk.

My hon. Friend's two main arguments are crucial. First, full information must be provided and, secondly, it must be provided in good time. Our courts do not allow the introduction of hearsay evidence. Although Parliament is not controlled by that rule, I will not name names because of the seriousness of the matter. However, people involved in adoption for whom I have great respect tell me that—occasionally, and off the record—professionals have said, ''If we allowed the parents to have all the facts on some of these cases, we'd never get the little blighters adopted at all.'' That is a serious allegation to make about those professionals, but I shall not name names because I cannot actually prove that they said such a palpably untrue thing.

Every member of the Committee supports the central objective of the Bill, which is to get more children adopted. The sort of approach reflected in such remarks is completely unacceptable and wrong.

My saintly constituents who took on those two little boys knew everything about them—and there is not much worse that one can know about a child than that he was locked in the dark for six years and cannot talk. We owe the people who take on those potential emotional tragedies, turn them round and give them loving homes, the right to know everything that has gone wrong in the child's life, as far as the agency involved is able to provide that information.

I apologise for not going into more detail, but I am a little confused about the mechanics of what is going on. It strikes me as extraordinary that we are moving from tight original wording to much looser wording. I look forward to the Minister's response.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I welcome you, Mr. Stevenson, and the rest of the Committee back after the break.

I begin by responding to the points made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham about the extent of the information on amendments that has been made available by the Government. I remind the Committee that we made information available both by circulating a letter to members of the Committee and by tabling the amendments and new clauses setting out the changes before Christmas. Although, as has been said, we were not able to discuss them on the Thursday before the recess, the Government gave Committee members and others a clear idea of the our intentions.

Hon. Members will remember and the record will show that I spoke at considerable length in Committee about how the Government intended the provisions to fit together to deliver the changes that we were making in response to evidence that emerged during the Committee's proceedings. I understand that hon. Members might have returned after the break not quite as immersed in the Bill as they were before, but we have made significant efforts to spell out the future position and explain our proposed changes.

As the hon. Gentleman said, amendment No. 52 is to be made to a clause that the Government, consequent on other changes that we are making, will propose should not stand part of the Bill. I have some sympathy with the issues raised by Opposition Members, but none with the idea that we have not already made explicit the way in which the Government intend to deal with concerns about what information is provided for prospective adopters, and when it is provided. We made that clear in the debate before Christmas, in my letter to the Committee, and in the other information that I have made available to the Committee.

We were aware that during the Committee's hearings several witnesses had stated the importance of adopters receiving full and appropriate information about a child during the matching process, and of supporting the adoptive placement well in advance of the adoption order being made. A number of witnesses suggested that the Bill did not address that clearly enough, commenting that clause 57, referring to the provision of information following the adoption order,

did not make sufficiently clear the need for information to be provided before the stage of the adoption order being made was reached. Introducing new clause 6 and explaining it enabled us to make that explicit.

We will set out in regulations that information should be made available to prospective adopters before the stage of the adoption order. We entirely agree that it is crucial that adopters receive full information during matching to help the placement to succeed. That is not a change of policy. It was always our intention to use the various regulation-making powers under the Bill to provide for that, but in the light of the points made, we thought it appropriate to amend the Bill to make the intention clear. That is why we propose to remove clause 57, while new clause 6 makes it 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 are obliged to provide.

For the benefit of the Committee and in view of the break that we have had, I shall explain what we envisage being provided at the relevant stages. That should overcome some of the concerns that have been expressed by Opposition Members. First, in the light of the intervention by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), it might be worth while—although it is not my role—to set out what I understand to be the process by which clauses are removed. An amendment is tabled to remove a particular clause; it appears on the amendment paper, thus making the Government's intention clear, but it does not have to be dealt with as an amendment, because the outcome can be achieved by moving that the clause not stand part of the Bill. There has not been a Government error, although the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made such a mischievous suggestion—dare I say that he might be slightly bad tempered following his holiday? The procedure adopted is perfectly in order.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Holiday moods notwithstanding, given all the amendments, it would have been helpful if the Committee had received a redraft of all the information and the provisions, along with some accompanying notes. In effect, we are starting from scratch and have been left with a confusing series of amendments.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Without claiming too much for my letter, the intention behind it and the amendments was to set out with greater clarity than is often found in explanatory notes our intentions and the way in which the provisions would fit together. I am sure that in the intervals between celebrations during the festive period, the hon. Gentleman pored over the amendments that were available before the holiday to ensure that he was clear about what is intended. Nevertheless, as I proceed today, I shall try again to make it clear to the Committee what the provisions will achieve.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I appreciate that the new clause is important. Why does

the word ''may'' appear in the first line, rather than ''shall''? Also—and I ask this not mischievously but for information—may we have examples of the ''prescribed information'' referred to in the new clause?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We have previously debated the use of the words ''may'' or ''shall'' in relation to regulations. I made it clear that using the word ''may'' does not imply that the Government will try to evade their responsibility to provide regulations. When discussing new clause 6, I explained—in a way that I thought made matters clearer—what we intend to include in the regulations; however, I shall explain again. We intend to use the powers under new clause 6 to ensure that, through regulations, we prescribe that agencies must provide certain information to adopters and prospective adopters at three different stages.

First, a summary report on the child would be prepared at the linking stage, when the prospective adopters are first visited by the child's social worker and the adoption social worker. The report would provide information about, for example, the child's appearance, his family circumstances, the part played in his life by his birth parents, his home environment, why he was taken into care or is being given up for adoption, his behaviour, how he interacts with other children, how he relates to adults, and his current care status. It should not contain identifying information about anyone other than the child, and adopters would be asked to agree to keep the information provided confidential.

At the next stage, a full matching report on the child will provide the prospective adopters with all the information that they need to decide whether to go ahead with the match. That report would include much of the information that Opposition Members have highlighted as information that prospective adopters should have, both to enable them to make a decision about the adoption and to ensure its success. Included in that report will be a full description of the child's history, needs, problems, progress at school and in care, personality and behaviour, supported by medical, psychiatric, psychological and educational information.

At the third stage, if the prospective adopters want to proceed to make preparations for the placement, they should be provided with a written proposal setting out the terms of the placement. The proposal should include details of proposed financial and other support arrangements, as well as details about any agreement about contact arrangements. If the child's birth family agrees in writing, life story books, which may include birth certificates, photograph albums and family trees, may be passed to the prospective adopters, who would be asked to sign an undertaking to keep the identifying information confidential.

Although amendment No. 52 does not relate to this point, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to information that might subsequently become available. We will ensure that adoption agencies pass on relevant information to adopters when such information is obtained after the adoption order has been made.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

As I understand it, the Minister is arguing in favour of replacing a primary structure with a regulatory framework that will allow a detailed and sensible approach to be taken. However, she has not explained why she cannot simply table an amendment to allow the Government to make regulations while still providing the stronger primary underpinning of the original clause. What she proposes may be excellent for as long as those regulations are in force, but a future Minister—one who is lobbied by objecting agencies—could strike them out with a statutory instrument. Why not have both the strong primary underpinning and the regulations?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The evidence to which we are responding suggested that there was insufficiently strong primary underpinning, and that the underpinning that it would be possible or appropriate to include in primary legislation could not spell out the procedures in the same amount of detail as could be included in regulations. I do not imagine that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that all the details that I have outlined should be included in the Bill. That would be inappropriate because it would make responding to changes or improving the procedures in future much more difficult.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Will the Minister cover the points made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)? The word ''might'' could be replaced with the word ''shall'' and examples of exemptions could be given so that exemptions are not allowed to blossom in regulations, as so often happens under definitions set out in Bills.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I do not know what the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy thinks, but I thought that I responded fully to his questions. First, on the issue of ''must'', ''shall'' and ''may'', I reinforced points that had previously been made about the wording appropriate for regulations. Secondly, I explained clearly what information, prescribed by regulations, should be provided at various different stages. The hon. Member for Canterbury seems to think that I was talking about information that should not be made available. On the contrary, the prescribed information is information that is to be made available; it is not proscribed information, as in ''a proscribed organisation''.

Apart from the fact that it would have implications for other provisions, there is another problem with the proposal simply to amend clause 57. The clause refers to information that may become available after the adoption order is made. As I explained clearly, the Government and stakeholders are rightly concerned about information made available in the run-up to the making of an adoption order. I have made clear the proposed changes to ensure that prospective adopters receive full information in advance of the adoption order, and that adoption agencies continue to pass on relevant information after the order is made. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am always glad when the Minister describes me as mischievous, as it is usually a euphemism for the fact that she has been caught out,

as she has been on this occasion. However, it was slightly ungenerous of her to describe me as bad tempered. Perhaps I was somewhat overgenerous in saying that her intentions were in the right direction, even though they did not go far enough.

If I appeared bad tempered, it was because of the Government's distinct lack of courtesy to the Committee in not providing us with the information that we need at the appropriate time. We received the amendments to this part of the Bill at the last minute. They were not available to hon. Members until Monday—the day before the Committee debated the amendments—because they had been tabled at the last moment on a non-sitting Friday. It was discourteous to sneak them in like that. Committee members had minimal time to consider them, and it was too late for us to table further amendments based on the Government's change of heart. Many Committee members and many outside bodies that have lobbied hard on this subject will be justified in feeling angry about the discourteous way in which the Minister has treated the Committee.

Furthermore, such practices are not good for the Committee. There are problems with the wording of the Government amendments, as I have already described. We should be in a position to apprise ourselves of the adequacy of amendments as early as possible. The Minister has offered no apology for how the Committee has been treated and steadfastly refuses to provide full explanatory notes about fundamental changes to the Bill. She said that she spoke at length about clause 7 during the last sitting of the Committee before the recess, but what she said amounted to less than two columns in Hansard. She has now reiterated the contents of the letter sent to us on 13 December, but that is not enough to allay our fears.

On the issue of ''may'', ''must'' and ''shall'', if the Government were happy to use the word ''must'' to emphasise how important it is that certain information should be made available to prospective adopters, why will they not use the word ''must'' in their new clause? That represents a substantial watering down of the requirements on adoption agencies. However strong the intentions behind regulations, ''may require'' does not mean that some less scrupulous adoption agencies and local authorities that want problem children to be adopted as soon as possible might not operate a strict requirement to make all the relevant information available to the prospective adopters at the appropriate time, yet such information gives the best chance of a successful placement.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

A favourable interpretation of the hon. Gentleman's harping on about ''must'' and ''may'' is that he has not given a proper context to the use of those words. The unfavourable interpretation is that he is trying to create an issue that does not exist.

The use of the word ''must'' in the clause does not mean ''must produce regulations'' but relates to the phrase

''must disclose to the adopters any of the section 53 information''.

I shall stand corrected if I am wrong, but I believe that nowhere in the Bill is there a clause that says that the Government must produce regulations. The regulations, as secondary legislation, set out the information that must be provided and at what point it must be provided, so it is wrong to suggest that the use of the words ''may produce regulations'' is equivalent to the use of the words

''must disclose . . . information''.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Part of the problem is that we still have not seen the regulations and shall not see them for many months after the Committee has concluded its proceedings. That is what causes confusion and makes us sceptical that what the Minister says ''may'' be produced will be produced in an adequate form, and that that will achieve what she says it ''may'' achieve. Those things absolutely must be achieved. The measures need to be beefed up.

The more the Minister spoke, the more confused I became about what the end results may be. I do not know how much of a requirement there is to produce the regulations and how forceful those regulations will be in ensuring that adoption agencies provide all the information required at the appropriate time. The point is important and, as the Government did not properly address it in the complete shambles of new clauses and amendments that they tabled before the recess, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 8.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I rise to argue that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. It requires adoption agencies to disclose prescribed information to adopters

''As soon as practicable after the making of an adoption order''.

We had a significant discussion about the fact that the clause will be replaced by new clause 6, which makes it 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 are to be obliged to provide. Given that we have done that, as outlined in the previous debate, the clause should not stand part of the Bill.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am keen that the clause should remain part of the Bill, even though it has not been amended as Opposition Members wanted. At least the word ''must'' would be retained, and we could return to the provision on Report and beef it up as required.

The Government have handled the issue badly. If they had made their intentions clear at the start and done us the courtesy of providing the extra information and explanatory notes that we have been going on about, we could have avoided this mess. They are guilty of gross discourtesy to the Committee and, on that basis, we shall vote to retain clause 57 in its entirety, with a view to amending it later.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 8.

Clause 58 - Disclosing information to adopted adult

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 204, in page 33, line 10, leave out from 'receive' to 'from' in line 11.

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

With this we may discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 205 and 207.

Amendment No. 7, in page 33, line 20, leave out subsection (6).

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clause 58 outlines the conditions on the disclosure to an adopted adult of information held by the courts or by adoption agencies. With new clauses 7 and 8, it spells out our new proposals on disclosure of protected information. We made it clear when we introduced the Bill in October that the provisions on access to information were new and that we would welcome views on whether they struck the right balance. Following the weight of representations and with the benefit of having set up a Special Standing Committee to hear evidence, we are making significant changes to the provisions.

The clause deals with the conditions for the disclosure of information about birth records held by the court. Under current law 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 the birth. The only exception is when the Registrar-General decides 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.

We have reviewed the existing right, taking into account the views of stakeholders and others and the

concerns raised about the very small number of cases where unfettered access to birth records could pose a significant risk to the birth parent. Under the amended clause, the adopted adult will retain the right to access the information that he needs to enable him to obtain a copy of his birth certificate. We have broadly replicated but improved on the current legal position. The route of access will now be through the adoption agency.

On making a request, the adopted adult would be able to obtain the information that he needs in order to acquire a copy of his birth certificate from his adoption agency. The only exception would be cases in which the adoption agency considered that exceptional circumstances justified recourse to the courts to withhold information, such as when there was a potential serious risk to the safety of those identified. In such a case, the adoption agency would have to seek the High Court's permission not to disclose the information. The High Court would make an order only if it were satisfied that the circumstances were exceptional. I hope that that change will allay the concerns that have been expressed, while still providing a safeguard whereby a court may give its consent, in exceptional circumstances, for information to be withheld.

Amendment No. 204 amends clause 58(2), which provides that an adopted person has the right, at his request, to receive the information that is provided to his adoptive parents under clause 57. Under the Bill as originally drafted, that is the information that the adopters would receive at the time of the adoption order, but clause 57 has now been removed, to be replaced by new clause 6 for prospective adopters; consequently, the reference to section 57 information needs to be omitted.

Amendment No. 205 will amend clause 58 to provide that the adopted person has a right, at his request, to receive the information that is necessary for him to obtain a certified copy of his birth certificate, unless the High Court orders otherwise. That is the intention that I outlined at the beginning. New subsection (2)(a) inserted by the amendment indicates that the High Court may make an order withholding the information if the circumstances are exceptional, and makes it clear that that would be done on an application by the adoption agency. The amendment also provides, in new subsection (2)(b), for the adopted adult to have a right to any prescribed information disclosed to the adopters by the agency under new clause 6.

Finally, amendment No. 207 removes subsections (5) and (6) of clause 58 because the disclosure of protected information is now provided for in new clauses 7 and 8, to be discussed later, the intentions behind which I outlined in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Huntingdon in the sitting before Christmas and set out in my letter. That is the reasoning behind amendments Nos. 204, 205 and 207, which do make happen our intentions with respect to the new provisions on access to information, which we discussed more broadly before Christmas and earlier today.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

None of the amendments ''do make happen'', as the Minister puts it, what we would like to have happened a long time ago. This whole thing should never have happened in the first place. We will support the amendments. Doing so will make amendment No. 7, which is grouped with this, rather superfluous, so I shall not press it.

The Minister has given a short explanation—great explanation would have been welcome—of the way in which the Registrar-General will withhold information on public policy grounds, to be challenged by the court. How many of the applications now going through adoption agencies does she envisage will be referred to the courts? I am pleased that the circumstance is exceptional, but what sort of circumstance are we talking about? How will it be monitored so that there is consistency across adoption agencies and the leave of the High Court is not overly sought? What numbers are we talking about? The process is expensive and cumbersome, so it would be useful to have more information about the nature of the exceptional circumstances and how the system of going through adoption agencies and producing birth certificates will work. While we are considering this set of amendments, the Minister might like to give us a few more practical examples. The intention is right, and we agree with the big U-turn that the Government have made, but we need a more detailed explanation of how the system will work. I shall be grateful if the Minister provides that.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The provision does not exactly replicate the current position with respect to access to birth records. One of the problems that we highlighted was the fact that it would be possible for somebody, without having gone through an adoption agency, to make contact directly with the Registrar-General in order to receive information that would enable him to access his birth record. We are proposing, as a refinement of that process, that access be through the adoption agency, allowing—as we all agree—for referral in very exceptional circumstances to the High Court.

To obtain a copy of one's birth records, one will have to provide the information necessary for the Registrar-General to make the links between one's birth record and one's record of adoption. That would produce the information to enable access to one's birth certificate. The change is that the Registrar-General will provide the adoption agency with the information to enable it either to pass on the information to the individual or, in rare cases when there could be cause for concern—I shall give examples in a moment—to consider it.

The Registrar-General has blocked the discharge of information in order to allow access to the birth certificate in one case since 1976, so the numbers are not significant. However, as we have previously argued, the matter could become marginally more significant in future. The exceptional circumstances with which we are concerned are those, for instance, that might entail a risk of death to the birth parents if the adopted person were able to identify them. The issue is not so much about numbers but the nature of

the risk that such exceptional circumstances might involve.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I appreciate fully what the Minister is saying, but who determines the risk? Is there not other provision in law, such as the issuing of injunctions or restraining orders and other action, if a risk is perceived? Every adopted child who came from an abusive home might be a risk to the parents in question, but only a tiny minority would prove to be so.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The previous difficulty was that the Registrar-General could determine whether a risk existed only if it was obvious from the circumstances of the approach for information. Because the adoption agency has much better information and understanding about the circumstances of the adoption and the potential relationship between the birth parents and the adopted person, it is in a better position to evaluate the potential for risk.

However, the agency will not be able to make a decision depriving the adopted person of their right to a birth record. It will be able only to apply to the High Court for permission not to disclose the information. The court will then consider whether it is justifiable to withhold the information that would enable the person to obtain access to their birth record. A pretty high hurdle will have to be cleared. The adoption agency and the court will have to consider risk and the appropriateness of withholding the information.

The Association of Directors of Social Services has provided some examples of cases of concern over the possibility of tracing and contacting individuals. One concerns an adopted person

''who had reached 18 years of age, and sought information which would lead to him finding out the whereabouts of his birth parents as he wanted to 'kill them'. Apparently he had been badly abused as an infant and had a facial disfigurement. He said 'every day when I look in the mirror it reminds me of what they did to me and it makes me very angry'.

In a second example, an adopted Asian girl

''who was part of a very close knit family (which sought to exclude the authorities and any outsiders) was very seriously neglected as an infant over a significant period of time—indeed her doctors didn't think she would survive. The child was placed for adoption. Now that she is 18 she wants to trace her birth family: it is considered by the agency that she may be at risk if she does locate them as she is likely to be an extremely unwelcome visitor.''

Another point that has been made is that the vast majority of adoptions happen well after birth, so people inevitably know who their birth parents are. Also, the vast majority of adoptions are open, which is generally considered to be good practice. We are attempting to make provision for rare cases and exceptional circumstances.

I have given information about the situation that has existed up until now, but I do not have an estimate of future figures. Perhaps the issue will never arise, but if it does, the circumstances might be so important as to necessitate the provisions in the clause. That justifies the balance that we have struck on access to birth records. There should be a right to access the information necessary to get one's birth record, and access should be through the adoption agency, which is best placed to know the particular circumstances.

However, in exceptional circumstances, the High Court should still be able to prevent that right from being exercised.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 205, in page 33, line 11, at end insert—

'(a) the information within section 54(1A)(a), unless the High Court orders otherwise,

(b) any prescribed information disclosed to the adopters by the agency by virtue of section [Disclosing information during adoption process].

(2A) The High Court may make an order under subsection (2)(a), on an application by the appropriate adoption agency, if satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional'.

No. 206, in page 33, line 16, leave out 'or section 76 information'.

No. 207, in page 33, line 17, leave out subsections (5) and (6).—[Jacqui Smith.]

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 191, in page 33, line 23, at end add—

'(7) The natural parents of an adopted person shall at any time have the right to deposit, with the adoption agency who acted on the related adoption, written or electronic material which is addressed to the adopted person contained in sealed form.

(8) Upon receipt of such material referred to in subsection (7), the adoption agency shall have a duty to retain such material in sealed form—

(a) where the agency is made aware of the death of the adopted person, for a period of three years from the date of that death, or

(b) in all other cases, for a period of 80 years from the date of receipt.

(9) Upon written request from the adopted person made at any time following his or her having attained the age of 18 years or, following the death of the adopted person, upon written request from a personal representative of the adopted person, the adoption agency must forthwith release such material to the adopted person or his or her personal representative as the case may be.

(10) At the conclusion of the relevant time periods referred to in subsection (8)(a) and (b), the local authority shall destroy any material deposited pursuant to subsection (7).'.

As the Minister has just said, most adoptions are open, and that is accepted good practice. However, for historical or contemporary reasons, that is sometimes not the case. Normally, that will be where there is no contact, perhaps because the child has been the subject of abuse. In addition, people involved in pre-1976 adoptions might not even know that they were adopted, while those who do so might not want contact with their natural parents.

Even in such problem cases, natural parents have certain basic rights, which should be set out in the Bill. As we discussed, they have no automatic right to information in such cases, but they should have a right in all circumstances to make information available to the adopted person. The amendment proposes a procedure to ensure that they have the right to deposit information about themselves so that the adopted person can access it on reaching maturity. That ties in with the next amendment, which suggests that adopted children should be told that they are adopted. However, the provision should not be retrospective, and there is no reason to tell someone who was adopted in 1945 that they were adopted, if

they had not been told before. In future, however, it would be best practice to do so.

The amendment would set up a procedure whereby information could be disclosed. It is based on a procedure that was used by the adoption agency with which I was involved as a councillor, and I can tell the Committee that it works very well. Ultimately, however, it would still be up to the adopted person to decide to seek the information.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the amendment would add four new subsections to clause 58. They would provide for birth parents to be able to deposit sealed information with the adoption agency—information that the adopted child would have a right to see only once he had reached the age of 18.

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's intention. It would be entirely laudable and appropriate with, for example, private or confidential information that could have no bearing on the child's upbringing but that the birth parents did not wish to share with the adoptive parents—a message, or photographs of the birth family whom the adopted child may not know, such as grandparents who may have died by the time that the adopted child had reached adulthood. However, it is not necessary to make such a provision in the Bill. To do so would prevent flexibility.

To return to a much rehearsed argument, a more practical approach would be for regulations to be made to allow adoption agencies to provide such a service. Indeed, clause 9 enables regulations to be made in respect of local authorities, voluntary adoption agencies and adoption support agencies. It provides a general power to make regulations for any purpose relating to the exercise by local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies of their functions in relation to adoption, and by adoption support agencies for their functions in relation to the provision of adoption support services.

Although the Government have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's intention, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment in light of my assurance that we shall consider how best to make such a provision through regulations made under clause 9, after due consultation on the details with adoption stakeholders.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I thank the Minister for taking that approach. It seems that the meat of what is proposed will be accepted and included in regulations. I would have preferred to see it in the Bill, but the Government have accepted that it should somehow find its way into the legal process. 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. 235, in page 33, line 23, at end add—

'(7) On attaining the age of 18 an adopted adult shall be formally notified by the appropriate adoption agency that he was adopted.'.

The amendment is all to do with a person's right to know that he is adopted. You may recall, Mr.

Stevenson, that in debate of an earlier amendment we wanted to make it a requirement that the birth parents would at least be told if their child, who had subsequently been adopted, had died. We felt that that was at least natural and humane, lest at a later stage those birth parents tried to seek out that child, could not access any information and, when they eventually tracked down the records, discovered that the child had died. That would be doubly cruel. We are attempting to insert a fundamental right into the clause.

During our proceedings, and in the preparation that many hon. Members have made in familiarising themselves with a subject with which many of us were not familiar, we have heard many extraordinary tales, cases and life histories of people who were adopted or gave up their children for adoption many years ago in circumstances that were not as equitable as one would hope for.

I have heard cases of people in their 70s discovering that they were adopted, often only when an adoptive parent, whom they had thought was a birth parent, had died. Adoptive parents who did not want to make it clear during their lifetime that they were not the natural birth parents have sometimes left notes for after their death, or the information has been released by friends or relatives in the know. That can come as a very traumatic revelation for the adopted children, especially if they have been living a pretence—although the intentions behind it may have been good—for many years.

It may be a doubly traumatic experience for adopted children if, when they try to search out their birth parents—as many do, for obvious reasons—they discover that they have died, as they are likely to have done if the discovery of the adoption has been made late in life. Those children will live their remaining years with the discovery that they are adopted, which may have come as an enormous shock, and that the people with whom they have grown up are not blood relatives. When they want to research into their birth relatives, if they are lucky enough to be able to trace them, they may find that they have died some years previously.

There is a case for making it a statutory right for adopted people to know that they are adopted. That is not an issue for those who are adopted at an age when they are quite aware that they are being removed from a birth family and placed with an adoptive family. However, a number of children are adopted at an age when they cannot assimilate that information, and that number will increase if this legislation is successful in promoting the number of children who are adopted out of care. In many cases, they will be told by responsible adoptive parents at an appropriate time and when all the adoption support services, to which we referred in earlier debates, are made available to them if appropriate, so that they can assimilate and cope with that information.

However, there still are—and I judge that there still will be—people who reach the age of 18 without for whatever reason being told by their adoptive parents

or people around them that they are adopted. They will live for a long time under the impression that their adoptive parents are their birth parents. Perhaps by accident they will find out that they are adopted, because certain facts that they come across do not stack up. It is a fundamental right that children, when they reach the age of 18 and become adults, should be entitled to that information, as long as all the necessary support goes with it.

The Children's Rights Alliance for England has stated that it is

''a fundamental principle . . . that children should have the right to know they are adopted''—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, November 2001; c. 314.]

It goes on to quote from the United Nations convention on the rights of the child to back up that entitlement.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

My hon. Friend has made a cogent case for the emotional side of the matter, and in most cases that is the more important side. However, I hope that he will also allude to the medical aspect, which we were discussing with reference to clauses considered earlier, such as when an adult is suffering from an illness. The provisions for being able to identify birth parents can kick in only at the point where an adopted child discovers that he or she is adopted.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That is a very important point. We are not talking about an enormous number of people, just those adoptive parents who, for the best of reasons in their view, are too protective towards an adoptive child. After they have died, a medical problem may emerge. We have ensured, although not quite to the extent that we wanted, that the child's medical history is passed to the adoptive parent, but there is no requirement for adoptive parents to ensure that the child is fully apprised of his or her medical condition. If the adoptive parents die and the child develops a medical condition and examines their medical history, that would be one way of finding out that they were not his or her birth parents. Lack of disclosure could lead to medical problems if there were a genetic history of such problems from a completely different family.

I am sure that the amendment has problems. I am sure that it needs to be better worded, with many more safeguards attached to it. I think, however, that the Committee should consider the principle behind it. I am entirely happy for the Government, if they accept the principle of the amendment, to take it away and rewrite it, making a large part of it reliant on regulations.

The principle is so important that it should be taken up. It needs to be done sensibly, and I am certainly not suggesting that on an adopted child's 18th birthday they should automatically receive communication from some adoption equivalent of the tax office. I am not suggesting that along with their tax code and their 18th birthday card from their Member of Parliament they should receive a bit of paper saying, ''Congratulations. By the way, you're adopted.'' I am suggesting that the process be much more sensitive, which is why I alluded to the support services and counselling for which we have made provision in the Bill.

It is right that if, on reaching the age of 18, a person has not been told that they are adopted, that information should be made available to them, so that they can go through the rest of their lives knowing exactly where they come from. If they choose to pursue a line of inquiry based on the information given to them, they must know where to start on that path. That is a fundamental human right. On that basis, I commend the amendment to the Committee, although I would be delighted if the Minister bashed it around a bit if she accepted the general principle.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

As my hon. Friend said, there are relatively few cases of babies being adopted, and in the majority of adoptions, the children know who their parents are. However, babies are still adopted and the Bill may encourage that, as my hon. Friend also said. It is important that people should be informed of their adopted status when they reach the age of 18. That will do something to prevent people from experiencing the life-changing moment—we have discussed this several times—of finding out that they were adopted, and all the attendant emotions and problems.

However, I hope that the provision will not apply retrospectively because that could create a host of unintended problems. It would be very unfortunate if hundreds of 70, 80 and 90-year-olds were suddenly to receive letters informing them of their adoptive status. That said, I support the amendment and note that it is drafted using the future tense, so I presume that it will not have retrospective effect.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the amendment is pretty ghastly, but the principle behind it is sound. Although I do not expect that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to accept it, I hope that the Government will recognise the fundamental right of people to know that they were adopted.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I certainly support the amendment because it is vital that any child who is adopted knows so at the earliest possible stage. If they are not told by their adoptive parents, they should be told when they reach the age of 18. It is unthinkable today that any adopted child should not be told at an early age, gradually, slowly and in an appropriate framework, that they are adopted. We hope that more very young babies will be adopted as a result of the legislation, so will the Minister say what the Government intend to do to improve the education and training of adoptive parents to ensure that they fully understand how important it is that adopted children are told the facts at an early age? How they are told is obviously also very important, although that is a side issue. However, some parents may not be able to cope and may find the matter too difficult to explain, so a few children may slip through the net. That is where the amendment would come in.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I also fully agree with what has been said. It is a fundamental human right to know that one has been adopted, and such a provision should be in the Bill. I have followed the arguments; clearly the communication must be conducted sensitively. The

scenario of letters arriving suddenly on people's 18th birthdays is rather ghastly. I am sure that the proposal is not meant in that way, although given the current state of the postal services, people might be considerably older than 18 by the time the letter arrives. [Laughter.] To be serious, the amendment is important. The wording might not find favour, but the principle is sound and I hope that the Minister will respond accordingly.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

In fact, the principle is a difficult one—[Interruption.] That is not to say that I do not have a lot of sympathy with what has been said and that I am not willing to consider the matter further. However, I think that I should spell out what I see as the difficulties, not only with the amendment but with the principle.

The amendment would make it a duty for the adoption agency to inform the adopted person when he became an adult that he was adopted. The hon. Member for Huntingdon used the words ''best practice'' in relation to amendment No. 191, and many points that have been made on this amendment have related not to what should be an absolute statutory duty but to what all of us would agree is best practice.

Nowadays, the majority of children will know that they have been adopted. Under our adoption standards, where adoption is the plan for a child, he or she will be given clear explanations and information about adoption and will be prepared before joining a new family. Adoption plans will include details of the arrangements for maintaining links, including contact, with birth parents, wider birth family members and other people who are significant to the child.

If a child does not know that he has been adopted, our guidance to adopters emphasises that it is better if the adoptive parents explain that to him. It encourages them to be ready to do so when the child starts to take an interest in his origins. It states that openness is more likely to promote a secure relationship between the child and his adoptive parents.

The guidance also points out that when the adopted person reaches the age of 18, he will be entitled to a copy of his original birth certificate, as provided for by amendment No. 205. The adopted adult will also be entitled to access the prescribed information that was given by the agency to his adopters as part of the adoption process—although the hon. Member for Canterbury is right that that presupposes that the person knows that he is adopted.

However, I have a problem with the sometimes rather slick way in which people try to define a fundamental human right. I ask the Committee to consider the situation in which somebody was brought up by people who were not his parents, but who believed that they were. We need only to stretch our mind to soap operas to come up with such situations, but I am sure that they exist in reality as well. In those circumstances, there is not a fundamental human right to know that the people who are bringing up the child and who the child believes to be their parents are not their parents. It is not as easy as to say that it is a fundamental right to know who one's birth parents

are; life is not that simple. It could be that the nature of adoption is different and that we should consider whether people should know that they are adopted. I would be willing to think about that.

There is another problem with the amendment, as it would make it a duty for adoption agencies to intervene in a matter that we could argue is best left to the family to decide, and to the adopted adult to pursue, should he want to do so. We should remember that, when a child is adopted, he moves into a new family that should have the right to make decisions about him of the type that I would expect to make about my children. Hon. Members should be aware that providing such a duty or right—however we want to phrase it—would effectively be an intervention into family life, affecting decisions that some would argue should be most appropriately made by the family.

As I have pointed out, our guidance clearly encourages adoptive parents to be open with their adopted child about his origins, when they consider that he is ready. They will know that their child will be entitled to discover the facts for himself, should he want to when he becomes an adult.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I follow what the Minister has said, but guidance to adoptive parents does not mean much because the parents may opt not to tell the child. As the hon. Member for Canterbury suggested, the words ''at his request'' in the clause clearly presuppose knowledge of adoption. The clause fails adopted children, as in many circumstances they will not know that they have been adopted. In some circumstances, alas, adoptive parents will not follow the Minister's guidelines. In that case, we are undermining an important principle. Further thought should be given to the issue.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman; there will not necessarily be many cases in which children do not know that they have been adopted. In a small number of cases, children may not know that they have been adopted because the adoptive parents have especially decided not to tell them. Which of us know what the circumstances might be in such a case? The implication of the proposal is that we overrule the decision taken by the adoptive parents not to tell their adopted child. The issue is more complicated than a blithe assertion about fundamental human rights. It will need careful consideration.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will my hon. Friend consider whether adoptive parents have the right to withhold such crucial information from their adopted child? Might a large part of the assessment of people as possible adopters be whether they are willing to allow such openness and honesty within the family so that the information could be made available at an appropriate time and in an appropriate way?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I very much agree with my hon. Friend's second point. On his first point, I have a right not to inform my children about many things. That may be bad practice on my part, but it is my right as a parent.

I cannot envisage a situation in which it would not be appropriate for someone to know that he was adopted, or for an adoptive family to tell its child that he was adopted. The amendment and the arguments for it made by some hon. Members suggest that every adopted person in all circumstances, regardless of any decisions made, should be told at the age of 18 that they had been adopted, not that it would be good practice in almost every circumstance.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

If the Minister argues that she can conceive of no situation that would justify denying the adopted child the knowledge that they were adopted, that guidance should surely have the force of law behind it. Either we should accept the amendment, or every adoptive parent should, as a matter of common practice, disclose to the child at an appropriate time and in the most sensitive way that they were adopted. The Minister is confusing the issue. She says that she can conceive of no reason to deny the child the knowledge that they were adopted, but then says that the amendment is no use because it gives a blanket right to obtain that knowledge. I cannot reconcile those two standpoints.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The point that I was trying to make was that I agreed with hon. Members about what was likely to be best practice. However, I am also raising concerns about the extent to which such practice can be a right. I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he suggested that the Government should produce statutory legal guidance on how parents should relate to their children. That is a little problematic, and I am attempting to exemplify some of the problems with moving in the direction in which hon. Members are pushing me. I am not saying that I absolutely oppose the proposed measures, and I am willing go give them further consideration, but some of the assertions that have been made—I have not even got to the practicalities—suggest that hon. Members rather blithely believe that it is possible or desirable for the state to intervene in family life or in the relationship between parents and their children.

Mr. Llwyd rose—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

No, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

With respect, the Minister's argument is not very persuasive. I am not saying that we want the Government to interfere in family life—far from it. We want to enshrine a child's right to know their roots. That is the main aim, and we are looking for a way to achieve it. None of the Minister's arguments hitherto should prevent that.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That is the point that we are discussing. What are the implications of enshrining such a right? I am attempting to exemplify some of them.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am glad that my amendment has prompted such an interesting discussion. The Minister is discussing the fundamentally different issue of the state interfering in family life, and there are provisions in the European convention on human rights and the

UN convention on the rights of the child to deal with that. We, however, are talking about a different issue, because the state will have legitimised the adopted child's relationship with their family. That will not be a natural birth relationship, so the state will have a right of involvement.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That is an important point. That is why I said that it might be more fruitful to state that it was someone's fundamental human right to know that they had been through a legal process of adoption, rather than to know the nature of the people who were bringing them up. That may be the way forward.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

As a Burkean Conservative who is not very impressed by a dialogue about rights as the best way to examine the obligations that make for civilised society, I rather sympathise with the Minister's point.

The critical point is that we are dealing not with children, but with people who have reached the age of 18. Rather than telling people that they were adopted—that will already have happened in nearly every case—we might get round the problem by making it a statutory duty to make them aware of their right to see their birth certificate, which will include the information that they were adopted. Given that that will happen when they are 18, the birth parents will have plenty of time to get ready, and the information will appear slightly less ghastly when it comes through the post.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Perhaps I have had a Burkean transformation over the Christmas break. I need to think about the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, as I am not sure that it is the most appropriate way to go forward, and I see practical difficulties in implementation. The amendment would place an onerous duty on adoption agencies in that it would be necessary for them know that an adopted person was approaching 18 and was able and willing to make contact—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman, having made much of the resource implications of the proposals, now dismisses something that is potentially onerous.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

This whole Bill is about making lifetime adoption work; it is about providing lifetime adoption services. If the adoption agency cannot even manage the not onerous task of working out when one of its previous charges reaches 18, then it is not doing its job very well. That is not a great responsibility or burden.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That is the hon. Gentleman's view. I shall be interested to know whether adoption agencies consider it onerous or not. That might be one of the implications that we need to consider.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

On the method of informing the adopted child, it might be that the first approach should be made to the adoptive parents, to remind

them that the child must know by the age of 18; after 18 years, they might have forgotten that they had to tell him. They should be reminded that they should take matters into their own hands rather than having the state bluntly inform the adopted person.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am pleased that, as the hon. Gentleman's intervention shows, the debate has forced us all to consider both the principles and the practicalities of the issue. Given that, perhaps I can reassure the Committee that the Government will consider in more detail both the practicalities and the principle and that I will give further information to Committee members before consideration of remaining stages on the Floor of the House. I hope that, on that basis, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will feel able to withdraw the amendment, which is not quite ghastly, but might not achieve what we want to do.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am flattered that the Minister thinks that the amendment is not ghastly. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) went slightly over the top in saying so. I did not suggest that it was ghastly. I implied that it might be flawed. Like all Opposition amendments, it is far from ghastly.

It will be useful to address the outstanding points in Committee—I am grateful that the Minister is sympathetic to returning to them on Report, but I hope that her undertaking to come back to us before the remaining stages does not mean the night before—so that we have more time to consider what she might come up with. I would want to table amendments along these lines for consideration on Report, and they would be dependent on what the Government are thinking.

The Minister started by saying that the amendment was difficult. Then she said that she had some sympathy with the points raised, then she said that she would consider the matter further and then she said that it was a bit of a problem. Initially, I was slightly alarmed, because she seemed to pray in aid a case—I think that she is talking about the Slater family and what is currently going on with Kat, Zoe and Uncle Harry. I am concerned about the use of the example of what happens in ''EastEnders''. [Interruption.] I am very surprised that Labour Members raise the question of which soap opera is relevant. I should be alarmed if the Minister were citing those not exactly everyday instances that people have been watching on their screens in recent weeks as a good basis for not adopting a legitimate amendment—

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

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

Special Standing Committee

Adoption and Children Bill

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Good afternoon. I wish you all a happy new year, and I hope that you had a good, relaxing Christmas.Clause 58 Disclosing information to adopted adult

Clause 58 - Disclosing information to adopted adult

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Good afternoon, Mrs. Roe, and a happy new year to you. I trust that you have had a restful recess, and that you are ready to throw yourself into the remaining stages of the Bill—there is light at the end of the tunnel at last. Before you arrived this afternoon, we were discussing the intricacies of the Slater family from EastEnders''. I was about to launch into the subject of incest, on which the Minister touched unwittingly when she took us down a strange lane, but we will come back to it later.

The amendment provides that people should have the right to be told that they were adopted when they reach the age of 18, if they have not already been given that information. The amendment is fairly harmless, but the principle it reflects is an important one, and it seems to have opened up several issues. Earlier, the Minister changed from using the word difficult'' to talking about some sympathy'', and I hope that she has had time over lunch to acquaint herself fully with the implications of the amendment. That is only a few hours less than than we were given to consider some Government amendments before the recess, and she has the benefit of having at her disposal a fleet of officials who are experts on the subject.

The Minister's point, which was taken up by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), is not really compensatory. She said that guidance has been issued stating that everyone is entitled to a copy of their birth certificate at 18. That is fine and we all agree with it, but that entitlement is not the same as an entitlement to the information necessary to know that one needs to see one's birth certificate. It is all very well to say that anyone can ask

for his birth certificate at the age of 18, but if a person has no reason to doubt his birth parents, he has no cause to seek his birth certificate at that time.

How will the Government publicise the entitlement? If the Minister holds it up as an example of access to information, it should be widely publicised. I assume that the publicity will not take the same form as that for winter fuel payments, for example, whereby pensioners will be bombarded with information on how to claim it, if they are so entitled. What do the Government propose to do to publicise the fact that anyone may be entitled to see his birth certificate at the age of 18?

The Minister may want to consider further the point that I made shortly before we adjourned for lunch. Private families who have never had any involvement with the legal process or been part of any adoption process, whose children are blood related to the parents with whom they live, are clearly different from families who have adopted children and that relationship has been legitimised by the state through the legal system.

I agree with the Minister that we do not want the state to stick its nose into private families' business. Perhaps that is a Burkean principle, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) claims. It would certainly be contrary to many human rights treaties to which we have alluded. However, we are not talking about the state doing that; we are discussing a situation that the state has manufactured—for want of a better word—through the adoption process. The state has a duty of care to ensure that the manufactured relationship is maintained in everyone's best interests. I dispute the Minister's assertion that we are talking about the state sticking its nose in where it has no business. We are talking about the state monitoring something that it has created by the legal recourses of the adoption process.

The Minister said that she thought that the amendment might place onerous duties on adoption agencies. That is rubbish, nonsense, and a red herring.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the practical implications of the amendment are difficult, whatever its principle might be? To contact a young person when he reaches the age of 18, the adoption agency would have to know where he lives, so adoptive parents would be required to notify the adoption agency every time they move. It would be a little strange to expect them to do something so out of the ordinary.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I do not agree. If adoption agencies are to perform their role in the adoption process, ensuring that it works and ensuring that the relevant adoption support services are available for as long as they are required, and if we expect adoption agencies to keep full records that will enable adopted people who seek their parentage—or, in some cases, birth parents who seek previously adopted children; the Bill still has many shortcomings on that issue—to do so successfully, it is not a tall order to require them to keep records on when people will reach 18 and to have an idea of where those people are. Furthermore, at the

age of 14, 15, 16 or 17, a person may have problems in his adoptive family and have recourse to a social services department outside the area in which he was originally adopted. If so, it would be helpful if that department were to have recourse to the original social services department, which could cast more light on that family's problems.

I do not see what all the fuss is about, especially given the register system. If the hon. Lady would prefer, some means could be used to enact the principle other than the adoption agencies mentioned in the not entirely adequate, but not ghastly, amendment. It is not so onerous a burden whatever body—perhaps an adoption agency—is used, so the fuss is unnecessary. To be told that one is adopted if one has not been told already is a fundamental right.

We might return to the incest angle in debate on other parts of the Bill; new clauses might be required. If a person who has turned 18 and become an adult still has no knowledge of the fact that he or she is adopted, there is a possibility—a slim one, although not as slim as one might think—that he or she will strike up a relationship with a young woman or man of similar age living in the area, and for the two of them to turn out to be brother and sister. That is not entirely fanciful. The Committee has received communications from certain people who expressed such fears as mothers. There was one person in particular whose son had been adopted and whose daughter had just turned 18 and was starting to go out with boys of a similar age. The family had not moved away from their original area, and there was a strong chance that the son was still in the area. It is difficult enough getting the information, if it can be acquired, about where a sibling is now residing, but young adults being left to their own devices after they turn 18, not knowing that they are adopted and so being unable to keep at the back of their mind that somebody might just be related to them, opens up all sorts of ghastly possibilities of their unwittingly committing acts that are still offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956.

That is an important aspect and yet another reason why it is essential—and a fundamental right—that people who have not been told before they reach the age of 18 that they were adopted should automatically be told when they reach that age. Of course, the imparting of that information should be accompanied by all the necessary considerations and counselling.

The amendment is not probing; it reflects an important principle. The Government's response has been interesting—the Minister has asked for more time to consider the matter, and I hope that she will. On that basis, I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. I hope that the Minister is serious about her undertaking to consider the matter properly, and that she will either make proposals of her own, perhaps on Report, or give solid reasons why our suggestion would not work, perhaps by citing ramifications that have not emerged in our debates. If she repeats her undertakings—the phrases she used ranged from difficult'', to some sympathy'', to consider further'',

to a bit of a problem''—I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. None the less, we have had a useful discussion and opened up important new issues relating to some of the Bill's fundamental principles.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Welcome back Mrs. Roe.

I am happy to repeat the undertaking that I gave only three or four hours ago to consider the amendment in detail and to come back either with proposals or with further thoughts about the difficulties surrounding the issue. Our debate been conducted in a spirit of exploring ideas, which is appropriate to a Special Standing Committee. I hope that I do not sound irritated when I say that it is interesting that some people choose to treat my willingness to consider the various surrounding issues as a vehicle for criticism.

I shall not be oversensitive. I repeat my undertaking that the Government will consider the matter in more detail. There are issues and difficulties in terms of both principle and practicality, but I shall, as I said this morning, ensure that before Report and Third Reading, members of the Committee are clear about our views and intentions.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I should be relieved that I have not been accused of being mischievous, bad tempered, or even churlish. I am grateful for the Minister's comments. It was not clear from this morning's debate whether she would respond on this matter, but she has now made it absolutely clear that she will. There is no further need to pursue it, so 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.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Government amendments Nos. 217 and 232.

Government new clause 7—Disclosing protected information about adults.

Government new clause 8—Disclosing protected information about children.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We now—[Interruption.] I am glad that hon. Members have returned refreshed, keen and enthusiastic after their break. We come now to a significant debate on clause 58 stand part and related Government amendments and new clauses.

Clause 58 provides for the disclosure of information held by adoption agencies and courts to the adopted person when he reaches the age of 18. Previously, it gave the adopted adult a new right to receive from his adoption agency the same information as his adoptive parents received at the time of the adoption order. Amendment No. 205 provides the adopted adult with a new right to receive from his adoption agency prescribed information that is given to his adoptive parents under new clause 6. It is intended that he will receive the same information as his adoptive parents.

As now amended, the clause gives the adopted adult the right to receive from his adoption agency information, such as his birth name if he does not already know it, which is necessary for him to obtain a copy of his birth certificate from the Registrar-General. That is the key change, which demonstrates that we have listened and responded to concerns about restricting adopted persons' access to their birth certificates. As I said this morning, an adoption agency that wants to withhold the information that the adopted adult needs to obtain a copy of his birth certificate must now apply to the High Court for an order, and the court will grant such an order only if it is satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional.

The clause also gives the adopted adult the right to request from the court a copy of a prescribed document or prescribed order that relates to his adoption, provided it does not contain protected information about another person. As amended, it removes the restriction on access to information that would enable the adopted adult to obtain a copy of his birth certificate, so it fits into the overall structure of the provisions on access to specific forms of information. On clause 55, we discussed the release of information that was not protected; on new clauses 7 and 8, we shall discuss the Government's proposals for access to other identifying information, whether it relates to an adult or to a child.

Amendment No. 217 would amend clause 61, which provides for a group of powers through regulation. We intend to use those powers to balance the rights of individuals and to regulate the operation of the new duties that the provisions place on adoption agencies and the Registrar-General. The amendment provides for regulations that would allow the payment of a fee for the disclosure of information under clause 58 and in the prescribed circumstances under new clauses 7 and 8. It therefore ensures that the provisions in clause 61 on the payment of fees also relate to the new clauses.

Amendment No. 232 makes a consequential change, and is based on changes to clause 133 under new clauses 7 and 8. This minor consequential change provides for the commencement of the Bill. It provides for new clause 7, Disclosing protected information about adults'', and new clause 8, Disclosing protected information about children'', to be commenced by the appropriate Minister for England, the Secretary of State, and for Wales, the National Assembly. That is consistent with the fact that all the clauses in this group—clauses 53 to 62—are to be commenced by the appropriate Minister. The amendment makes the necessary consequential changes to the clause.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am slightly confused. Will the Minister tell me why the words that amendment No. 232 would insert are in brackets?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I suspect that it has something to do with whether we have already debated and agreed the provision, or something like that—[Laughter.] Apparently, it has to do with the fact that they are the titles that will be given to new clauses 7 and 8, which I

was just about to come to before I was interrupted by the hon. Gentleman with that crucial point. I hope that he is reassured by my answer.

New clause 7 provides for the process that an adoption agency must undertake when an application is made for the disclosure of protected information about an adult. As I explained in my letter to the Committee, in the light of our change of approach to the birth records provisions, which we discussed at length, we have reconsidered the provisions for the disclosure of other protected information by adoption agencies to ensure that its disclosure is handled sensitively and in a way that ensures that the views of those who are identified therein are taken into account.

We tabled other amendments to give the agency discretion to take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the welfare of the adopted person and any views expressed by the person who would be identified by the disclosure. We will therefore propose that clause 59 should not stand part of the Bill and that subsections (5) and (6) of clause 58 should be omitted, as we set out in amendments Nos. 208 and 207.

New clause 7(1) provides that the new provisions will apply where

a person applies to the appropriate adoption agency for protected information''

none of the information is about a person who is a child at the time of the application.''

Subsection (2) provides that

The agency is not required to proceed with the application unless it considers it appropriate to do so.''

We envisage that it will be possible for that decision to be referred to the independent review mechanism that we have previously discussed. When an agency considers it appropriate to proceed with an application, it will be obliged by subsection (3) to—

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

May we go back to subsection (2)? I am slightly worried because agencies may take different approaches. How are we to ensure that there is consistency and that information is not withheld unless that is essential?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

One of the ways in which we will ensure consistency is by setting out, as we do in new clauses 7 and 8, the conditions for the process of disclosure of information, and by using regulations to prescribe the considerations that adoption agencies might bear in mind at various stages of the process. What is important at the second stage, set out in new clause 7(2), is that the agency has discretion to decide not to continue with the process of identifying consent of the person about whom information is going to be provided where, for example, it is clear that that is an inappropriate approach, or it is vexatious or something like that. As I have suggested, the ability to refer that to an independent review will be another safeguard, ensuring that that decision is not made inappropriately by the agency.

The next step is that when an agency considers it appropriate to proceed with the application, subsection (3) obliges it to

take all reasonable steps to obtain the views of any person the information is about as to the disclosure of information about him.''

Subsection (4) gives the agency a

discretion to disclose the information if it considers it appropriate to do so.''

That is important because it enables the agency, in the light of particular circumstances or information, or despite the fact that somebody has consented to the disclosure of that information, to use its discretion as to whether disclosure would be appropriate in a given case. Subsection (5) provides that in making a decision under subsection (4) as to whether it is appropriate to disclose the information,

the agency must consider the welfare of the adopted person''

and any views obtained under subsection (3) of a person whom the information is about, any matters that might be prescribed in regulations, and

all the other circumstances of the case''.

Under subsection (6) we ensure that the clause does not apply to a request for information under clause 58(2) where, for example, a request is made by an adopted adult for either the information needed to enable him to obtain a certified copy of his birth record, or the information given by an agency to his adopters under new clause 6. Applications by an adopted person for the disclosure of all other protected information fall within the scope of the new clause.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I want to be clear about this. Is it the Minister's view that new clause 7 could be used by birth relatives to attempt to obtain information about an adopted adult, but that that would apply only to adoptions that take place after the Bill is enacted?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is the position with respect to all the access to information provisions that relate to the position subsequent to the enactment of the Bill.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Why?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I think that we have touched on the matter before. First, it is appropriate when people undertake an adoption that they are clear about the basis—especially in relation to access to information—on which they make that undertaking. They should be clear about what they are entering into. It is appropriate to draw a clear line between past and future adoptions, so that birth and adoptive parents and adopted people can be aware of their rights to access information, people have been informed and adoption agencies have had time to adjust their practices to their new responsibilities. When people enter into a difficult arrangement that is surrounded by emotion, is it not reasonable that they should do so with some certainty about the implications of future access to information about them?

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Does my hon. Friend accept that that principle was abandoned 27 years or so ago? Before 1975, adopted people were never given access to identifying information about themselves, but in 1975 the whole basis for adoption and access to information was changed. There is no principle at stake here that was not changed a long time ago.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was not around then—I was around, but in school, not in Parliament. My understanding is that the discussions that took place then were about the same difficulties that I have identified. Certain provisions were made—we may discuss one of them later. People who had entered into an adoption based on certain information were concerned that that basis would be changed, which is why it was thought necessary to offer people counselling before giving them access to their birth records. It is right that we should make provision for the future. People should be certain about the provisions because they will cover the lifelong nature of their adoption.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Whatever the Minister's impressions of what may or may not have been the problems at the time of the previous Act, and however much we try to make things better, the number of adoptions is now hitting 3,000 a year, which may increase, but at their peak in the 1960s, there were, albeit in different circumstances, 20,000 a year. Will she not acknowledge that not making the provisions retrospective will mean that many thousands, if not tens of thousands, of adopted people will lose out in the new arrangements? Those people have been waiting for a change in the law for many years, and they greatly outnumber those who have been adopted since 1976 and those likely to be adopted in the next few years. Those are the people who will feel excluded if the Minister does not alter the terms.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I have made it clear in principle why it may be inappropriate, during an adoption, to change the basis of legislation on which the people concerned undertook it. Retrospective legislation is difficult in various ways. It would certainly be difficult to introduce the new provisions and apply them retrospectively without causing considerable distress. Many birth parents, adoptive parents and adopted people would have to be informed of their rights under the new scheme. That is not necessarily an argument against doing so, but must be considered. The task would be complex and costly, and complicated by the fact that given the poor quality of past record-keeping many individuals would be difficult to trace. For some, it would be a disruptive intrusion years after they had been adopted.

As we said during this morning's sitting—the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) expressed some sympathy for this view—some people may not even know that they had been adopted. I understand that the present situation is unsatisfactory for many, but the risk is that rejecting the certainty over the position prior to the enactment of this Bill will bring significant problems and cause

great distress to people who believed that they understood the access to information basis of their adoption.

New clause 8 lays down the position with respect to the disclosure of information about a child, including, but not only, an adopted child. The Government thought it appropriate that the qualifications, hurdles or considerations given to the disclosure of protected information about a child should be different from those for an adult. When the request for information concerns an adopted child, the agency will be obliged to seek the views of the adoptive parents on a request for identifying information. In coming to any decision, the adopted child's welfare would be the paramount consideration.

Subsection (2) of new clause 8 provides that the agency is not obliged to proceed with an application for disclosure of information unless it considers it appropriate to do so. Subsection (6) provides that, in deciding whether to proceed with the application, the welfare of the adopted child must be paramount when any of the information involved relates to a person who at the time of the application is an adopted child. In the case of any other child, the agency must have particular regard to his welfare.

Under subsection (3), if the agency decides to proceed with the application, when the information relates to a child

the agency must take all reasonable steps to obtain...the views of any parent or guardian of the child''

as to the disclosure of the information. The agency must also obtain

the views of the child, if the agency considers it appropriate to do so having regard to his age and understanding''.

In other words, when a child is competent and the agency considers it appropriate, the child's consent should be sought.

When the agency decides to proceed with the application, under subsection (4), when the information relates to a person who has attained 18 years at the time of the application,

the agency must take all reasonable steps to obtain his views as to the disclosure of the information.''

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

This is a technical point. Subsection (1) of the new clause states:

This section applies where...any of the information is about a person who is a child''.

Subsection (4) then refers to someone attaining the age of 18 years. Is that compatible?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Subsection (4) is necessary because, if information related to both an adult and a child, the provisions in the new clause would be appropriate. In relation to the gaining of consent from the adult, the provisions are what we want.

Subsection (5) gives the agency a discretion to

disclose the information if it considers it appropriate to do so.''

That discretion must be exercised with regard to subsections (6) and (7).

The new clause relates not only to adopted children but to other children, so it is necessary to lay down the basis on which the interests of an adopted child and a

child who was not adopted would need to be considered if they were both covered by the same disclosure of information.

Subsection (7) further provides that, in deciding whether to disclose any information, the agency must consider the welfare of the adopted person. When the child is not adopted, paramountcy will apply. That is a similar point to the one on which I responded to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly).

Under subsection (8), the clause

does not apply to a request for information under section 58(2)'',

which concerns a request made by an adopted adult for the information needed to enable him to obtain a certified copy of his birth record or the information given by an agency to his adopters under new clause 6.

New clauses 7 and 8 outline the different processes for disclosing protected information about adults and children and ensure consistency in deciding the appropriateness of such disclosures. That is an improvement, as there has been concern about the lack of consistency resulting from the lack of direction that adoption agencies have been given about the way in which they disclose information. The new clauses also enable consideration to be given to the wishes of people about whom information is to be disclosed. The distinction between the new clauses recognises that some issues are particular to the disclosure of information about a child.

With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will feel able to support the provisions.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I wish to explore the new clauses further. I am not labouring the point for the sake of it, but it is difficult to follow the Minister. She talks about the effect of the new clauses on clause 58(2) information, but the provisions have been chopped around so much that I do not know what clause 58(2) information entails, and it is difficult to know what is intended.

A continuity of approach among different agencies is important. Some adoption agencies go out of their way to provide intermediary services, to be as helpful as possible and to provide as much information as they can to enable birth parents and adopted children to re-establish links. However, others—the services may be provided by local authorities or charities—do not. There is an enormous disparity in the level of service, and we must make considerable improvements.

The Minister said that agencies had a large degree of discretion not to take matters further when a very inappropriate or vexatious approach was made, but what does that mean? On what basis are vexatious approaches made? We have been told that people who have not been adopted have approached adoption agencies to get information, but what examples are there of that and what are the implications?

I did not understand the Minister when she talked about a birth parent making an approach to an agency. The agency would take soundings from the adopted adult, who might make it clear that they did not want to be contacted, but would that be an absolute veto? By saying no, does the adopted adult

put an end to any further searches, or could a birth parent still be given information even though the adopted adult had exercised some sort of veto?

There is still a great degree of greyness about what happened at the time of the previous Act, to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy alluded. In the Minister's detailed understanding—I am not talking just about what happened when she and I were at school—was there really some form of legal arrangement whereby anybody adopted before the enactment of that Act was cut out of any of these processes? Everything that I have read suggests a different story. What is the legal basis for not extending that degree of coverage retrospectively to older adoptions, rather than just getting it right in the future, which I am pleased that we are doing?

My key point is that we are considering a substantial number of individuals who were adopted over the past 50 years. Far fewer people have been adopted since the 1976 Act than those who are affected and have lived for many years without being able to make such contact. For many, doing so will be a traumatic experience, and we need to strike a balance, whether by a system of veto or something else. I have mixed views. I have not been convinced by the Minister why such people should be completely left out of the new processes.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I agree that the hon. Gentleman has mixed up views. I am afraid that I appear to have convinced the wrong Front Bencher on some of the issues. For information, I understand that the Labour MP Phillip Whitehead, in giving testimony about his own experiences of adoption, persuaded the House to make the provisions retrospective.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I said not that my views were mixed up but that they were mixed; nor do I think that I am the wrong Front Bencher. Indeed, it would have been good earlier if the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues had had more influence over their Front Benchers and sorted out some of the discrepancies and confusion.

When I asked the simple question why, the Minister cited three reasons for not extending the provisions. She said first that it would be too costly. I challenge her to explain why that would be so, as there is of course a fee involved. Many, if not most, birth parents who launch a search are prepared to pay a fee. For those who cannot, there are adoption agencies that are charities. They have, or are prepared to make available, a charitable facility to cover that cost.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman has chosen to use the issue of cost as the first of the matters that I raised. I think that I said that it would be costly but that I did not consider that to be the most significant issue.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I referred to three reasons. I should be interested to know which is the most significant and which are minor considerations that, if overcome by some of the suggestions that I have made, would no longer be barriers. If cost is not a big bar, that is fine.

The Minister said secondly that people might be difficult to trace because of the way in which records were kept in the past. If the information is no longer available because the records of certain agencies have not been as good as they might have been, that is the end of the matter. However, in the many cases for which there are records, there is not a problem. Nobody is asking for something that no longer exists. It is a different matter if all proper efforts are made to get hold of the information but people are thwarted by lack of disclosure.

The third point—perhaps the Minister thinks that it is the most important, and if so I have a degree of sympathy with her, which is why I said that there should be some balance and why it is crucial that there be a proper, balanced intermediate service provider, making careful judgments—was that such provision might be a disruptive intrusion into people's lives many years after adoption. That might be a legitimate consideration. I am trying to establish what the Minister's objections really are. How thoroughly have the Government looked into the issues? How does she rate them on a scale ranging from completely insurmountable to might be surmountable with discussion and other arrangements?

From our correspondence and discussions with people involved in adoption, we know that many have waited years for a system that makes it easier, or possible where it is now impossible, for them to gain information that may re-establish a link between an adopted child and a birth parent. As the evidence produced by Professor Triseliotis and others showed, in the vast majority of cases that opportunity proves extremely welcome.

Of course it is right that the paramountcy principle of the interest of the child is the focal point of the Bill. However, many people are involved in adoption other than the adopted children, as there are many birth parents and siblings as well. Again, it may be necessary to revisit these issues on Report or table some new clauses, as the Bill has gaps related to the ability of siblings to make contact. At the moment, there is a distinct lack of intermediary services whereby siblings could meet, and I cannot see how that will be greatly improved by some of the provisions in the Bill. We await the outcome of the consultation process on that as well. Those are my concerns.

We welcome the changes that lead on from the change of heart on access to information that we have debated. We will not oppose the clause but, before we can go along with the extent of what the Government suggest, we need to know for sure—as do, more importantly, many thousands of people who have been waiting a long time—why the terms of the Bill cannot be extended retrospectively rather than merely applying to the future. It would be fine if the Government could provide a watertight case for that, having reconsidered what happened in the mid-70s

and proven that there was some legal agreement at the time, but up to now such a case has not been made clear. I will need more convincing. The Minister should be far clearer than she has been, not only for my sake, but more importantly for that of the many people who have been involved in the process.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I hope that I have not bored hon. Members by banging on about this subject in Committee and on Second Reading, but I would like to pursue it again a little further, in the spirit of exploration that the Minister described.

I was interested to hear the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—perhaps—change position slightly on the issue. Any movement down the road has been passionately opposed from the Conservative Back Benches by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, who talked about the past deal or agreement in the triangle of adoption, which he suggested it would be wrong to destabilise. I respect his sincerity in suggesting that, but it is interesting how those views have changed a little as we have discussed the Bill.

New clause 7 is welcome, but it ought to apply retrospectively. I welcome it because it probably is not always helpful to talk about rights, as the Minister rightly said this morning. The new clause provides an opportunity.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that much of the difference between him and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham could be met in the middle if new clause 7 were retrospective but new clause 8 were not? One affects adults only, and the other affects children.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

It is not my intention to argue that new clause 8 should be retrospective. I am trying to make a special case for new clause 7. I do so because it provides opportunities rather than rights. I want to persuade the Minister that that is what we are trying to do rather than enshrining rights in legislation.

When the Bill becomes law, the clause will apply to no one. It will have an effect only once adoptions take place after that time. If we are to provide opportunities, we should do so in the spirit of providing equal opportunities. Birth relatives have been my particular concern throughout the Bill and should be given equal opportunities to access services and get hold of information.

I emphasise the needs of women whose children were adopted prior to 1975. There was a different cultural setting then, and adoptions were often what we would regard as coerced, with babies almost taken off those women. There were great pressures on women who had babies when they were unmarried to give up their babies for adoption. Those women are a special group because they have been left with a hole in their lives and with a great longing to know what happened to their children. They are now very elderly, and time is running out for them. They would be aided by making new clause 7 retrospective.

The Minister said that the question of whether adoptions at that time were made on an agreed basis perhaps raised a point of principle, which it would be wrong to breach. However, I do not think that we can talk of a principle, because events in the mid-70s blew the issue wide open for ever. The Government's moves in the mid-1970s retrospectively to change the basis on which adoptions could be considered in England and Wales influenced Commonwealth countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia to follow a similar path and to take matters a step further than I suggest. Those countries could provide us with empirical evidence because they have taken the path that I suggest, and without significant problems. That said, I understand the Minister's concern about the impact of such measures on adopted adults.

It is, of course, possible that misery will be visited on an adopted adult if the new clause is accepted—I think that that was the Minister's point. However, that is a possible consequence of anything that we do. Burke was mentioned this morning, and I could perhaps mention Jeremy Bentham. Should we not concentrate on the greatest happiness for the greatest number? The utility that we would create by making the new clause retrospective and giving birth parents from an earlier era the opportunity to seek information would far outweigh what all the evidence suggests would be the very small number of cases in which approaches would be unwelcome and where even the knowledge that someone was seeking information might be unwelcome. The happiness—for want of a better expression—that such an approach would create for those birth parents would far outweigh the problems. I am not making that statement blindly; the evidence suggests that it is true. I shall not repeat the statistics that I gave the Committee before Christmas, but they show overwhelmingly that a retrospective provision would be welcome.

I appreciate the Minister's point that such a provision would be complicated and costly, although she did not say that cost would be the main problem. The provision may well be complicated, but it may not be as costly as she believes. The fear might be that there will be a flood of applications for information if we were to make the clause retrospective. That would, however, prove my point entirely and show that there was a powerful demand on the part of those affected. We would deny them the opportunity to exercise that demand if we did not make the clause retrospective. This is one of those opportunities that come along once in a generation. We should take it now, because it will be the last opportunity for the generation of people who have suffered this cruel and unusual punishment. To do so would be one way towards righting a historical injustice, particularly against women.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case. He will not be offended if I say that it is slightly unfortunate that he referred to Australia and New Zealand, because the academic evidence that we received confirmed what a number of us already knew about those countries. Sadly, in an otherwise very good social system, adoption has tended to fail

miserably in Australia, and the New Zealand system is modelled on the Australian one. There are very few adoptions there because of too much openness. None the less, the hon. Gentleman has made a powerful point.

I should like to make two small, detailed points, which could open the way to making new clause 7 retrospective without causing some of the problems hinted at by the Minister. First, I emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that it should be made abundantly clear that there is no duty where there is no information. We cannot start imposing extra duties on people to struggle to find records that no longer exist. The phraseology must be reasonable. Small, struggling voluntary organisations responsible for adoption must not feel that a huge extra burden has been placed on them.

Secondly, I am sure that it is in order for me to refer to a useful conversation that I had at lunch time with some of the parties who take an interest in the Bill. Although I feel that there may be scope for extending new clause 7 retrospectively, I have received a representation from the other side of the argument, from a very articulate adopter, who said that he was sometimes made to feel that it was somehow wicked if his children did not try to make contact with their birth parents. If the measure is to be extended retrospectively, it is important that the regulations make it clear that the consultation of those whom the information concerns, which is set out in a very good subsection of new clause 7, should be carefully conducted and that nobody should be made to feel that it is their duty to contact anybody just because they happen to be a birth relative.

With those two caveats, there is a lot to be said for new clause 7. In particular, it applies only to adults, so, in making it retrospective, there is no question of the measure affecting families with children.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I approve of new clause 7. It is carefully drafted and takes a balanced approach to a sensitive subject. It makes it plain that a careful approach is required. First, a person has to apply to an appropriate agency for protected information. The agency is not required to proceed with the application unless it considers it appropriate to do so, but if it does proceed with the application, it must take all reasonable steps'' to obtain the views of any person about whom information is sought; the agency then has another opportunity to review whether it is appropriate to disclose that information. The new clause also makes it clear that the agency must consider above all the welfare of the adopted person, and any other views. It is a well-drafted provision.

I had assumed that siblings of people who had been adopted would also be able to seek information under the provisions.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

In thoroughly agreeing with what the hon. Gentleman has said—the new clause is one of the best parts of the Bill—I would like to say that it shows that we can get really important and sensitive detail in the Bill, rather than leaving it to regulation.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point.

I am concerned that the clause applies only to adoptions made under the Bill. A graphic illustration of that fact is that on the day the Bill is enacted and for years afterwards not a single person will be able to benefit, because they will be ineligible to apply for information under the Bill. We are talking only about adoptions made after enactment, and the new clause refers only to adults, so chances are that it could be tens of years, or even longer, before many of those involved in adoptions made under the legislation will be eligible. That is especially true in the light of the appropriate trend towards open adoptions, whereby the number of people who will need to seek information will diminish markedly.

Conversely, while this excellent piece of legislation is not being used by anyone, standing on the sidelines will be a large group of people who would like to use it, or even need to use it, but cannot take advantage of it. The other glaring anomaly is that a number of people in that group would be able to benefit from the enlightened approach of some adoption agencies in some parts of the country: they would be able to gain information, but that would be tremendously unfair given that people will be reliant on the good practice that is embodied in the Bill.

The evidence given to the Committee by Professor Triseliotis and others is that people will generally benefit from the Bill's provisions. If problems arise, however, the Bill is explicitly weighted in the interests of those who have been adopted. There is little chance that anyone seeking information will be able to obtain it against the wishes of the person who has been adopted.

I am disappointed in the clause, because it may not be used to its fullest extent. I stand to be corrected, but it is not even retrospective. It should represent a new opportunity for a particular group of people who have been through a particular process—often in the dim and distant past. Although I support the provision, I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect over the next weeks whether to offer people who are currently denied it access to use the Bill. That would be very much in their human interests and would continue the role adopted by the Government of righting historic wrongs in the care system.

Nothing is perfect. We cannot solve everything for everybody, even if we want to. The information will not exist in many cases; in others, acquiring it will be complex and difficult—perhaps too difficult. However, there are people who could benefit tremendously from the Bill. We can do some real good through the new clause by extending it to embrace the group of people who are, as it stands, to be excluded.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

On several occasions I have given my views about aspects of the Bill being retrospective, including those parts that deal with access to information. I shall not rehearse those arguments again, other than to make one point which came to mind after we last discussed the issue. It relates to statistics, which have often been mentioned. Statistics can only have been collected from people whose records have been accessed and with whom contact has been made. By definition, a 70-year-old who has not been approached by a birth parent and who does not know that he was adopted cannot be included in such statistics. Therefore, to say after they have been approached that people would automatically have had a certain view before they were approached is a non sequitur. That is not necessarily so. Once somebody has been approached, it is more than likely—and wholly understandable—that they will want to make the best of their situation and put the best aspect on it.

The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made an important point about the scope of delegation in adoption agencies—that is, how they make the decisions regarding access to information. Presumably, agencies delegate decisions in different ways: councils may have a committee policy to determine to whom decisions should be delegated, while non-council adoption agencies may have a policy forum that discusses who will make decisions for them. I wonder whether there has been any standardisation in the past and whether Governments have taken an interest in how decisions are made. It is an issue worth exploring, if that has not yet been done, in terms of guidelines and good practice.

I have two other concerns. The first just requires clarification. The Minister said that the clause 12 mechanism—the right of appeal, which will be important in terms of the application of these provisions—will apply to new clause 7. I will be grateful if she confirms that it will apply also to the provisions of new clause 8, which I do not think she mentioned.

Finally, if the answer of an adoption agency was Yes, you can have information,'' but one of the people who had been consulted said, No, I don't want that information to be given,'' and the adoption agency took the decision that, in the circumstances, the information should be released, as things stand the individual would have no way to appeal or to stop that decision before the adoption agency released the information, and once the information had been released, an appeal against its release would be meaningless. Will the Minister provide some clarification on that? If a negative view were expressed and the adoption agency were minded to consent to the release of the information, might there be a case for adjudication by the panel?

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

I support much of what has been said about the clause by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, although I have some sympathy with the Minister's view that birth parents may approach an

agency and the agency may approach an adopted adult at a bad time for that adult, thus causing some disruption and distress. However, we know that the decision by adopted adults to seek out their birth parents is often taken after several years' consideration: for example, people who were adopted in the 60s and early 70s often start to think more about their birth parents when they have their own children. They choose to make the search at the right time for them, but clearly one of the dangers of the provision being retrospective is that the approach may not be made at a good time.

Having said that, the knowledge that birth parents or siblings are seeking contact and want to pass on information may in itself be important information for the adopted person in reaching a decision about seeking out his or her origins. The fear of rejection by a birth parent is often extremely off-putting to an adopted adult who is deciding whether to search. An adoptive father with whom I placed some children and who had been adopted himself dithered for many years about whether to start a search for fear that his birth mother would not want anything to do with him.

For many adopted adults, knowing that people want to contact them—that the circumstances in which they were adopted were not ideal and they were not rejected as babies—can be extremely important in enabling them to take steps to begin a search earlier. Time runs out for some people. There is nothing more heartbreaking for a person seeking contact than to find that his birth parent died perhaps only six months or a year before and that had he taken the step sooner, he might have had some positive contact with his parent.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Does my hon. Friend agree that it can be beneficial if contact is initiated by birth relatives? Research shows that three quarters of non-searching adopted adults do not feel comfortable about asking their adoptive parents about their birth families, so it can be helpful if contact is initiated by the birth family.

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

I certainly accept the conclusions of the research to which my hon. Friend refers. That is especially relevant to earlier cases, in which adoptive parents were given the child and told to get on with it and act if the child were their own. They may have done that for years with all good intent, but it can result in adopted children finding it very difficult to search for their birth parents.

In conclusion, although there are some dangers and difficulties involved in people being contacted at a time that is not appropriate for them, if the process is carried out with the sensitivity embodied in the clause, I feel on balance that the provision should apply to all adults who have been adopted and that it would be a beneficial way in which to proceed.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I rise to add my support to those who have spoken in favour of all adults being able to receive information on their birth parents. Of course there are inherent risks, eloquently stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), but we should grasp the principle and ask ourselves whether we agree that

information should flow and that adults should be able to make choices. Yes, there are risks, but the arguments are overriding: the flow of information should be allowed so that adults can make decisions on whether they want to hear from their birth parents. People should be able to make those decisions for themselves.

We have often discussed at what age children should be consulted. The hon. Member for Huntingdon said that children aged two or three should be consulted on whether they want to be adopted. If he agrees with that principle, surely he agrees that 18-year-olds should be able to decide whether they want to hear from their birth parents. Of course, there are complexities, but we should not put the matter in the tray marked too difficult''.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We have an interesting discussion. I am glad that the general consensus is to recognise the benefits of new clauses 7 and 8. Rather than reiterate those benefits, I shall respond to some of the issues raised in the debate.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was concerned that the new clauses might lead to greater disparity between adoption agencies' approaches. In fact, what the new clauses aim to do—and will succeed in doing, when they are enacted—is provide a much clearer and more structured process than currently exists. That will enhance consistency and provide better and more appropriate safeguards. One intention is to ensure that agencies follow best practice and are as consistent as possible. Agencies will need advice: I do not want to disappoint the hon. Member for Canterbury but, despite the Bill's excellent content, we shall underpin the provisions with regulations and guidance.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I know that the Minister enjoys a tease. My point is that one wants to have the cardinal points in the Bill itself, leaving the detail to regulations.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall not respond to his initial comment, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

I have a further point to make about discrepancy and disparity. The responses to the adoption White Paper and the problems identified around access to information were related to the fact that current law and regulations give minimal guidance on that important issue, which has led to patchy provision and to some adoption agencies following best practice while others do not. New clauses 7 and 8 will make much clearer what best practice should be, which will get rid of the current disparities.

Hon. Members also raised issues about adoption agencies' discretion in their decisions on whether to proceed, as I spelled out when I described the process under new clauses 7 and 8. The adopted person will not have a veto, although his views and welfare are important. The agency would decide whether it was appropriate to disclose, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the adopted person's welfare and any other prescribed services. There is no absolute veto.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I accept everything that my hon. Friend says about the adopted person having no absolute right of veto, but surely she agrees that it would be extraordinary if an agency went against the wishes of the adopted person and gave information about him to someone else.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

My hon. Friend is right that such circumstances would be extraordinary. However, we have not touched the subject of discretion when it is not possible to contact the person to obtain consent or otherwise. Discretion would clearly have to be exercised in such cases. There could be circumstances in which it was considerably in the best interests of the adopted person for information to be passed on about him, despite the fact that he had not consented. I am thinking of information in relation to certain medical issues.

What is important about the new clauses is that they make significant provision for the consent, wishes and interests of people about whom information is disclosed to be at the centre of the decision. Nevertheless, in some situations it may be important that the adoption agency exercises some discretion.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Does not the provision offer an opportunity simply to give an absolute veto in retrospective cases? Would that not be a sensible compromise?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall deal with the retrospective issue. My argument relates to the fact that, for a veto to be given, an approach must have been made in a way unlike those detailed at the moment.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked whether, if a person objected to the disclosure of information but the agency considered it appropriate to disclose it, there would be a fait accompli against which there was no appeal, or whether there would still be the right to a review by an independent panel. There would be such a right. When a party objects to the agency's intention to disclose and the agency then decides to do so, the objecting party would have to be informed by the agency of their right to an independent review.

Much of the debate on the new clauses has been about the extent to which new clause 7 should be retrospective. I have covered some of the legal disadvantages of retrospective legislation. Many of the arguments made, including those of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and, although not in the same words, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, have been based on the suggestion that birth relatives were in some way being left out of any opportunity to access information about their adopted children. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said that there would be no benefit for years to come.

I consider it unsatisfactory to make legislation retrospective so that it would affect people who entered into an arrangement under a different understanding of the legal position. I draw a distinction between that and what it might nevertheless be possible to do for those who were adopted before the enactment of the Bill. I understand the points that have been made about people's strong

desire for more help in getting information about an adopted adult or child and their need to be able to make contact. Perhaps I should outline for the Committee—reiterating part of the discussion that took place before Christmas—how the Bill already enables assistance to be given for making contact and tracing. I hope that I will be able to reassure some hon. Members.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am glad that the Minister is going to do that. However, what was the agreement into which people entered in the past? What were its legal ramifications, if it existed? How many people were affected by it and can we class separately those who entered into an agreement and those who did not or had different treatment? I want to get to the bottom of what happened in the mid-70s because it is such a grey area and I do not think that the Minister has got to the bottom of it herself.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Perhaps I misled the hon. Gentleman in talking about an agreement. I am not talking about a formal agreement. It is reasonable that, when a person undertakes adoption under a certain legislative position, they have some certainty that that position will continue. Making the legislation retrospective would take away the certainty of the legislative basis for their actions enjoyed by people who entered into adoption before the enacting of the Bill.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Surely the people who entered into adoption in the past were birth parents who, if the new clause were made retrospective, would be the very people who would be able to decide whether to make use of it? If not, then they were adoptive parents whose adopted children have long since become adult. I do not understand the Minister's objection.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Yes, that would be so, but although adopted adults would not have made a conscious decision to enter into an agreement, there are such adults—I spoke about them before Christmas—who do not want to be contacted by their birth parents. People are very passionate about that and about the fact that they do not even want intermediary services or to be contacted to be asked whether or not they consent. In the future, such objections will not be open to adults who were adopted after the Bill had been enacted, but taking from people adopted before that point what they considered to be a legal certainty by making the new clause retrospective would be difficult and problematic, even, quite frankly, wrong. That is the problem with making legislation retrospective. Notwithstanding that, I intend to go on to talk about the very many ways in which we can facilitate contact for those people who want it and who were adopted prior to the enactment of the Bill.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

May I rephrase the second point of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre? I agree with everything that the Minister said about retrospection, but the parties to the contract were two sets of adults. The contract dealt with a child or in some cases a baby. We are now dealing with a new adult who was not

party to that contract. We could give those who do not want any contact an absolute veto by slightly modifying the retrospective angle of new clause 7, but I cannot see how the principle of non-retrospection could apply to a new adult who was not privy to the original contract, which was made to protect the children in an adoptive relationship, and the adoptive parents and their children. We are talking about new adults who were not part of the original contract; provided that they have a veto, I cannot see the Minister's objection to retrospection.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I have already responded to the point on the veto; contact will be necessary for the veto to be exercised. It would be useful if I continue—some hon. Members might then think more positively about what the Bill would enable us to do.

Mr. Brazier rose—

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I have tried four times to continue, but I shall give way once more.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister is generous indeed. A brief mention of a constituency case might illustrate the difference that the Minister has touched upon. A constituent of mine with a terrible medical difficulty fell into exactly the category that the Minister has outlined. My constituent was absolutely passionate that she wanted to have nothing to do with her birth parents; she did not want to know who they were. As her Member of Parliament, I had to organise a third-party search to establish a medical fact for her without such contact taking place. If we turn that round the other way, we would have a constituent who falls exactly into the Minister's category. Were an adoption agency to approach that constituent and say We are anxious that you receive some medical information from your birth parents, even though we know that you want nothing to do with them. Would you like us to pass on this file to you?'' surely there could be no objection. She can still refuse to see the file.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am not sure that that adds much to our discussion. I shall now make progress.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The arguments against retrospection are not persuasive. If there were an agreement or contract between those two sets of adults, under the main public policy thrust of the Bill, which is the welcome paramountcy of the interests of the child, the interests of the child would dictate that that information should be disclosed, surely it should override any agreement entered into—

Mr. Shaw rose—

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) is continuing to point out that no one has argued that new clause 8, as it relates to children, should be retrospective. The argument is about adults.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I withdraw that; I am sorry.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I now come to what it is possible to do without retrospection, and to deal with some of the concerns raised by hon. Members. We have already discussed the intermediary services, which are at the heart of some of the points raised today. The adoption support provisions of the Bill, which are an improvement over the March version of the Bill, include a provision to offer adoption support services to a wider group of people than adopted people and their families. As I said before Christmas, the Bill has made possible the future consideration, as part of the framework of adoption support, of the extent to which intermediary services should be made available. It will be possible for those intermediary services to be made available to people adopted prior to enactment of this Bill. We have also argued that we would like to see agencies take a positive and compassionate view of approaches made by birth relatives who wish to trace people from whom they were separated. I believe that I referred to that before Christmas. To ensure some consistency in the process, we produced guidance on the provision of intermediary services, so there is opportunity, subject to the framework and to consultation, for consideration of intermediary services.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I apologise for intervening again on my hon. Friend because I know that she has taken many interventions. I also apologise for not paying tribute to the statement that she made about intermediary services before Christmas. However, if such services become available to birth parents in the case of adoptions that took place before the enactment of the Bill, will those birth parents be able to seek identifying information from the Registrar-General through a current agency and an intermediary service provided by regulation?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I think that I might be coming on to cover that point in relation to the improvements that the Bill will make to the adoption contact register. That register enables an adopted person to register on one list and a birth parent or relative to register on another list and facilitates the linking of the two. Clauses 77 and 78 will extend the existing service so that an adopted person's registration on part 1 may signify either a desire for contact with any relatives, contact with specified relatives or no contact. A birth relative's registration on part 2 may signify a desire for contact, or for no contact, with a specified adopted person. Interestingly, people sometimes state explicitly that they want to register the fact that they do not want to have any contact at all. That further important service will take account of some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn).

I have made my point on my concern about retrospective legislation. We are discussing a sensitive issue and I believe that the Government have gone a significant way down the track of recognising that sensitivity through what we have said about intermediary services and the improvements to the adoption contact register. We recognise the needs of birth parents to be supported in any approaches that

they make, while accepting that it is not possible to have a right for birth parents and a right for adopted adults. At some point, a choice must be made about whose rights are paramount.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised a point about siblings. I can assure him that siblings will be covered, post Bill, by the provisions in new clauses 7 and 8 and, pre Bill, by the intermediary services and adoption support provisions and I think also—I shall correct this if I am wrong—by the adoption contact register.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon asked whether the right of referral to independent review covered the provisions of new clause 8. The answer is yes.

We have had a wide-ranging discussion. There is a consensus that the Government's new clauses and clause 58 provide a much more coherent structure for the provision of access to information. That fulfils our pledge in the adoption White Paper, and, on that basis, I hope that they will receive the Committee's support.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 - Disclosing protected etc. information in other circumstances

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham tried to throw me off my stride by not moving an amendment, but he failed.

The clause should not stand part of the Bill because, as I explained earlier, where the protected information concerns an adult, we intend to go through the process in new clause 7 and where it concerns a child, we shall go through the process in new clause 8.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I want to check that new clauses 7 and 8 will end up as clauses 59 and 60.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman is really getting to the heart of the issues this afternoon. The answer is that I do not know—it will depend where the new clauses fit into the Bill. I assure him that he will get to see the amended Bill before Report stage, when it will become clear what numbers the various new clauses have. I am sorry that I cannot provide that information now.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 59 disagreed to.Clause 60Counselling

Clause 60 - Counselling

Clause 61 - Other provision to be made by regulations

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 212, in page 34, leave out lines 31 to 33.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 213 to 216.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The clause provides for a group of powers through regulations that we intend to use to balance the rights of individuals, and to regulate the operation of the new duties for adoption agencies and the Registrar-General. As the Committee has discussed, the Government have changed the original approach that we set out in the Bill in relation to access to birth certificates and any other protected information. The changes are provided for in new clause 7(3) and new clause 8(3) and (4). Clause 61(2)(a) and (b), which provided for regulations to prescribe the circumstances in which a person may object to the disclosure of information about himself, and how he may do so, are therefore no longer needed. They are taken out by amendment No. 212.

Amendment No. 213 is a consequential amendment to clause 61(2)(c) that omits reference to the manner in which objections to disclosure are to be recorded. Amendment No. 214 omits subsections (2)(d) and (e), which provide for regulations to prescribe under paragraph (d) the circumstances in which objections are to be treated as effective and, under paragraph (e), the circumstances in which a person may be treated as having objected to the disclosure of any information.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I have a technical point. Amendment No. 216 leaves out paragraph (b), which is fair enough. However, amendment No. 212 leaves out lines 31 to 33. Would it not have been easier to have left out paragraphs (a) and (b)?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when the Government table amendments, we have in mind not ease but ensuring that we deliver our policy commitments. I assure him that the amendments do so.

Amendment No. 215 is a consequential amendment that replaces object'' in subsection (3)(a) with give their views as''. The effect is that regulations may require adoption agencies to give prescribed persons prescribed information about their rights, or opportunities to give their views on the disclosure of information under clauses 53 to 62, rather than to object to the disclosure of information under those clauses. Those amendments are consequential on the policy changes that have removed the ability for objections to be made in certain circumstances to the giving of information for access to a birth certificate. They follow on from the decisions that the Committee made earlier.

Amendment No. 216 is also consequential and omits subsection (3)(b), which provides that

Regulations may require adoption agencies to make enquiries in prescribed circumstances to ascertain whether a person objects to the disclosure of information about him''.

Once again, as we have removed the statutory ability to make such objection, that particular paragraph is no longer needed.

Those are the reasons for the amendments and I hope that the Committee will support them.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

All that was as plain as mud. I want more clarification. Amendments Nos. 212, 213, 214 and 216 appear to be slashing away at the Bill for the reasons that the Minister outlined. However, I am not clear what the difference is between object'' and give their views as''. Does that amount to a watering down, so that an objection will not be seen as such? Does it amount to a declassification of objections, along the lines of there is no power of veto'', which we discussed earlier? What is the point of changing object'' to give their views as''?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I should like to address the same point. In an earlier discussion the Minister said that objections to the disclosure of information would relate to new clause 7 and new clause 8, and could be taken to a clause 12 panel. That being the case, what is objectionable about the use of object''?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am sure that hon. Members will remember that the problem with access to information was that in the case of birth records it was possible for birth parents to object to information being made available to enable people to access their birth records. As we have discussed today, the changes that the Government have subsequently made mean that new clauses 7 and 8 now spell out that such disclosure cannot be objected to. The adopted person has a right to the information required to access their birth record. Only in exceptional circumstances would the adoption agency refer the matter to the High Court.

Previously, the references to object'' in the clause related only to access to birth records. All hon. Members have agreed that we should change the provisions on that, and the Government have done so. The effect of that change is to remove the need for the regulations to require clarification of the nature of the objection. It does not undermine the points that I made in response to the earlier debate about how consent will be sought, what the safeguards are around

that consent, or the nature of the discretion, such as it is, surrounding decisions following the granting of such consent. The system for all identifying information apart from birth records is now based on the idea of seeking consent. It is therefore no longer appropriate to have parts relating to a capacity to object'', because that no longer appears in the rest of the legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 213, in page 34, line 34, leave out from 'which' to end of line.

No. 214, in page 34, leave out lines 36 to 38.

No. 215, in page 34, line 43, leave out 'object' and insert 'give their views as'.

No. 216, in page 34, line 45, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 217, in page 35, line 14, after '58', insert

'[Disclosing protected information about adults] or [Disclosing protected information about children]'.

No. 209, in page 35, line 15, leave out 'or 59'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 210, in page 35, line 16, leave out from 'person' to 'by' in line 17 and insert

'who (but for his adoption) would be related to him'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 229.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The amendments improve the drafting around the definition of relative'' in clause 61, and, consequentially, in clause 78. The word is defined in a circular manner in the Bill. It is defined as

any person (other than an adoptive relative) who is related to the adopted person by blood (including half-blood) or marriage.''

The amendments clarify that definition.

Amendment No. 210 changes subsection (6), which provides for regulations for the payment of fees to the adoption agency by anybody other than the adopted person in respect of any information disclosed to him about a birth relative. The access to information provisions place new duties on adoption agencies, and it is important that they provide that service at no cost to the adopted person when he is seeking information about a birth relative.

There will be an obligation on agencies to take all reasonable steps to seek the views of the person who would be identified. That will require them to engage in research work, to contact individuals, to use the information that they have, and—possibly—to gather more information, if their current records do not enable them to trace that individual. Adoption agencies will also have the discretion to charge a fee to a person, other than an adopted person, who is seeking protected information about a birth relative, to cover only their costs in acting on an application for such information.

Amendment No. 229 clarifies the definition of relative'' for the purposes of clause 77. It is intended to assist the Registrar-General in the determination of the criteria used to decide whether to make an entry on part 2 of the adoption contact register. As I have spelled out to the Committee, the Registrar-General is

precluded from making an entry on part 2 of the register unless the person is over 18 years of age and the Registrar-General is satisfied that that person is the relative of an adopted person. In determining whether an applicant is a relative of an adopted person, the Registrar-General is bound by the definition in the clause. The amended definition makes it clear that the applicant must be related to the adopted person by blood—including half-blood—or marriage.

The intention behind the amendments is to ensure—both in relation to clause 61 and the regulations around fees, and in relation to clause 77 and the situation with respect to the Registrar-General defining a relative for the purposes of the adoption contact register—that the definition of relative is clearly drafted, and that there is no confusion.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I listened carefully to the Minister. However, I feel strongly that nothing could be clearer than

adopted person by blood (including half-blood) or marriage'',

whereas what we are substituting is

who (but for his adoption) would be related to him''.

It seems in some ways slightly insulting to say but for his adoption''. Such people are related, regardless of the adoption. Obviously he or she is related to the adoptive siblings. When a family adopts a child, the adopted child becomes related to the birth children of the adoptive parents, but he will always be related to his true—or birth—siblings. The provision complicates matters and is slightly insulting.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I do not have much more to add to my previous comments. We believe that the proposed drafting is clearer than the previous drafting. The suggestion that it is insulting is silly, dare I say it. On that basis, I am sure that hon. Members will support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 61, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 - Interpretation

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 218, in page 35, line 23, at end insert

'or to information relating to his adoption'.

The clause relates to interpretation and provides definitions for this group of sections''. The amendment affects the term appropriate adoption agency'' in subsection (1). The term is used throughout this group of clauses in order to identify the adoption agency to which a person must apply in order to obtain information—either the agency that placed the adopted person for adoption or the agency that keeps information on a person's adoption because the placing agency has since closed down. In the case of a non-agency placement, notice of intention to adopt would have been given to the local authority. The

amendment makes it clear that the definition of appropriate adoption agency'' applies to both the adopted himself and to information relating to his adoption.

Amendment agreed to.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 211, in page 35, line 45, after 'fee' insert

'by virtue of section 61(7)'.

The amendment will restrict the regulations that require the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to those made under clause 61(7). Clause 61(7) provides for the payment of a fee by an adoption agency to the Registrar-General for his disclosure of information on the adoption contact register, which is provided for under clause 61(4). The purpose of seeking the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer when a fee is prescribed in regulations is to align the provisions with the chapter 5 provisions under which the Chancellor is required to approve regulations made by the Registrar-General.

Under clause 61(6), regulations may provide for adoption agencies to charge a fee to a person other than the adopted person seeking protected information about a birth relative in order to cover only the costs in acting on an application for identifying information. The amendment makes it clear that the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is involved when regulations prescribe that a fee should be paid by the adoption agency to the Registrar-General.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I have one question. If I heard the Minister correctly, she said that a fee could be charged—to recover costs—except when the person concerned is the adopted person. Is that correct?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Yes. If I did not say that just now, I said it earlier.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

That seems a reasonable provision, but in such circumstances, is it not unfair that a fee is still charged by the Registrar-General for providing centrally held information? I am thinking about voluntary adoption agencies that are already struggling. Why should they be charged a fee that cannot be recovered?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The Registrar-General charges individuals a fee. The hon. Gentleman continues to mention the charging of adoption agencies by the Registrar-General, although I understand his point. However, it is necessary to ensure that costs are recovered. The important principle is that adopted people should not be charged for information made available to them. The intricacies of the cost structures of adoption agencies should not be discussed under the amendment or, perhaps, in this Committee. However, I heard the hon. Gentleman's point and I am sure that Treasury Ministers will also hear it.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I shall finish my point. Although I should raise the matter during clause stand part rather than debate on the amendment, I imagine that we will hardly have a debate on clause stand part. I am sure that all members of the Committee agree that adopted

individuals should be exempted from the charges, but it seems unfair that voluntary adoption agencies that are struggling to cover their costs and raise money are charged by the Government for providing information when, for perfectly sound reasons, they cannot recharge that fee to adopted individuals.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I should like to emphasise my hon. Friend's points. We want to know more about fees. I do not think that there is a clause under which we will have the opportunity to debate the subject. Other countries operate various registers for free, although we are getting mixed up because we are discussing different registers such as the contact register and the adoption register. Voluntary adoption agencies provide a public service and there is a case for direct Government funding.

There is a parallel with the recently introduced register—I forget what it is called—for the investigation of people who work with young people.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The Criminal Records Bureau.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Indeed. The Government's original intention was to charge a fee to organisations, such as the scouts and guides, for each investigation of a youth worker. That would have placed a great financial burden on voluntary groups that do good work. Opposition Members including myself had to bring a lot of pressure to bear on the Government to change its heart. There is not a world of difference between that and the register that the Committee is considering.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

May I correct my hon. Friend, albeit by reinforcing his point? We are considering much smaller sums of money, because we are discussing only voluntary agencies, of which there are only 10, and they deal with only a few cases. The sums are tiny compared with the sums involved with the register that he mentioned on which the Government eventually and sensibly gave way.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am sure that that is the case. I think that it was estimated that voluntary adoption agencies subbed the Government to the tune of £3.5 million with their work, which would otherwise have to be done by public bodies. Why must fees be attached to a process that ensures that more children are taken into stable adoptive homes, thereby saving local authorities an enormous amount of money in care homes and social services departments? What sort of fees are we thinking about, and has an estimate been made of the cost, in particular to voluntary adoption agencies?

What mechanism is there for reviewing the fees, how often will they be put up and will they ever be reduced? Will they reflect just the cost of running the system, or will they cover more than overheads? What happens if the cost of running the register turns out to be less than anticipated and the fees more than outweigh the costs? Would a refund be available to the agencies and would fees in the subsequent year be reduced? We need the answers to those questions and a bit more detail about the fees.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Subsection (2)(a) mentions regulations that

are to be made by the Scottish Ministers'',

but the Bill's provisions extend only to Scotland and Wales—

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

England and Wales.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Indeed; the provisions extend only to England and Wales except insofar as certain sections will extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Will the regulations mentioned in subsection (2)(a) require the Scottish Parliament to pass separate legislation? If so, how will that affect the provisions of Government amendment No. 211?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

On the subject of fees, Opposition Members have made the case for voluntary adoption agencies, and I have spelled out the relationships between the adoption agency and the Registrar-General, and the individual—who will not be charged fees—and the adoption agency.

The Registrar-General is a creation of statute, and the exercise of functions must recover the costs of providing information. Therefore, he must have the power to charge adoption agencies for information. Provided that he has that power, he will be able to exercise discretion about to whom fees may apply. I agree with hon. Gentlemen's points about the important role of voluntary adoption agencies, and I am sure that they will be considered when decisions are made about charges. The Registrar-General does not currently charge adopted people for information, but charges them and birth parents for registration on the contact register. Those fees are £15 and £30 respectively and are subject to review by the Secretary of State.

The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk raised a broad question. The crux of it was whether the Scottish Parliament would need to consider separate adoption legislation. The power of Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Department of Health is to make regulations, which are secondary legislation subject to the procedures of the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly—

It being Five o'clock, The Chairman, proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001], and the Order of the Committee [27 November 2001], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment agreed to.

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

Clause 62, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 - Adopted children register

Clause 75 - Searches and copies

Clause 76 - Connections between the register and birth records

Clause 78 - Adoption contact register: supplementary