Adoption and Children Bill

Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2002.

Special Standing Committee

New clause 9 - Registration of private foster parents

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

I rise to support the principles proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) in new clause 9. It is important to improve the regulation of private fostering. My hon. Friend said that he spoke with 10 years' experience of social services. I can take that and double it to 20 years.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Surely not.

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

How kind.

From my first experiences as an unqualified social worker to my work as assistant director of children's services with responsibility for ensuring that the regulations were enforced, I know how difficult that

can be. I have some sympathy with the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister that if regulations are not working, the first port of call should be to try to enforce them. Having tried to do that for many years, I strongly urge her to consider ways to improve them.

The reality is that most children who are privately fostered are not known to the local authority social services in the area in which they are living. I was working as assistant director in York in 1999 when the Department of Health asked us to make a proper check on how many children in the area were privately fostered. On checking, we found that our social workers knew of two such arrangements. However, the population of that local authority area was 175,000, and the average number of children looked after by the local authority was between 100 and 125, so it was most unlikely that the number of children privately fostered could be as low as two.

We did, of course, try further to discover where some of the privately fostered children were placed. We approached the schools, as most know who to contact in emergencies. Having said that, although ideally one would hope that schools would have a good knowledge of the children's living arrangements, the often complicated nature of many families nowadays means that we cannot always be certain. The regulations do not have enough teeth. Little energy is put into seeking out children, but having worked with private foster parents, I know that the regulations are not strong enough to ensure that the children are properly protected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford rightly made a comparison with child minding. We know that some children are illegally minded, but regulations to enforce proper child minding have become part of our culture. As a result, few people doubt that those who look after children who are not related to them should be subject to proper checks, including the police checks set out in the regulations. The general population and, importantly, those whose children are privately fostered would, in time, understand why we had introduced much stronger regulations on private fostering. I shall not go into that, however, because my hon. Friend has covered it.

The new clause is not only about enforcement, but about promoting proper regulations and a more positive partnership between private foster parents and social services departments. There are already positive relationships between child minders and those who regulate them, and there are opportunities for training, providing information and ensuring that child minders are supported in what is sometimes a difficult task. Stronger regulations would allow a similar relationship to develop between social services departments and private foster carers.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

As the hon. Lady knows, I am partly sympathetic to the proposed measure, but she is in danger of over-egging the pudding when she refers to the sheer warmth of the relationship between child minders and those who regulate them. As the husband of the former chairman of a playgroup, I know that the scope of the regulations on pre-school child care organisations,

which often struggle close to the edge of financial viability, is often daunting. [Laughter.]

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

I shall not wander down the road that we took before Christmas, because the contents of the regulations are a matter of detail.

It has been properly emphasised from the Government Benches that we are talking not about children who leave their parents for a few hours a day, but about those who may live for many years with people whom to begin with they do not know and to whom they are not related. They may not be subject to proper checks, and their parents may not have regular contact to ensure that they are properly placed and happy. My point was that contact between professionals and those who undertake the care of children provides an opportunity to improve standards and develop ways of overcoming the difficulties that arise whenever children do not live with their own families. I want progress to be made on that.

I accept that there may be difficulties with the wording of the new clause and that we must ensure that whatever replaces the regulations significantly improves on them and operates properly in practice. I hope that the Minister will take account of the feelings that I have expressed in supporting the new clause.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am pleased to support the new clause, which my colleagues have so ably moved and supported. From my perspective of 18 years of social work experience, it seems that there is a lacuna in this area of social policy. Remedying that omission could notably improve the position of one group of children who live away from home.

The Government have a proud record on their policies towards children and those who are particularly vulnerable because they live away from home. We are seeing wholesale improvements in the regulation and quality of living arrangements for children in residential care, foster care and the adoptive placements that we have been discussing. The Government have a proud record of response from 1997 to Sir William Utting's report, ''People Like Us''. Referring to his report, Sir William said in ''A Very Private Practice'', a recent publication from the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering:

''One of the review's general conclusions was that there should be a consistent, minimum level of safeguards for children across all the settings in which they might live away from home. Determined abusers seek out any sector in which controls and external scrutiny are weak, and incompetent carers are naturally drawn to areas in which staff selection and supervision are unknown. It was plain to the review that private fostering was among the least controlled and most open to abuse of all the environments in which children lived away from home.''

As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford pointed out, the issue of private fostering has been raised by him and others on a number of occasions since 1997. I cannot understand why a Government who are so committed to ensuring high standards for children living away from home, to attending to their protection and safety and to trying to restrict the opportunities of determined abusers to

gain access to them are so reluctant to intervene in the area. The new clause should be supported by every member of the Committee. We have had our debate and our disagreements, but I respect the solid commitment to the support and protection of children that every Committee member has plainly shown over the past few months.

There is nothing in the new clause that justifies any of the concerns raised by Opposition Members about some of the issues in the Bill. There is no hint of political correctness—

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Left or right wing.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Left or right wing, as my hon. Friend points out. No radical new social work proposal conjured up in a left-wing sociology department is to be imposed on an unwitting public or on family life. What we have is a sensible solution to an obvious problem. Nobody is saying that it is a panacea that will immediately resolve every problem that faces children.

The regrettable and appalling fact is that however well we improve legislation and resource social services, we will never be able to protect every child for 100 per cent. of the time from people who are determined to abuse, molest and harm him. The dangers presented by some of the people who want to abuse children in this country are well known. They are dangerous people—highly capable, intelligent and organised.

The situation remains grossly unsatisfactory. We have no idea whatever how many children are living away from home under private fostering arrangements. We have no idea of the conditions in which those children are living or of the potential abuse that they face. Children in boarding schools, residential care, foster care, adoptive placements and those who attend day nurseries or are cared for by child minders do not face such a situation. Privately fostered children are completely unprotected and that is completely unacceptable.

All that is proposed is a register. It is a simple device, which will not deal with every difficulty and problem that we will face, but which has worked with obvious effect in the case of child minders. Who here—who anywhere—would regard it as onerous that child minders should be required to register or that they should be inspected? Who would object to the day care of children being kept under close scrutiny? Why on earth should we not have a register for people who look after children, not just on a day care basis, but 24 hours a day, perhaps throughout those children's lives?

There is no possible sensible argument against the principle set out in the new clause. The Government should accept it and every member of the Committee should support it. I hope that they will and I hope that something substantial will be forthcoming from the Government. My hon. Friend has a tremendous record of concern on the matter and of support for this principle. The Minister has led the Committee with enormous distinction and aplomb, but if we do

not make real progress on the matter, I hope that my hon. Friend will press his new clause to a vote and that everyone will support it.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The principle of registration is certainly correct, but as ever the devil is in the detail. I am unsure whether the new clause properly addresses the sensitivities of what it involves. The question is not whether there should be a register, but how people would get on it, what kind of hoops they would have to jump through, and what they would have to do to stay on it. That needs a lot of fleshing out. Foster parents are enormously valuable to the system and the position is difficult. As hon. Members have rightly said, such parents have to be professional and there are standards of conduct to which we would all expect them to adhere, but at the same time, one is looking for a warm family atmosphere and the support that a family can provide, and those are not the easiest qualities to regulate.

The principle of regulation is not wrong, but we must be careful. We need to appreciate that, in practice, the issue will be sensitive. In many parts of the country, it is very hard to get new foster parents. I have had experience of that in an inner-city area where there was a dearth of new foster parents. Relatively large houses are needed, which are hard to come by in cities. That means that the supply of foster parents is limited. I remember how we treasured them.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I am not sure what argument the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he realise that we are talking about private foster parents, and that the regulations would have no impact on the shortages to which he refers?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The proposal would have an impact. This is a question not of new foster parents, but of existing ones. People who have been foster parents for 20 years, for example, and have a good reputation, may not choose to remain foster parent when regulations are thrown at them. If they have to go through a series of hoops to get on the register, a lot of them will drop out.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Could the people who would drop out of private fostering if regulations were introduced possibly be precisely those whom no one would want to look after children?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That may be so, but many others would drop out.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

There was much laughter from Labour Members when I raised the issue of playgroups. They may think it funny, but many decent people who ran successful playgroups dropped out and gave up because of heavy-handed regulations.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Someone came to my surgery who ran a playgroup that was closed down when new regulations came in last year. That person could not afford to comply with the regulations, and did not want to go through all the extra hoops.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

No, I shall continue my point. The same thing could happen to private foster parents if we do not tread carefully. For many foster parents, fostering does not provide their main income; they do it not only for extra money, but because they feel that it is giving something to the community in which they live. If we go in too hard on regulation, those people will start dropping out. Why should they go through extra hoops of regulation?

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I cannot believe what I am hearing. I was far too generous in my earlier remarks. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people who look after other people's children 24 hours a day should not be prepared to be on a local authority register? What does he think that they might have to hide?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The hon. Gentleman clearly has not listened to a word that I have said, because I began my remarks by saying that there should be a register. The question is not whether there should be a register, but how people would get on to that register and what they would have to go through to maintain their entry on that register. I speak from experience. If we go overboard with regulation, foster parents who are on the margin, for whom fostering is not vital to their income—

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

No, I shall finish my point. If we suddenly say to people who foster because they feel that it is important to put something back into the community and because they love children that they must go through 20 hoops, many will drop out.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said that he had 10 years' experience in the field of social work, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said that he had 18 years' experience and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) said that she had 20 years' experience. In addition, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said that he had several years' experience in social services—as the chairman of Westminster social services, I think. That shows a contrast, in that some learn from their experience and others do not. The arguments made by Labour Members are based on practical experience, while the arguments of the hon. Member for Huntingdon seem to be based on that right-wing political correctness that we discussed—that absolute revulsion at the suggestion of any state role in regulating private activities such as private fostering. I freely admit that I have no experience at all in this sphere, but I am staggered, as any member of the public would be, to find out that the protection afforded to children who are privately fostered is less than that afforded to children who are put in the care of a child minder.

I do have experience of using a child minder, and it was a relief to me as a parent to know that that child minder was registered with the local authority, that police checks had been carried out and that my child was safe in that person's care.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The important point is that, provided the local authority has been as diligent as it should, experience should show that someone who has been a

foster parent for 10 or 20 years is a good foster parent. The average length of time for which foster parents care for particular children is short, so an experienced foster parent will very likely have cared for a large number—

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

Order. The hon. Member was making a lengthy intervention; I think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) has got the point.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows that he misunderstands the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford and which people he is concerned about. My hon. Friend is not referring to experienced foster carers who are known to the local authority, and who have fostered children through the local authority. He is worried about abuses such as those that happen in London in particular, often involving children whose parents do not even live in this country, and sometimes amounting to domestic slavery. The foster carers relevant to our debate are not even required to register with the local authority. We should try to do something about that.

I praise my hon. Friend for the way in which he has pursued the matter and I hope that the Minister will be able to give him some reassurance. He has conceded that perhaps his proposal would not achieve all that is necessary in the context, but it should certainly be taken seriously and deserves a positive response.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

It is a pity that what has been a well tempered Committee, with much consensus and relatively few votes, should end in blows on the final day.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Canning Town)

It is because it is the last day.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I thank the Government Whip for that gratifying thought.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford is to be congratulated on raising the important issue dealt with by the new clause. Its importance has been recognised by all hon. Members who have spoken, on both sides of the Committee.

The hon. Gentleman knows, as like me he is a Kent Member, of the work that I have been involved in, to which I have alluded, in an effort to organise police registration for those who provide holiday placements for foreign children. We now have a successful voluntary registration scheme for every relevant east Kent school. Certainly all of them in the Canterbury city council area are collaborating. Six of the first 12 police checks turned up people who either had committed serious criminal offences or were known child abusers. The work that I have done in this context leaves me in no doubt that the case for police checks is overwhelming.

However, the new clause is not only a matter of police checks; it concerns the wider issue of registration. Labour Members did not strengthen their case by their attitude to the comments made—with the experience of chairing an elected body

responsible for social services—by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon about the danger that over-heavy registration may lead to a drying-up, as it has elsewhere. I referred to it having done so in relation to playgroups.

It is all very well for hon. Members to say that they have huge experience of responsibility for operating regulations. That is an extremely valuable job. I am not the type to knock social workers in general, and whenever I cite specific abuses I am careful to make it clear that I am talking about small numbers of people and specific local authorities. Their profession is vital, and they must be proud to serve in it. However, I ask hon. Members to be clear that there is another consideration besides the important work of regulation: the people who have to provide the services. They have vital interests and concerns too, and there will be a problem if fewer people are willing to come forward.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I do not think that there would be a problem if fewer people were prepared to come forward for private foster care. I do not care if the source of private foster carers dries up. If people want to be private foster carers, they should go on a register. If they are not prepared to do so, there must be a problem and parents should not place their children in such foster care. We are talking not about properly approved and supported foster carers used by local authorities, but about a small—

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

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to catch my eye again, he may do so, but he must prevent his interventions from stretching out too much.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

You rightly remind us of that, Mr. Stevenson, on our last day when we have a lot left to cover. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's view, and he would not expect me to. Some people need fostering services and for one reason or another do not want to put their children into local authority care.

I have fought for police checks on many subjects for a long time. I made my first speech in the House on child abuse 13 years ago. It is important to remember that some of the worst and most ineffective bodies at putting proper police checks on their foster carers have been certain local authorities. Four or five in London could be named. They operated long, detailed and intrusive registers, but with no proper police checks.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford has made an overwhelming case for police checks on the subject. He mentioned the problem from west Africa, which is important, but checks should apply across the board. The jury is still out on the issue of wider registration.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I want to intervene in the debate briefly, as a member of the Select Committee on Health when it produced its report on looked-after children. At that stage, we were considering Sir William Utting's report, which highlighted the problem.

I have tremendous sympathy with those who have proposed the new clause. My concern, which has to

some extent been reflected by the comments made by my hon. Friends, is that I would not want such a new clause to impinge on informal arrangements. New section 69(5) of the Children Act 1989, as proposed by the new clause, would make it a criminal offence for anyone to

''act as a private foster parent unless he is registered under subsection (1)''.

That would impose or impinge on informal arrangements that parents might want to make for their children with family friends or others. I do not have a problem with the principle of a register. My problem is with the exclusive nature of the two proposed new subsections, which would make it a criminal offence for an individual to look after somebody else's children, acting as though he were a foster parent.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but there would be no need to register if one were looking after a child for less than 28 days. There is no intention in the new clause of impinging on such informal arrangements with neighbours and family friends.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations, but I do not share his confidence that, if the provision were enacted, social workers and others would interpret it in that way.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

This has been a very useful debate on an important issue that is worrying in many respects, particularly those raised by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford and others have spoken passionately and with great knowledge about the subject, and I recognise their commitment to expressing the concern about adequate protection for children in private fostering arrangements. As my hon. Friend said, the subject is especially disturbing given that the inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Victoria Climbié case is taking place. I shall return to the Climbié case because it highlights the dilemma that we as a community face when considering what action might be effective. All Committee members agree that whatever action we take should achieve the objectives that we set for it and should not have detrimental or counterproductive side effects.

It is easy to seek a legislative solution to all the problems that are brought to our attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre was right to say that the proposed provision is not about political correctness, however, it might reflect our belief that we, as legislators and regulators, can always solve problems through legislation and regulation. Sometimes we should step back and consider whether that is possible.

We must be clear about the issues. The hon. Member for Huntingdon made some interesting points, but I am not sure that he was clear about our views on private fostering. On Tuesday, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford set out the legal position on private fostering. The greatest number of children who are placed with private foster carers are those who stay with relatives and friends for

relatively short periods and for a variety of reasons; they include those whose parents have gone abroad to work and who leave them with relatives so that their education is not disturbed.

For example, in my 11 years of teaching, I often came across children—perhaps in the February or March—who were about to take their GCSEs but whose parents were moving to another part of the country with the younger children to work. Quite understandably and sensibly, those parents would arrange for the child to stay with a close friend or neighbour until they finished their GCSEs. That is the sort of arrangement that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) was talking about, and it seems completely appropriate. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, it may be covered by the new clause.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I agree with my hon. Friend; I have no doubt that the new clause would cover such an arrangement. I would be obliged, however, if she would tell me what would be so onerous about families registering with the local authority when they take on the huge responsibility of looking after children for several months during their GCSEs.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That is where we come to the importance of looking at the details. First, the family would already need to notify the local authority of the arrangement. Secondly, we should bear it in mind—this may or may not be acceptable—that the new clause would require the family to register in advance. We must be careful not to intrude into family and community life in a way that is unwarranted and which might make people less likely to take on such responsibilities. We should bear in mind other examples of what might be involved.

Adolescents might fall out with their parents and move in temporarily with a friend's parents or move to a friend's home because they cannot get on with their step-parents. A woman who recently came to my constituency surgery was looking after a 15-year-old who had fallen out quite severely with his parents and step-parents. She came to me because she wanted support with that arrangement and was concerned about the child. Perhaps social services should have spoken to her; I suspect that she would have been willing for them to do so. We must be careful not to put people off doing what I consider to be a good turn—the sort of thing that I would hope friends and families in our community would want to do.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way once more. Does she not accept that it is precisely when a good turn needs to be done that a completely inappropriate person can occasionally offer to help, and the child can be placed at risk?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Yes, I accept that, which is why I said that there were important issues for us to consider. The lady to whom I referred told me that the local authority would have been looking after the child had she not taken him in. That might have been a good thing, but there are wider implications for the recruitment of foster carers and the extent to which we depend on them rather than communities and families.

Of course, some children are privately fostered for long periods and may be sent from abroad, as was mentioned on Tuesday. That includes the practice of sending African children to England to benefit from a good education in the expectation of improving their life chances, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said on Tuesday.

Some mention has also been made of the despicable spectre of child trafficking. In relation to recent publicity resulting from reports on ''Today'', for example, it is worth placing it on record that the Government have made it clear that if people want to come forward—confidentially if they wish—with evidence of such activity, we would most certainly take action across Government. It is clearly unacceptable that children are trafficked in the way that some people have suggested.

The Government are currently negotiating a framework decision with the European Union. It will be a binding EU instrument, and it will require the criminalisation of trafficking in human beings for the purpose of exploiting their labour and services or for sexual exploitation. The United Kingdom will be required to implement the instrument within two years of its adoption.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am encouraged by what the Minister is saying; she knows that I raised the subject recently in Westminster Hall. Do the changes that she describes include a provision for closing a loophole in the law? At the moment, child sex traffickers can take young women abroad, particularly women from west Africa who come into the country through Sussex, and they usually end up in Italy. That is not an offence if the girls seem to go willingly, although they are under all sorts threats. I hope that the Department is looking at that loophole.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall certainly look at that now that the hon. Gentleman has raised it. That probably emphasises the need for us to take action not only across Government but with our international partners, in order to ensure that it is tackled.

Last year, the Government set up Project Reflex, a multi-agency taskforce to co-ordinate anti-trafficking operations, and to develop the intelligence and strategic planning necessary to underpin them. Led by the National Crime Squad, it brings together all the agencies involved in combating organised immigration crime. It has had a number of successful operations involving overseas partners.

I have made it clear that the Government start with the premise that the state should intervene in family life only when it has to. We want to enable parents and the wider community to take their responsibilities seriously, and not to intervene without need. I have given examples of when we need to balance the real issues of child protection with the legitimate concerns of family and community. However, it should not be, nor is it, an area where the state has no responsibility and no remit. Although I recognise what my hon. Friends have said about whether the current

provisions are effective, it is worth reminding ourselves of the current legal position.

The Children Act was framed in recognition of the risks associated with private fostering. It requires the local authority to satisfy itself that the welfare of the child is satisfactorily safeguarded and promoted by others. It does so by supervising, regulating and advising in respect of private placements. The local authority is required to visit at specified intervals and to report on those visits. The regulations set out detailed requirements.

In fulfilling its duty, the local authority must apprise itself of the following: the duration and purpose of the fostering arrangements; the child's physical, intellectual, emotional, social and behavioural development; cultural issues; financial arrangements; medical and dental care; education arrangements; standards of care; the suitability of the foster parents to look after the child; the suitability of the household and the environment; contact arrangements between the foster parents and the child's parents; and the wishes and feelings of the child. Section 7 guidance—the statutory guidance for local authorities that supports the regulations—sets out the way in which the issues must be dealt with, which includes making a police check. Local authorities have the power to impose requirements or, if serious concerns arise, to prohibit the fostering arrangement.

It is an offence to accommodate a privately fostered child in any premises in contravention of a prohibition imposed by a local authority. The maximum penalty is six months' imprisonment, a £5,000 fine or both. Similarly, a person who is disqualified from privately fostering a child and who fails to notify the local authority and obtain its written consent before entering into a private fostering arrangement is guilty of an offence punishable by up to six months in prison, a maximum fine of £5,000 or both.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Will the Minister clarify whether that applies to children who are fostered on premises in which such a banned person is living? There is of course an obvious loophole—the person can get a spouse or partner formally to do the fostering instead.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I certainly suspect and hope that that would be covered by inspections of the kind that I described in outlining the regulations, but I shall try to obtain further details.

Refusing to allow a privately fostered child to be visited by an officer of the local authority is also an offence, punishable by a fine of up to £3,000. However, despite those provisions—it is important to recognise that there are significant provisions in law—the Government are ready to acknowledge that there are difficulties in private fostering, and I am committed to ensuring that the system at the very least works effectively.

I am not convinced that establishing a register would alone solve all the problems. The issue may be not just registration but awareness. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford disagrees about that. We are concerned with something that is a private arrangement. There is

little public awareness about what constitutes private fostering, and few people realise that there is a requirement for them to notify anyone of their arrangement.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

My hon. Friend has talked about awareness. Does she concede that it is completely inadequate that there should have been a wait of two years for the Government to do what they said about conducting an awareness campaign?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was about to come to future action by the Government.

The Government undertook to produce an awareness campaign on private fostering, following the response to the children's safeguards review. In August 2000, the chief inspector of social services wrote to all councils reminding them of their responsibilities. That year we commissioned the social services inspectorate to undertake an inspection of private fostering to give us more information on councils' practice.

In 2001, we prepared and issued a leaflet for professionals working in education, health and social services, raising the issue of private fostering and repeating messages about notification, and we are now at the final stage of planning a second stage of the awareness campaign, with information targeted at the public, particularly the most frequently involved groups and where awareness is low.

I want to cover two further issues before I return to the question of what further action can be taken. First, comparisons—favourable and unfavourable—have been made between the registration of child minders and the proposals in the new clause. Although there may be arguments in favour of the new clause, I am not sure that such comparisons are the most powerful argument. Child minding is clearly identified as a specific type of activity; child minders are registered to look after the under-eights. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West pointed out, people looking for child care are dealing with a market. Child minders register prospectively with the local authority to show that they are available for business, as well as to ensure that the necessary safeguards are in place. The approach taken by private foster carers may be totally different. They are often friends of the family, and to that extent their situation is different.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will my hon. Friend reconsider that remark? There are myriad ways in which friends and neighbours take on child minding. The child minding regulations have no effect of preventing those arrangements.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

That may well be. The issues relating to potential regulation and registration of private fostering were considered in some detail in relation to the regulation of child minding, so to some extent my hon. Friend supports my point. When we consider further regulation, we must be careful not to squeeze out the good while tackling the bad.

The question of 42 days or 28 has been mentioned. When considering the Utting report, we recognise that current arrangements cover students who come to the United Kingdom to attend language school and stay

for six weeks in the summer holidays to improve their language skills. They are often fostered with families known to the school, which means that some local authority areas contain a population who fall within the category of privately fostered children, but may not need the protection of the notification process to support them.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned the development of a code of practice. That will introduce some safeguards for the protection of students of which schools can inform parents. I welcome that. Although the Children Act 1989 has not been amended to take account of the threshold of 42 rather than 28 days, a safeguard is thus provided for those students and their parents, who can directly check and compare to discover which schools follow the code of practice.

I return to the question of further action and what the Government can do in the light of the serious concerns raised by hon. Members in this debate. The Government are committed to taking the action necessary to protect all children, including those who are privately fostered. We have already taken action through our campaign and in establishing the Climbié inquiry. I assure the Committee that we will examine carefully the findings of the SSI inspection reports and the results of the Climbié inquiry. We will also consider the range of concerns that hon. Members have expressed, many of which I share.

Today I asked my Department to prepare for a review of private fostering. We must not get in the way of the excellent work being carried out by Lord Laming on the Climbié inquiry. The review will be ready to start at a time that fits best with that timetable, to enable the Government to respond as broadly as possible to the recommendations and conclusions stemming from that inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford made important points about the need to safeguard children in private fostering. I hope that he accepts that the Government take the matter seriously. There are complicated factors to be considered, but I assure him that the Government are committed to a review of the subject and of the issues he raised.

The review will involve the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Local Government Association, other stakeholders and the voluntary sector. The review will necessitate consultation across Government, with the children and young people's unit, the Department for Education and Skills, the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, as well as consultation with carers and children.

Although I do not suggest that my hon. Friend give up his zeal—I suspect that he will never do so—I hope that my assurance that the Government take the issues seriously will persuade him not to press the new clause to a Division.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I thank all members of the Committee for taking part in or listening to our debate on the new clause. My hon. Friends who are former social work colleagues outdid me by a whole hairline of years in

social work—[Laughter.] Perhaps a decade of experience is not enough for me to make a strong case.

Several hon. Members remarked that private fostering is one of the few gaping holes in the net of protection for children against potential abusers and poor standards of care. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre quoted the Utting report. The inquiry team identified private fostering as the environment in which fostered children were least controlled and most open to abuse. It is one of the most risky environments in which children live.

We compare regulation of playgroups and informal arrangements for looking after children who are doing GCSEs, but we should consider the cases of children who come from west Africa and live here for years, and children who are beaten with iron bars by strangers. They are a world apart from the subject under discussion. When hon. Members use the former examples, they are either missing the point or do not want to address the issues. Registration would close the loophole.

My hon. Friend the Minister says that the Government are concerned. She says also that most of the children involved are from west Africa. I might agree with that assertion, but given that the Department of Health has not collated those figures since 1991 because it found that they were unreliable, her figures cannot have come from her Department.

The ADSS and the LGA are seriously worried about the situation; they have tried for more than a decade to persuade people to register as private fosterers. The Department of Health says that 50 per cent. of people who foster privately do not notify, but I do not know where it gets that percentage because it does not collate the figures. Given that that is the case, how can we know whether the awareness campaign has had an effect?

The hon. Member for Huntingdon, who was chair of Westminster social services, talked about losing private fosterers as a potential resource. I agree that people might fall by the wayside if a requirement for registration were introduced. However, the former director of Westminster social services, who is now at Medway, certainly supports a registration scheme. I do not know whether they have ever discussed the matter.

Mr. Djanogly indicated dissent.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

That is a shame.

There is world of difference between informal arrangements and children coming from west Africa and staying for many years. I concede the Minister's point about the Victoria Climbié inquiry. There were other factors involved in the case: private fostering is not the only reason why that child suffered in such an horrendous way. However, we must ask ourselves whether that tragedy would have occurred if we had run an awareness campaign at airports and our embassies throughout west Africa telling people, ''If your child is coming to the UK, make sure that the people who will care for him or her have been checked by social services.'' If that had been done, I doubt that

Victoria Climbié would have gone to the people in question, who were not relatives as defined in the regulations.

The comparison between child minding and private foster care is sound. During consideration of the Bill that became the Care Standards Act 2000 it was suggested that the regulation of child minding might discourage people from offering their services as informal babysitters. That argument can always be made, but it is an argument for doing nothing. Most of the people in this country would agree that if someone looks after a child who comes from abroad and stays for many years, the minimum requirement should be that they register with the local authority. Yet we are told that currently 50 per cent. of such people do not even bother to do that.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The hon. Gentleman speaks authoritatively and well. The question of foreign children being privately fostered in Britain is of special concern, and the example he used, of the Climbié case, is pertinent. However, even if the social worker in that case, who saw the child several times, had been dealing with the registration of private foster parents, it would not have made any difference: in that case, registration would have made no difference. Once the issue had been identified—

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

Order. Once again, the intervention is too long.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

It is not for us to pre-empt the Laming inquiry, but it would be a reasonable bet that the people who looked after Victoria Climbié would have been deemed unsuitable to register as private foster parents.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Does my hon. Friend agree that although we are sometimes frustrated by our own Government, that intervention by the hon. Member for Huntingdon shows why the Conservative party is not fit to be in charge of public services?

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

Order. The debate has now gone on for one hour and 10 minutes. It has been an excellent debate, but I urge Members to stick to the issues in the new clause.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I shall conclude my remarks now.

I have been involved with the issue of private fostering for many years, both inside and outside the House. Given the disparity between what the Government said they would do and what they have actually done, a slight degree of scepticism is not inappropriate. In 1999, they said that they would take steps to enforce current regulations on private fostering more effectively, yet we had to wait a year for the awareness campaign. The Government also said that when parliamentary time allowed, legislation would be introduced to target private fostering placements lasting more than 42 days. That has not happened.

As I have said before, I stood in this very Room during the debate on the Care Standards Bill and made the case for this provision. I accepted then that although the Government were concerned and took the matter seriously, they did not see the need for registration. Two years later, the Government are

saying the same thing, except that before they said that they would find parliamentary time for appropriate legislation. There have been many opportunities to find parliamentary time for legislation to protect one of the most vulnerable groups of children. I regret to say that I an unable to withdraw the motion and I shall press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 7.

New clause 10 - Amendment of section 17 of the

Margaret Moran (Labour, Luton South)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 11—Amendment of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989—

'. In Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989 (local authority support for children and families) after subsection (10) there is inserted—

''(10A) (1) Where a local authority have, in assessing whether a child is a child in need, determined that he requires accommodation to enable him to live with his family, they shall provide that child (or a member of his family) with such assistance as may reasonably be required, if, in their opinion, it is necessary to do so in order to safeguard or promote his welfare.

(2) Assistance required under subsection (1) may include—

(a) assistance by way of advice to the child or to a person having parental responsibility for him or caring for him;

(b) assistance by means of cash payments or loans to a person whom the local authority reasonably believe to be able to provide accommodation to the child (and to any person who might reasonably be expected to reside with him);

(c) the provision of accommodation (which shall include accommodation secured from another person).''.'.

Margaret Moran (Labour, Luton South)

I would like to make it clear that new clause 10 is contingent on new clause 11. In the interests of saving time, I hope that the Minister will accept that the principle of what I am about to say is relatively straightforward and has been discussed elsewhere.

The new clauses are designed to rectify a problem that has developed out of recent case law, which means that local authorities are now unable to provide accommodation to vulnerable children and their families under the Children Act 1989. Shelter, which supports the new clauses, believes that the Children

Act is now unworkable in that respect, and that the outcome of the recent case of A v. London Borough of Lambeth makes it unlawful for local authorities to provide accommodation under the Children Act, so that their only option is to take children into care rather than provide a home for a vulnerable family. Families are being split up; already, children have been removed from some.

I feel strongly about this issue. I cut my political teeth on homelessness and campaigning for the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. I was working in a social services department at that time. I spent only two years working in social services, although the Committee might like to note that I subsequently worked for 20 years in a housing department. My first job was as a duty clerk: I was responsible for receiving homeless families, offering them a rail ticket away from whichever floor they had last slept on, or offering to take their children into care.

That is one of the reasons why I campaigned for the 1977 Act. That campaign started after the documentary ''Cathy Come Home'', which revolutionised views on homelessness legislation and the rights of the homeless. Little did I realise that more than two decades after my work in housing we would be back in a similar position, except that for local authorities dealing with some of our most vulnerable families, their only option would be to take the children into care. It is ironic that attempts are being made in another place to rewrite ''Cathy Come Home'' with a happy ending.

The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 provided the safety net for homeless families. Despite a setback under the Conservative Government, the Housing Act 1996 provided a duty on local authorities to accommodate homeless households that were not intentionally homeless and in priority need. When homeless families were deemed intentionally homeless, the Children Act 1989 came into force to enable a further safety net for some of those vulnerable children to take effect. That Act is especially important, because approximately 9,000 households—the majority families with children—are found to be intentionally homeless every year.

Through long experience in housing, I know that decisions on intentional homelessness are notoriously complex; they can appear extremely unjust and are often challenged. Families may experience financial difficulty and sell their home to avoid falling into debt or repossession. Sadly, many women who flee domestic violence are deemed intentionally homeless because they have abandoned their council home. Such families are among the most vulnerable in our society. Parents in such families need help to get back on their feet, not the fear of their children being removed.

The consequences of being found intentionally homeless are severe. The household is given only limited time in temporary accommodation, usually 28 days, and is often barred from the housing register. In such circumstances, its options may be extremely

limited: for example, such a family may find it difficult to afford the deposit and rent or key money often required by landlords in the private rented sector.

The Children Act provided important means to secure vital assistance for families with children when the housing department was not under a duty to house them. Families are often given assistance by social services authorities under section 17 of the Children Act, which enables those departments to provide deposits and rent up front if necessary. Furthermore, in some cases, accommodation can be provided under section 20 of that Act.

Although a reasonably satisfactory safety net has been provided by the combination of duties placed on housing departments under homelessness legislation and the powers available to social services departments under the Children Act, recent case law suggests that those safeguards have, in effect, been removed. The Court of Appeal decision in April on an application for judicial review by a person, G, found that section 17 of the Children Act merely conferred a power, not a duty, for local authorities to provide assistance, and that the duty of accommodation under section 20 was to house the child, not the parents. The High Court restated that judgment in the case of A v. London Borough of Lambeth in May; the decision was reconfirmed in the Court of Appeal in November.

Those decisions will have a significant impact on homeless families who seek assistance from social services departments. Because of the judgments, social services authorities are likely to provide help in far fewer cases, and when help is provided, an offer to house the children separately—that is, to take the children into care—is much more likely under section 20.

Clearly, parents will not want to be separated from their children. In practice, families confronted only with an offer to take the child into care will desperately search for an alternative that will enable them to stay together, no matter how inadequate or short term it is. Often, the most vulnerable families will be lost to the system; housing departments and social services will lose contact with them. Some families with great difficulties may be lost in terms of the care that can be afforded to vulnerable children, so placing the children at further risk.

Shelter has already gathered evidence that since the judgments social services departments have significantly reduced the assistance that they provide to homeless families under the Children Act and, in some cases, limited their assistance to an offer to take the children into care. One example is that of a north of England family with four children, two of whom have special needs. The family was evicted from its home because of rent arrears of about £1,000. The father, who has a drink problem, left the mother to look after the children. Having found the family intentionally homeless, the housing department put them up in bed and breakfast for 28 days.

At the end of that period, the social services department was approached. It refused—twice—to

assist. In the meantime, the mother managed to find accommodation: a farmer allowed the children to sleep in a caravan and the mother to sleep in a car next to it. The department eventually suggested that the children go into voluntary care during half term, so that the mother could search for accommodation. She accepted the offer, and despite receiving no additional assistance from social services, she managed to find new and suitable accommodation. However, the department refused to return the children until an unspecified future date.

The mother was given permission to see the children for two hours a week, and she was not allowed to see them on Christmas day. As well as being separated from their mother, the children were split up. One was placed at a residential school, two had been placed in one foster home, and the other with different foster parents. One child was put on the child protection register because of the mother's homelessness. The latest information on the case is that two of the children are back with their mother, and that a meeting is planned to resolve the future of the other two.

It is not satisfactory that children can be taken into care and split up in that way, leaving no possibility of the mother reuniting her family in the near future. The case raises serious welfare issues, because the Children Act sets out the legal responsibilities of social services authorities to protect children in need. One of the central principles of that Act is that the best interests of children are kept to the fore and that families are kept together wherever possible, with children taken into care as a last resort.

Shelter has found many other similar examples. There is concern about the legal ramifications of such judgments. The view of a leading barrister is that the effect of the two cases

''is to change radically the way in which authorities can be required to accommodate the carers of children. Firstly, claimants cannot rely on section 20 as imposing a duty on authorities to house the parents or carers of such children. Secondly, although section 17 requires an authority to assess a child's needs, it does not give rise to a duty to meet those needs''.

Concern is widespread among children's charities, not least the National Children's Bureau, which has said that

''it is a nonsense for the law to be used as a vehicle to tear families apart and damage the children it is trying to protect''.

The issue has been discussed in both Houses during the passage of the Homelessness Bill. It was referred to in another place yesterday: Lord Falconer acknowledged the need to change the Children Act, as well as strengthen the Homelessness Bill, to ensure greater joint working between housing and social services departments to protect the most vulnerable homeless people.

New clause 11 would amend schedule 2 to the Children Act. It would overcome the fact that social services departments can no longer provide housing assistance to both parents and children by adding a specific power to provide assistance in securing accommodation under section 17 of that Act. It would also allow social services departments discretion to provide a range of services in line with

the type of assistance that they have traditionally provided under that Act.

New clause 10 would amend section 17 of the Children Act, and would provide for social services departments to take reasonable steps to meet the needs that they have identified. That is required to overcome the fact that the court dealing with the case of G found that section 17 did not require an authority to do anything to meet a child's needs, even though it might require the authority to assess them. Without such an amendment, there is concern that it would still be lawful for an authority not to provide any help to meet the needs that it had identified.

I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to close loopholes that put children at risk. The new clauses are intended to rectify the difficulties arising from recent case law.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I rise to support the new clauses. The hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) has made a strong case for the new clauses, and I hope that we shall incorporate them into the Bill. However, as she mentioned, other Bills are before Parliament and, thanks to the vagaries of the system's operation, the new provisions might not be included in the form that she would like.

We all have examples in our constituencies of parents who are unnecessarily separated from their children. Time and again social services departments say that unless proper housing is sorted out, the parent cannot have the child back. That is understandable, but often a bit of common sense would resolve the situation immediately. I agree with the hon. Lady that care should be the last resort in such cases.

In some cases it is right to take children into care, for example if they are at risk, or if their mother is suffering in some way—perhaps she has had a mental breakdown—and they are neglected. However, we are talking about cases in which the parent or parents are keen to keep the child at home but there is no home available for the family. That is why the law should include a requirement for the local authority to provide such accommodation. It is not a great deal to ask.

Housing authorities have many obligations, but there is a significant loophole in the circumstances we are debating. Conservative members know that the average bed and breakfast in the country is pretty inadequate. Bed and breakfasts can be pretty squalid places for families, so it is not surprising that social services departments say that they are not suitable places in which to bring up children.

However, housing can be made available. I worked out the other day that there are a significant number of family-size units in my constituency are either empty, or occupied by elderly pensioner couples. My local authority is, rightly, looking vigorously at providing more sheltered accommodation for pensioners and pensioner couples, so that such units can be released. In addition, more than 50 family-size units in Kings Lynn and west Norfolk are empty. A more proactive and determined policy of bringing those units back into readiness for accommodation for families would

make more housing available. It is a question of management and efficiency. Replicating that policy in every constituency would make thousands of family-sized units available throughout the country.

I do not accept the Minister's argument that the provisions would put too great a strain on housing authorities. The hon. Member for Luton, South has tabled a sensible pair of new clauses and I hope that the Minister will accept them.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I support the thrust of the new clauses, and I apologise that, due to a prior engagement, I have to leave before the end of this sitting. That is a shame, because I hoped to be able to discuss the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Luton, South about contact arrangements, with which I have a great deal of sympathy.

The hon. Lady says that she is something of a baby in terms of experience of social services. However, I know that she has a good deal of experience in housing matters—in the past year we have both been on Committees that dealt with such issues, such as the one considering the Homelessness Bill. That experience is relevant to this Bill because it concerns the break-up of families, which is sometimes due largely to women fleeing domestic violence. On that score, I must declare an interest as patron of The Women's Refuge Project, Brighton, which has given me a great deal of briefing about the matters that we are discussing.

We must do everything we can to prevent families from being split up. The hon. Lady mentioned cases in which the lack of availability of accommodation results in children being put on the child protection register and separated from their mother, father or guardian. That can be the start of a slippery slope for the welfare of the child—he gets into trouble and the whole family in difficult circumstances fragments very quickly.

When we were considering the Homelessness Bill we heard of cases—we have all experienced them—in which people were deemed to have intentionally made themselves homeless, simply because they were fleeing domestic violence within their family unit, or the violence of neighbours committed for any of a host of reasons. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) gave examples of people who were escaping from racial violence, or who feared the prospect of it if they stayed in their homes. Had they remained in their homes, their lives would have been at risk, so they preferred to sleep on the floors and sofas of people who gave them refuge. However, they fell foul of the legislation because they were deemed not to be homeless unintentionally, and consequently were not given the support they so desperately needed from local authorities.

Such circumstances have a great impact on the welfare of children who are caught up through no fault of their own or, in most cases, of their parents. Given that the paramount consideration in the Bill is the welfare of the child, the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Luton, South are highly pertinent. Conservative Members have a good deal of

sympathy with her and I shall be interested in the Minister's response.

The overriding problem is the shortage of housing. However good the provisions of the Homelessness Bill, which we supported, and however good the intentions behind the new clauses, if they are adopted, little will be achieved if the goods are not delivered to the local authorities charged with providing accommodation and the support that goes with it. Last year the fewest new social houses since the 1920s were built, and the number of people in temporary accommodation and bed-and-breakfast has risen substantially. The problem is not being solved, despite the assurances received from the Prime Minister downwards.

I wholly agree with the hon. Member for Luton, South that the sort of cases that she advocates should have priority, but one family's promotion is another's demotion. Because finite resources and a finite amount of accommodation are available, it is a case of shifting priorities. Some hon. Members might take issue with my views on this matter, but the Government, through the Homelessness Bill, have raised the priority in the housing ladder stakes of people who are coming out of prison and have criminal records. The result is a reduction in the amount of accommodation available for many other deserving cases, including homeless families.

We sympathise greatly with the hon. Lady's intentions. There is a loophole that needs closing. We need to do more to support families who find themselves in circumstances that have desperate implications for their children. In giving our support, we shall be interested to hear from the Minister what practical steps she can take, given that we are talking about finite resources being available from her Government for housing.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South for tabling the new clauses and bringing an important issue to the Committee's attention.

As my hon. Friend said, two recent judgments in the Court of Appeal have caused concern among councils with social services responsibilities. The new clauses are intended to deal with the problem. Since it was first brought to the Department's attention, my officials and I have done a considerable amount of work to assess the size of the problem and the best way to tackle it. My officials have met officials from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, social services directors and representatives of Shelter. Furthermore, I have discussed the issue with ministerial colleagues.

As my hon. Friend said, the judgment in the Lambeth case casts doubt on the ability of local authorities to provide accommodation for children in need and their families under section 17 of the Children Act. If they lose that ability, an important element of the support package for children in need and their families will be removed. That would affect not only families that are not owed a main housing duty under housing legislation—because they are

intentionally homeless or not habitually resident, for example—but families that need emergency accommodation because they were fleeing domestic violence. Young people who need accommodation in those cases do not necessarily need the intensive support provided by foster care.

The Government want to restore the position and to place beyond doubt the fact that local authorities have a power to provide accommodation under section 17 as a safety net. It is important that the provision of accommodation is not raised above other assistance that may be provided under section 17 and that specifically identifying the power to provide accommodation in section 17 has no unintended consequences. The new clauses, however, go slightly further. New clause 10 is slightly unclear, but seems to be intended to place a duty on local authorities to meet the assessed needs of individual children. That is more than the existing legislation requires and is not necessary.

The recent Court of Appeal judgments should not be read as meaning that a local authority need not offer assistance under section 17 to a child in need. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend referred to the Barnet case, in which it was clear that the local authority had offered help, although it was not acceptable to the mother. It is clear from A v. London Borough of Lambeth that the section 17 duty is a general target duty, which is not individually enforceable by any specific child in need. There is a general duty under section 17(1) to promote the upbringing of children in need within their families and to provide a range of services to meet the needs of children in the area. Those two duties are sufficient when taken together with the obligation to carry out assessments on children who might be in need, and the section 20duty to accommodate children in need when no one else can do so. That should ensure that some of the problems that hon. Members have mentioned do not continue.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Minister said ''should'' ensure, which implies a degree of doubt. Does she mean that the provisions might ensure that problems do not continue or that they will definitely do so?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was coming to the action that the Government will take.

New clause 11 provides that a local authority must provide such assistance as is reasonably required to meet the needs of a child who is assessed as needing accommodation to enable him to live with his family. I have some sympathy with that aim, but I shall resist it for the following reasons. First, it imposes a duty on local authorities to provide accommodation in individual cases in a way that is not mirrored in the other services that are provided to children in need and their families, such as home help or day care.

Secondly, the new clause does not deal with the provision of accommodation to children in need whom it is not appropriate to accommodate with their families or as looked-after children. Sometimes authorities need the power to accommodate children away from their families—for example, if they are estranged from their families or if they are

unaccompanied asylum seeker. Thirdly, amending schedule 2 as new clause 11 would do would be insufficient to cover accommodation. Our legal advice is that, because a judgment held that section 17 did not cover the matter, we may need to amend that section. I am not sure that new clause 11 would achieve what is necessary.

For those technical reasons I ask my hon. Friend not to press her new clauses. I give her a strong assurance that the Government recognise the important issues that the relevant judgments have raised, that we have engaged in consultation across Government and with directors of social services and Shelter, and that we intend to present our own amendments to restore the power under section 17 when we have been able to think about what is necessary to make it effective and considered the possible consequences.

Margaret Moran (Labour, Luton South)

With those assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Jim Fitzpatrick (Labour, Poplar and Canning Town)

On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. I seek your approval for a meeting of the Programming Sub-Committee at 2.15 pm to consider a draft resolution, a copy of which has been supplied to you, the Clerk and the Opposition.

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

Yes, indeed. Such a meeting will be arranged for 2.15 pm.New clause 12 Parental contact with children after separation in cases involving violence or abuse

New clause 12 - Parental contact with children after

Margaret Moran (Labour, Luton South)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I shall be as quick as I can. I am sure that we all want to hear the remarks of the Minister so that we can get some of the issues on record.

Hon. Members will recall the compelling evidence that we heard from the children's charities Barnardo's, NCH Action for Children, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Children's Society, as well as the written evidence from Women's Aid Federation of England, all expressing grave concerns about the effectiveness of the Children Act 1989 in respect of child contact orders.

We all agree with the principle of children maintaining contact with both parents following separation in ordinary circumstances and if it is in their best interests. However, I am sure that hon. Members also agree that children's safety and protection should be ensured. There is serious concern that the system fails to protect children from abusers who are known to them. Some children have been killed after the courts granted unsupervised contact to fathers who had abused them. There is widespread concern among children's charities that the Children Act is not effective in ensuring child protection when courts are considering granting contact orders.

There is a strong presumption in the Children Act and deriving from case law around the Act that contact is usually in the best interests of the child. However, case law also means that the courts often fail to consider the risk of abuse to children in determining contact arrangements. Children's charities believe that the Act needs to be amended to protect children from unsupervised contact with a parent in cases involving violence and abuse, unless the court is satisfied that the child will be safe. That will allow the courts an opportunity to ensure that a thorough risk assessment is carried out before unsupervised contact is granted. That is the purpose of new clause 12.

Sadly, there is ample evidence to suggest that unsupervised contact can put children at severe risk: 76 per cent. of the children covered by the AMICA—Aid for Mothers Involved in Contact Action—survey of 1999 were found to have been abused to some extent during contact visits. As I explained on Second Reading, we know of 15 cases in recent years in which children have died as a result of contact arrangements in England and Wales, and because the Government do not keep statistics, the true number may well be higher. Every one of those 15 children is just as important as Sarah Payne or any of the other murdered children whom we have mentioned considered in our debates. The new clause is intended to trigger action to prevent further tragedies.

We acknowledge that the Government have taken a wide range of measures to protect children. The Sex Offenders Act 1997, which requires sex offenders and violent offenders including schedule 1 offenders to register their name and address with the police. The Protection of Children Act 1999 prevents known offenders from working regularly with children. However, having set up protection for children in those circumstances, it is wrong that there is still a loophole in private law whereby schedule 1 offenders and those known to have been violent or to have abused children are prevented by one piece of legislation from working with children regularly—for example, as school bus drivers—yet they can have unsupervised contact with their children, who are at exactly the same risk of harm.

We believe that that major loophole can be addressed in the Bill. We are unlikely to have the opportunity to deal with it in forthcoming legislation, and the urgency of the situation is such that, unless we take this opportunity, further tragedies will occur. The law does not consistently protect children. The child protection system does not consistently protect them from contact with sex offenders or violent offenders. There are glaring gaps in our protection legislation, some of which we have heard about today; there is certainly a loophole in private law.

Some attempts have been made to close the loophole through improved legal protection. Guidelines were introduced in June 2001, but they are clearly not working, as evidence from the National Society for the Protection of Children and Women's Aid shows. The need is urgent: children are constantly

placed at risk when the courts grant unsupervised contact. Amendment to primary legislation is necessary to provide the right level of legal protection for children in private proceedings.

The coalition of Women's Aid and children's charities has emphasised that in cases of domestic violence, there is a risk not only of emotional harm to the child but of the child being abused or neglected. Daily we receive alarming reports of children who are ordered to have contact with violent parents and are abused, neglected or traumatised during those contact visits. There are five on-going cases in which unsupervised contact has been granted despite evidence of child abuse. That is not acceptable.

Clause 91 would automatically grant parental responsibility to unmarried fathers who have jointly with the mother registered the birth of the child. That may be of benefit to children, but it extends the possibility of parental contact being granted to violent or abusive unmarried parents. We know of a mother and child who fled to a refuge after being threatened with a gun; the violent father has not been able to find them despite taking out search and locate orders, but once the Bill has been enacted, he can obtain parental responsibility and he will then find it much easier to track them down.

We based the new clause on a provision in the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. Under that order, when a court is considering whether to grant a contact or residence order to someone who has had a non-molestation order made against him, the court must consider any harm that the child might suffer through seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another person. That is a major step forward—indeed, it is essential, because research shows that all domestic violence has a damaging effect on children. We would like to see that reflected for the first time in the Children Act.

However, we are worried that that provision does not go far enough: we need to ensure that the courts are required to protect children from direct abuse or neglect. A case in Northern Ireland involves a woman whose husband is a schedule 1 offender. That man has committed sexual offences against children, but has been granted contact with his children. Contact visits are currently supervised by the mother, despite continuing threats of violence, but he is now seeking unsupervised contact, and the mother's solicitor has warned that it might be granted. We believe that if social services or the police have evidence that a child is at risk, it is essential that the family courts consider it when making contact orders.

The new clause deals also with those who are facing charges of violence against former partners. That is necessary, because the fathers of four of the children who were killed had been granted unsupervised contact despite the fact that they already faced imprisonment for violence offences against former partners. We also include a mandatory checklist to ensure that the courts are taking account of all risk. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that this serious issue needs to be addressed.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I am conscious of the time, Mr. Stevenson. I simply say that the Opposition welcome the new clause.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

The Government are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South and the other members of the Committee who tabled the new clause. I am grateful also to those organisations that represent children and victims of violence for participating in open and constructive discussions with the Government. I pay tribute to the president of the Family Division for the work that she has done with other senior judges in trying to bring domestic violence and child abuse to the attention of judges and magistrates.

I say at the outset that the Government accept the spirit of the new clause. Although we cannot accept it, we are seriously considering what we could do on Report to reflect its provisions. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), has been very supportive.

I shall briefly set out our thinking on the subject. We need to consider whether it is right to make an amendment relating only to orders for contact and residence under section 8 of the Children Act. That Act contains one definition of harm and it applies in all proceedings including applications for contact when a child is in care. We may be able to do something that would affect private law proceedings and could be extended to other proceedings. We might consider changing family proceeding rules as a way of offering children further protection. That would give us greater flexibility than changing primary legislation.

We also have difficulty with the supplementary provisions in proposed new section 8B(1). The problem could be tackled in a number of ways. We are considering changing some of the court forms to deal with previous offences. We might amend the family proceedings rules to ensure greater consistency—for example, to ensure that findings of fact are made about the impact of violence or abuse on a child—in the making of further orders. Perhaps conditions could be imposed on orders, if they are needed for the protection of children and their parents.

Suggestions have been made for a domestic violence register. We might consider creating one, as it would cover some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South. I assure her that we want to make further proposals on Report, and we shall continue our discussions with her, the all-party domestic violence group and the children's charities. I hope that, with those assurances, my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing the motion, and allow us to work together to make progress.

Margaret Moran (Labour, Luton South)

With those assurances, and stressing that we believe that there is a need for a change in the Children Act, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I thank all hon. Members and everyone involved in the work of the Committee.

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

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

Special Standing Committee

Adoption and Children Bill

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I should inform the Committee that the Programming Sub-Committee met just before this sitting and agreed a resolution, a copy of which has been circulated in the Room. The Committee must consider that resolution before proceeding with further consideration of the Bill.

Resolved,

If two days are allotted for consideration and Third Reading of the Adoption and Children Bill, the Special Standing Committee recommends that proceedings on consideration be brought to a conclusion two hours before the time at which proceedings on Third Reading are to be brought to a conclusion.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clauses 100 to 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121 - Orders made in the Channel Islands

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Lest we should finish at 3 o'clock, I should be grateful if the Minister would further explain the clause. This part of the Bill clearly amends existing relevant legislation. The clause refers to the Police Act 1997 and criminal records. I am curious as to what constitutes a criminal record as regards breaches of adoption procedure, given that we have debated class 5 offences contained in the Bill. This is an opportunity for the Minister to supply a few details, in case there is anything that we want to question.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Clause 121 deals with criminal records in relation to adoption and fostering and, in particular, is designed to ensure that the needs and welfare of children are safeguarded. The new Criminal Records Bureau is being established under the Police Act 1997 to provide—among other things—for a system for vetting those who work with children, and a one-stop shop will simplify and speed up that process.

The intention is that criminal record checks and enhanced criminal record checks should be available through the bureau on both prospective foster and adoptive parents and other adults in the same household as them. Such checks for the purpose of determining the suitability of persons to act as foster parents and adoptive parents are already specifically provided for under sections 113 and 115 of the Police Act 1997.

Criminal record certificates under section 113 cover both spent and unspent convictions and cautions, reprimands and warnings. Enhanced criminal record certificates under section 115 also include ''soft''

information from local police records that the chief officer of police considers relevant. That would include relevant matters that did not lead to a conviction. The process for both types of certificate would also include a check of lists maintained by the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills of persons considered unsuitable to work with children, under the one-stop shop arrangement provided for by the Protection of Children Act 1999.

I hope that with that clarification, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) will feel able to support clause 121.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Schedule 4 - Transitional provisions and savings

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 268, in page 96, line 22, leave out from beginning to 'not' and insert—

'Paragraph 36 of Schedule 3 does'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 269 and 270.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

We come to schedule 4, which is, as I would have said of schedule 3 if I had had a chance, a technical measure that does not give rise to any new policy areas. I should apologise for the Government amendments, which correct errors in references to paragraph numbers in the schedule in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15. I hope that hon. Members will feel able to accept the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 269, in page 96, line 29, leave out '75' and insert '72'.

No. 270, in page 96, line 33, leave out '79' and insert '76'.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 125 - Orders, rules and regulations

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 274, in page 70, line 4, leave out subsection 4.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 272, in page 70, line 4, leave out

'an Order in Council or to'.

No. 273, in line 4, leave out from 'Council' to the end of line 5.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

One might describe these as probing amendments, as part of my pursuit of joined-up government in these islands. The amendments come out of one part of my experience as a shadow Minister, dealing with one part of the kingdom, Wales. These Orders in Council—statutory instruments—can be

passed in Westminster, or in the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales. The Bill goes on to lay down procedures for the annulment of those instruments, although not an Order in Council or subordinate legislation made by Scottish Ministers or the Assembly. I worry that we could end up with a series of practices and procedures in adoption law under legislation in Scotland, Wales and England, and that people will not necessarily all be singing from the same hymn sheet when the law is implemented.

I tabled three amendments in order to give the Government the opportunity to accept one or another. I am particularly concerned that it is possible for the House to annul an Order in Council under subsection (2)—it is specific about that—but there is no provision for the annulment of secondary legislation enacted in either the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales. That seems to be an omission from the legislation. It would probably be far better if we did not include in this legislation provisions for annulment in this place, if there is no provision for annulment in either the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales. It seems that the legislation is deficient, if only technically. I should be interested to hear the Minister's explanation for the exceptions that are made in subsection (4). If those exceptions are to persist, how will the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales go about annulling a statutory instrument that they have made under this legislation?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am not sure whether the intention behind the amendments is to probe, to raise specific technical points or—dare I suggest—to engage in a little debate about the principles of devolution. I am sure that it is not the latter, because that would, of course, be inappropriate, so I shall address the amendments.

Clause 125(1) provides that any power in the Bill that enables orders, rules or regulations to be made by the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, the National Assembly for Wales or the Registrar General is to be exercised by making a statutory instrument.

Subsections (2) and (3) provide for parliamentary procedure. The statutory instruments made under clause 88(6) amending the list of prohibited steps in relation to adoption, those made under clause 90, which covers restrictions on reports, and those made under clause 113(6) amending the restrictions on advertising in relation to adoption in the light of developments in technology, and any instruments that amend the primary legislation are to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Subsection (4) makes it clear that the parliamentary procedures in Westminster do no apply to an Order in Council or to subordinate legislation by Scottish Ministers or by the National Assembly for Wales.

Subordinate legislation made under the Bill might make different provision for different purposes. It may also make provision in respect of particular cases or classes of case. The amendments would mean that the

provisions in subsections (2) and (3) did not apply to an Order in Council or to subordinate legislation made by Scottish Ministers or by the National Assembly for Wales.

The intention behind amendments Nos. 273 and 274 seems to be to make Orders in Council made under the Bill subject to the negative resolution procedure. In fact, the only power in the Bill to make an Order in Council is in clause 123. The Committee will remember that that is an enabling power, which enables an Order in Council to give effect to the convention on protection of children and co-operation in respect of inter-country adoption in a British overseas territory. It is not subject to parliamentary procedure. It is a legislative mechanism to enable the British overseas territories to give effect to the convention, should they wish to do so. Giving effect to the convention in the British overseas territories is essentially a matter for those territories. It should not be subject to Westminster parliamentary procedure. Of course, the Order in Council would be laid before the House, so that Parliament was aware of it. I can reassure the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) that that would by no means be unique to the Bill. When an Order in Council is necessary in relation to such a territory, the matter is handled in that way.

Amendment No. 272 omits from subsection (4) the reference to subordinate legislation made under the Bill by Scottish Ministers and the National Assembly for Wales. That would have the effect that such legislation would be subject to Westminster parliamentary procedures as they are applied by subsections (2) and (3). In many ways, if not explicitly, the amendment attempts to undermine the devolution settlement. Because of that settlement, Scottish Ministers and the Assembly should be subject to the procedures of the Scottish Parliament and the Assembly when exercising powers. Both bodies have procedures to consider secondary legislation. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that although the scrutiny process may not be carried out by the Westminster Parliament, it will rightly be carried out by the legislatures that have responsibility in those cases.

The existing Scottish powers to make subordinate legislation are set out in the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. Scottish Ministers want to continue to use those procedures in relation to subordinate legislation made under the Bill, rather than to use the procedures in the Bill. It is for Scottish Ministers to decide on procedures for making subordinate legislation in Scotland, not for Westminster.

It is a fundamental principle of the devolution settlement that subordinate legislation made solely by the National Assembly for Wales should be handled in accordance with its own procedures. The amendment runs contrary to the spirit of devolution by rendering secondary legislation in Wales under the Bill subject to parliamentary procedures and removing the decision-making process from the National Assembly.

The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the extent to which there would be coherence about adoption procedures across the United Kingdom. At various points during our proceedings, we have discussed how the Bill will provide consistency for those involved in adoption. That is the important point, not that there be one uniform way to determine the secondary legislation under the Bill.

For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the amendment is inappropriate and withdraw it.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I thank the Minister for her explanations, especially about Orders in Council. She rightly pointed out that they relate only to clause 123.

I think that I was right to table the amendments, because I am concerned about consistency of practice in adoption law across the UK. I do not want to reopen the devolution debate, and I do not think that the Committee is the appropriate place in which to do so. However, I am concerned that when we pass legislation on adoption, the writ of this Parliament should run throughout the United Kingdom on a consistent basis, even though the ability to pass secondary legislation in Scotland and Wales is in the Bill. I wished simply to probe the Government on the issue of consistency by raising those points. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 126 - Rules of procedure

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 70, line 21, at end insert—

'( ) In the case of an application for a placement order, for the variation or revocation of such an order, or for an adoption order, the rules must require that the court or adoption agency make available to the legal representatives of the parent or guardian of any child subject to such an application all records used by the court or adoption agency in relation to that proceeding.'.

The amendment stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who has shown an extra-mural interest in the Committee by tabling amendments and a new clause of great merit. This is a probing amendment that seeks to establish balance and fairness in the legal processes connected with adoption. The amendment would add a condition to the procedure for the conduct of court cases.

The point of the amendment is to make it clear that all the information that is made available to the court should be made available to the legal representatives of the child's natural parents, even if such information is not, for whatever reasons decided by the court, made available to the parents. That is self-explanatory. This is an important stage in the adoption process, at which the parent or guardian may be on the verge of relinquishing control of or responsibility for the child. It is even more important than usual that every party to those proceedings should feel that they have had a full and fair opportunity to make their case, and that all the relevant information has been available to them, hence the amendment's stipulation

that those documents should be made available, at the very least, to the legal representatives of the parent or guardian.

I said that this was a probing amendment. It may be that what it deals with is already catered for elsewhere in the Bill, but it seems to me to make a sensible addition to the procedures that the Bill introduces.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I understand the intentions behind the amendment. I hope that I will be able to provide the assurances that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham needs, and that he will convey my assurances to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.

Birth parents are parties to applications for an adoption order. They will be notified that an application for such an order has been lodged with the court, and should have the papers, in accordance with the rules. Where an application to dispense with parental consent to adoption has been made, the statement of facts on which the applicants intend to rely is prepared by the adoption agency and will also be sent to the birth parents.

The schedule 2 reports prepared by the agency in agency cases and by the local authority in non-agency cases, in accordance with adoption rules, are confidential. However, the courts have a discretion to allow birth parents or their legal representatives to see any part of a schedule 2 report prepared by the adoption agency, or Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service reports that refer to that individual, when the circumstances of the individual case make it appropriate.

Birth parents, or any other party to the proceedings, may apply to the court for the disclosure of other information. In such circumstances, the court will decide whether information in the reports needs to be anonymised—I am sorry; I should have said made anonymous—before disclosure to ensure confidentiality. In doing so, it will always take into account the best interests of the child.

This amendment would require court rules to provide for the records used by courts or adoption agencies in adoption and placement proceedings to be sent to the legal representatives of the birth parents. ''Records'' is a wide term, and could include the records kept by the adoption agency in connection with the child, the birth parents and the prospective adopters. In determining whether to disclose information, it is necessary for the court to strike a balance between the interests and rights of the birth parents, and the interests and rights of the adopters and the child. Releasing that information automatically may pose a serious threat to the child's placement with the adopters. It may also discourage more adopters from coming forward to adopt, due to concerns about their rights to privacy.

The practice of disclosing documents to legal representatives only is seen by many solicitors and barristers as unacceptable. It places the lawyers in a difficult position to have information that they may not show their clients. Many lawyers believe that it is

incompatible with their professional duties and will not accept it.

The Government intend to make rules under clause 126 to govern the disclosure of information in placement and adoption proceedings. Those rules will be similar to the current rules but will reflect the differences in the Bill, which we have already debated, and will be consulted on before they are made.

In the light of those assurances and my explanation of why it would be inappropriate to have blanket disclosure in such cases, I hope that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am grateful to the Minister. I said that it was a probing amendment. I shall convey what the Minister has said to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, although I am sure that he will be keen to log on to the internet as soon as he can, if he does not wait for Hansard, to read what has been said about his amendment.

The Minister made some useful points. The courts have discretion to show the reports when appropriate, although in some cases they should not be released automatically. There are obvious practical difficulties. As she said, lawyers do not wish to receive information that they cannot pass on to their clients. Other than the quite outrageous re-use of the word ''anonymised''—the Minister duly apologised for using it—it was a highly satisfactory response to the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I beg to move amendment No. 243, in page 70, line 24, after '(4)', insert 'and the child'.

This is yet another probing amendment. I wish to highlight the voice of the child. I seek clarification on how the rules of procedure can ensure the full and proper representation of children in placement and adoption proceedings. I admit to a certain surprise that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) did not pre-empt me on this, because he and outside agencies have often raised concerns about the voice of the child in the Bill.

Despite the declared aim to put the child at the centre of the Bill, this legislation does not ensure that the abuse of children is given the fullest possible weight. That is especially important given that adoption is an irrevocable process. Clause 1(4)(a) provides that the court or the adoption agency must have regard to a child's ascertainable wishes and feelings. It is right that they should be considered—according to the child's age and understanding—but, despite the intention, it is disappointing that the child's voice is not given more prominence. It is essential that children's wishes and feelings are given the fullest possible weight, bearing in mind the previously mentioned parameters. The Bill should, therefore, set out a clear mechanism to ensure that their views are fully and properly represented to the court in all cases.

That should happen independently of the adoption agency, the applicants and the birth parents, if that proves necessary.

Article 6 of the European convention on human rights and article 12 of the UN convention on the rights of the child are relevant to the rights and representation of children. Article 12 states:

''State Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child . . . For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.''

The explanatory notes state that

''the child shall automatically be a party to proceedings in placement order cases, and shall be able to apply to the court for leave to be made a party to adoption proceedings.''

Many people believe that consultation on the rules is necessary at the earliest opportunity, and it would be helpful if the Minister could give a little more detail about their proposed content, the timetable for consultation and—this is probably beyond hope—whether the timetable will allow for consideration of the rules during the passage of the Bill.

Adoption should proceed on the basis of the adoption agency and the court making sufficient and thorough investigations. It is also important that a children's guardian is appointed to investigate the child's welfare in every adoption case, with an independent check being made of social work practice. If there were a problem with the proposed adoption in the child's view, the children's guardian would alert the court, as appropriate. Every child would have an independent voice through their guardian, but older children could also have an input into the proceedings.

I apologise that I could not be here to move an earlier amendment, but I had a commitment that I could not get out of.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

Don't worry.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I am sure that hon. Members were delighted.

The Bill could be amended to require that placement proceedings were closely linked to care proceedings and that adoption proceedings were specified proceedings under section 41 of the Children Act 1989. In specified proceedings, the courts appoint a CAFCASS officer for the child, unless they are satisfied that that it is not necessary to safeguard the child's interests. Such a provision would ensure that the child's wishes and feelings were reported to the court independently, rather than by the adoption agency, the birth family or the applicants. That would ensure proper investigation and a clear presentation of the child's views and welfare.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clause 126 enables the Lord Chancellor to make rules on matters of adoption

procedure. The amendment would require those rules to provide that the child be notified of the date and place of a hearing in relation to an application for a placement order, the variation or revocation of a placement order and an adoption order. It would also require the rules to provide that the child need not attend the hearing, unless he wished to do so or the court required it.

The Government do not think that it would be appropriate for the rules to make provision along those lines. In many cases, the child will be too young to understand the meaning of an application for a placement order or an adoption order, let alone the significance of the court hearing. In addition, we will need to ensure that children are not unnecessarily made party to proceedings, because involvement in them can be stressful for children, and it may be in some children's best interests to have their views represented differently.

I understand the points made by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and the concerns about how we ensure that the child's interests and voice are best represented in the system. We shall automatically make children a party to proceedings in placement order cases—as they currently are in care order cases—and we shall appoint a children's guardian. That will give children the right to separate legal representation.

The Bill does not provide for a child to be a party to all adoption proceedings, as we discussed earlier in the Committee. That is because such a provision may not be necessary in cases such as step-parent or relative adoptions. Court rules will, however, provide for the appointment of a CAFCASS officer in any adoption proceedings. The Government currently intend the child to be able to apply to the court for leave to be made a party to adoption proceedings, and the application will be considered in the light of the child's age and understanding.

In addition, the Lord Chancellor's Department and CAFCASS will use the opportunity provided by the creation of CAFCASS to consider the representation of children in all private law proceedings. They will consider whether other types of case might require children to be made a party to the proceedings or to be automatically appointed a children's guardian. They will also examine changes to the criteria used by the courts in considering whether to grant leave for a child to be made a party to proceedings. Any rule changes suggested in that review will be subject to consultation.

As regards the timetable for consultation on the draft rules, we must finalise the Bill and take into account the views of Parliament before we complete those rules. We intend to start consultation on their contents as soon as practicable thereafter, which we hope will be before the end of the year. We also hope that that will allow for a full three-month consultation period.

On a more general note, children of sufficient age and understanding are often invited to meet the judge, for example, to celebrate the making of an adoption order in straightforward cases. That ensures that they see the making of the order as a special occasion, and

they are often given cards to mark the significance of the day. In that regard, it should be said that judges are often careful not to invite the child to court until it is clear that the adoption order will be made, to avoid disappointing them. For some children—particularly younger ones—becoming involved in court proceedings can be a daunting prospect, and we must ensure that the system retains the flexibility to meet children's particular needs. The arrangements that I described are important because they allow the court to convey the significance of adoption, and I am sure that many of us would be excited to meet a judge.

It is important that the Bill ensures that the child's views are taken into account in all the decisions that courts and adoption agencies make about adoption. As we discussed, clause 1(4)(a) will oblige the courts, when making such decisions, to ascertain and take account of the child's views, bearing in mind his age and understanding. Furthermore, the Government have made it clear that the child's wishes and feelings should be actively sought and fully taken into account at all stages of the adoption process. That key value underpins our national adoption standards.

Court rules made under clauses 97 and 126 will provide for the appointment and duties of a CAFCASS officer. Those may include acting on behalf of a child in partnership with a legal adviser or reporting to the court on the child's wishes and feelings. Clause 1(4)(a) will oblige the courts to consider those views in reaching any decision. I hope that on the basis of those reassurances, the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I thank the Minister for that clarification. Such a detailed response is helpful, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 127 - Supplementary and consequential provision

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 262, in page 71, line 24, at end insert—

'( ) The power of the Registrar General to make regulations under Chapter 5 of Part 1 may, with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be exercised so as to make—

(a) any supplementary, incidental or consequential provision,

(b) any transitory, transitional or saving provision,

which the Registrar General considers necessary or expedient'.

Clause 127 deals with supplementary and consequential provision. Subsection (1) will enable the appropriate Minister to make such supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provisions as he considers necessary to give full effect to the Bill. The amendment will insert a new subsection into the clause. Subsection (2) provides that any power of the Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State or Assembly may be exercised to make those supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provisions, if necessary or expedient.

The amendment will extend that provision to give the Registrar-General identical supplementary powers to those of the Secretary of State when exercising any

of his chapter 5 powers, with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If those powers are not provided for the Registrar-General, he will not be able to make incidental, transitional or saving provisions when new regulations are made or existing ones amended. To do that, he will need a power that may be exercised only with the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and only if provision is necessary or expedient. One example is a provision in respect of the use or acceptance of a form by the Registrar-General's office before a certain date, such as the date when new regulations come into force.

I hope that hon. Members will accept that the amendment extends to the Registrar-General powers similar to those that exist for others who are responsible for making regulations, and that, on that basis, they will support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 127, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 128 - Offences by bodies corporate and

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I want to ask the Minister how the clause will be enforced. We could have asked the same question about clause 14, but that has been and gone. The clause's purpose is self-explanatory, and I am sure that the Committee will approve of it. If there is no independent body for people to complain to, how will offences be identified? Or does the clause relate only to those rare cases in which a criminal trial or formal inquiry has taken place?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I hope to come to enforcement in a moment. Clause 128 makes provision on offences by bodies corporate or unincorporated bodies. Where an offence is committed by a body corporate—as we discussed previously, a body corporate has a legal existence separate from those people who make it up—and when the offence has also been proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or due to the neglect of, an office of a body corporate or an unincorporated body, that officer, as well as the body, is guilty of the offence. In other words, it ensures that we are dealing not only with offences committed by legal entities, but that we can ensure that the officers of incorporated bodies are made liable. In cases when the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members rather than by officers, the provisions apply equally to members and officers.

As with the other offences that we have considered, enforcement might happen in a variety of ways. Offences may be identified by the National Care Standards Commission, as part of its inspection process—for example, offences committed by adoption support agencies. Other offences may be

reported to the police, or the police may be prompted by complaints to make an investigation.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Is it therefore possible for members of the public to ask the National Care Standards Commission to investigate complaints?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I think that individual members of the public will be able to go to the National Care Standards Commission. My previous comments were about the fact that the commission, when carrying out its regulatory and inspection function, might find that offences had been committed of the sort that we have been discussing. However, individuals might also have the ability to complain. It might be best if I clarify that point by writing to the hon. Gentleman.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I think that if I intervene, a brief might be made ready for the Minister. I do not mean that facetiously; the Minister may be able to give at least a partial response in a moment if you, Mrs. Roe, will let me make a slightly longer intervention than usual. I do not know what Hansard will make of it, but we are nearly there. If necessary, however, the Minister may write.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, especially its duration. I reassure him that, as I thought, individuals may make complaints to the NCSC, and the commission may investigate complaints about regulatory functions. Complaints may also be made by relatives. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that the commission, as well as the police and other enforcement bodies, will have a role.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 129 - General interpretation, etc.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move amendment No. 271, in page 73, line 8, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

'(2) In determining for the purposes of this Act with what person, or where a child's home is or a child is placed—

(a) any absence of the child at a hospital or boarding school and any other temporary absence, and

(b) where the applicants for adoption are a married couple, any absence of one applicant at a hospital, or absence from home due to work or family commitments, or any other temporary absence

is to be disregarded.'.

I live in hope that the amendment might, at least in principle, be accepted on the ground that it is eminently sensible, if somewhat technical. I was slightly concerned that it might be too technical because, when I looked for clause 129 in the explanatory notes, I found that it seems to be the only clause not referred to.

Clause 129 is about definitions. The amendment would insert a provision that the absence of a child at a hospital or boarding school, or any other temporary absence should be ''disregarded''. It occurs to me that the converse would be to disregard the absence of one of the parents if it was for a valid reason. To explain that, one must consider the relevant clauses.

Clause 41 is about children living with adopters before the application. Subsection (2) states that if a child is placed for adoption with a married couple, the child has to live with

''one or both of them at all times during the period of ten weeks preceding the application.''

A court would say that it provides for one or both of them, not that it must be both of them. Clause 41 then goes on to deal with the step-parent, who is obviously an individual; but when it comes to local authority foster parents, it states that

''the child must have had his home with the applicants at all times during the period of one year preceding the application.''

It does not say whether one of those applicants might legitimately be absent for that period.

Clause 47 is about applications for adoption. Subsection (3) states:

''The second condition is that both spouses (in the case of an application under section 48) or the applicant (in the case of an application under section 49) have been habitually resident in a part of the British Islands for a period of not less than one year ending with the date of the application.''

My point is that one spouse might legitimately have had reason not to be habitually resident during the whole period. One of them might have been on holiday and taken to hospital in another country, or been abroad on business.

The provisions on foster parents and clause 47(3) could be seen to provide a loophole. It is possible that someone could mischievously argue that, if the applicants are a married couple and one of them was not with the child for the whole of the qualifying period, it should somehow negate the process. That is why I suggest extending clause 129 to talk about not only disregarding the absence of the child, but the absence of one partner of a marriage, and that such an absence should not undermine the time commitment that is required in other clauses. Such an absence should be capable of being disregarded when determining the residence of the child for the qualifying period.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Perhaps I should reassure hon. Members that the lack of explanatory notes on clause 129 was not the result of my officials or myself having forgotten it. We thought it unnecessary to include the clause in the explanatory notes because it was self-explanatory.

Clause 129 is relatively straightforward. It is intended to provide a general interpretation of the terms used in the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, subsection (2) makes it clear that for the purposes of determining a child's home or where or with whom a child is placed, any temporary absence of the child, such as at a hospital or boarding school, is to be disregarded.

The amendment would add to clause 129 a paragraph providing that in the case of a married couple applying to adopt, the temporary absence of one of the two people should be disregarded. It is unnecessary to establish the presence of both adopters, or prospective adopters, in the home for the purpose of the Bill, so the amendment is not needed. In the case of an adoption application by a married couple under

clause 41, which, hon. Members will remember, provides for non-agency cases such as relative or some foster care adoptions, the child must have had his home with one or both of the adopters for specified periods preceding the application. To that extent, the temporary absence of one of the adopters is irrelevant.

The hon. Gentleman referred to clause 47(3), but only one of the conditions in clause 47 must be met. The first, in clause 47(2), is that one spouse should be domiciled here. The other condition requires the habitual residence of both spouses. If one were abroad, the other spouse would satisfy the first condition. Furthermore, when assessing the suitability of prospective adopters, the adoption agency considers the circumstances of the family as a whole. Factors such as the absence from home of one prospective adopter would, obviously, be considered along with the rest of the family's circumstances.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

The Minister has answered one of my points, and I answered another myself—the one about a child being placed for adoption in the normal way by an adoption agency. However, unless she was about to come to it, and I sensed that she was not, she failed to answer the point about clause 41(4). It states:

''If the applicants are local authority foster parents, the condition is that the child must have had his home with the applicants at all times during the period of one year preceding the application.''

No exception is made with respect to one or other of the applicants. The reference is absolutely to ''the applicants''—the foster parents—and ''at all times''.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The arguments that we used on a previous amendment, dealing with the 10-week limit for married couples, cover that point to some extent. While I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that someone could try to throw a legal spanner in the works, I think that my point about assessment was the important one. However, I undertake to explain to the hon. Gentleman, perhaps in writing, why his amendment is not necessary, and to reassure him on the legal point about foster parents and the relevant period.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I thank the Minister. Of course, if I am not reassured by what the Minister tells me later, we may be able to revisit the matter. In the light of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 130 to 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 133 - Commencement

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 263, in page 73, line 26, leave out 'and' and insert 'to'.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 264 and 265 and Government new clause 17—Amendment of Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978: overseas adoptions.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Clause 133 makes provision in relation to commencement. The Bill is to come into force on a day appointed by order of the Secretary of State, in consultation with the National Assembly for Wales. The only exception is chapter 2 of part 3—the clause is in that chapter—which covers final provisions and the provisions mentioned in subsections (3) and (4).

The provisions listed in subsection (3) are to come into force on such a day as Scottish Ministers may by order appoint. They are clause 120, which provides Scottish restrictions on bringing children into the United Kingdom, clause 124(1) and the linked provisions in schedule 3. The provisions listed in clause 133(4) are to come into force on a day appointed by the appropriate Minister, which means the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly in Wales.

Amendment No. 263 amends subsection (1), which provides that the Bill is to be commenced by the Secretary of State in consultation with the National Assembly for Wales, with the exception of the final provisions and the provisions mentioned in subsections (3) and (4). The effect of the amendment is to exclude from subsection (1) a new subsection that is added to the clause by amendment No. 265. That will ensure that paragraph 15 of schedule 4 is not commenced by the Secretary of State in consultation with the National Assembly for Wales. It will be commenced by Scottish Ministers, as will the provision in amendment No. 265.

It may have escaped the Committee's attention that the amendment is technical—there will be a short test later—and will ensure that the appropriate commencement powers are given to Scottish Ministers.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister has unintentionally confused us completely. I have a question, but I am not sure whether I should ask it now or on the clause stand part debate. Perhaps I should make it on a point of order. I want to establish when the Government plan to put the Bill into effect in England, Wales and Scotland.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

Order. That is not a point of order, so the Minister can reply.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I will try to respond to that after I have gone through the amendments and new clause 17, if hon. Members will let me.

Amendment No. 264 amends clause 133(3). It provides for Scottish Ministers to commence new clause 17, under which they will have the power to make an order specifying the adoption orders to be recognised in Scotland, as the Secretary of State will with regard to England and Wales. The new clause also allows Scottish Ministers to make regulations that set the criteria that the procedures in an overseas country must meet in order to be included in the list of recognised overseas adoptions.

I will now give a fuller explanation of the new clause. Hon. Members will remember our debate on clause 83. That clause related to the new designated list, and the new clause mirrors it in relation to

Scotland. Adoption is a devolved matter, with separate systems operating north of the border. The new clause allows Scottish Ministers to work alongside those in England and Wales to put in place arrangements for the recognition in the UK of adoption orders made overseas. When Scottish Ministers make an order that specifies the adoption orders to be recognised in Scotland, they will also protect the status of those adopted in the past from countries included on the old designated list.

The current designated list was created in an order in 1973. To add China, it was amended in 1993 for England and Wales and in 1995 for Scotland. Other than that, it has remained unchanged. It was always the Government's stated intention to review the designated list for England and Wales once the 1993 Hague convention was ratified. However, it has become clear that that cannot happen without changes in primary legislation, largely because the removal of a country from the list could remove recognition of the adoption of someone previously adopted from it.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

The Minister referred to the provisions coming into effect once the Hague convention had been ratified. When is that likely?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

When I respond to the points raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) about the Government's plans on the commencement of the provisions, I shall cover the point made by the hon. Member for North Dorset as well, if he will allow me.

The new clause tackles the issues for Scotland in the same manner as clause 83 tackles them for England and Wales. Scottish Ministers share our intention to consult on the nature of the criteria included in regulations. It is likely that those criteria would be based on key principles enshrined in international law. Those include that the country ensures that the child has been freely given up for adoption and that adoption has not been induced by payment or compensation of any kind, that attempts are made to place the child with a family in its own country, that it has been confirmed that intercountry adoption is in the best interests of the child, that the arrangements and requirements for domestic and intercountry adoption are the same, that profit is not made from the process, and that the prospective adopters have been assessed and approved as suitable to adopt in their home country.

Scottish Ministers have agreed to work in concert with Ministers in England and Wales, so that adoption orders made overseas in future will only be recognised in the UK when the systems in that country meet agreed criteria. The new clause would allow that.

In the excitement of explaining the amendments, I may have failed to point out that amendment No. 265—I am surprised that no one missed it—inserted a new subsection into clause 133. It would provide the commencement by Scottish Ministers of paragraph 15 of schedule 4, which details transitional provisions and savings in respect of section 86(6) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, and clause 124(2) in so far as it

relates to paragraph 15. I am sure that the Committee is much relieved that I have spelt that out.

The hon. Member for Canterbury rightly asked when we would put into operation the important measures that we have debated. Clearly, we must await the conclusion of Parliament's deliberations on the measures in the Bill and Royal Assent. However, I can give the Committee some idea of our intentions for commencing the provisions.

Hon. Members will be only too aware that the Bill is complex and makes important and fundamental changes to the adoption system. We all want the measures in the Bill to succeed in providing a greater degree of permanence and stability in the lives of more of our most vulnerable children. Changing the law alone will not optimise the favourable impact of what we all agree is needed to achieve that; we must ensure that we properly prepare the way. Some changes will involve completely new areas of law and practice, such as the operation of placement and special guardianship orders. That will require awareness raising and training, not only for front-line staff in social services departments and voluntary adoption agencies but in the courts and among the judiciary, so that there is a smooth transition to the new legal framework.

We have said throughout that we shall consult at each stage to ensure that the detail is right. We shall draft and consult on regulations and court rules to give effect to the new provisions and set in place the new systems. Above all, we want to ensure that children do not experience delays in planning and delivering their permanent future because of uncertainty about the new legal arrangements.

We expect to bring into force the main provisions of the Bill in 2004, but I believe that there is a case for taking action on some measures sooner than that. Today I shall give the Committee an idea of which areas we shall take action on sooner. I propose to bring forward on Report any amendments that may be necessary to enable the provisions to come into force before 2004.

We intend to introduce provisions covering improved adoption support for new adoptive families from April 2003. As we know, that will be a key means of encouraging more families to adopt, to enable us to meet the public services agreement target to increase the number of adoptions by 40 to 50 per cent. by the end of 2004–05. We are already seeing improvements in those services on the ground, as we heard in our evidence-gathering sittings, and we want to maintain the momentum. We intend to consult on our proposals for a new framework for adoption support in the spring. On that basis, we shall develop regulations for further consultation to enable us to make final regulations, which we may have in place for April 2003.

A key element in our strategy to attract more adopters is to build the confidence of prospective adopters in the system of adopter assessment and approval. As the Committee knows, we made a commitment in the White Paper to conduct a fundamental review of adopter assessment this year.

We made a commitment to provide an independent review mechanism for prospective adopters who are dissatisfied when they learn that they may be turned down, which will also apply to decisions relating to access to information. I propose to introduce an amendment on Report to allow the independent review mechanism to operate in respect of adopter assessment in 2003.

In response to the question put by the hon. Member for North Dorset, I can inform the Committee that this summer we plan to complete the process of ratifying the Hague convention. There are strong arguments for introducing at the same time the new restrictions in clause 80 on bringing children into the United Kingdom. The Government ordered an urgent review of the law in January, following the Kilshaw case, and it would not be right to wait until 2004 to introduce those new measures.

As part of that package of measures, and alongside the ratification of the Hague convention, we plan to begin the process of reviewing the system for automatic recognition of overseas adoptions. We do not know how long that process will take or what complex issues will emerge. Nevertheless, I propose to table an amendment on Report that will allow us to set in place the new arrangements in 2003, should we be in a position to do so.

We believe that the new restrictions on electronic adoption advertising are important, and should not wait until 2004. Again, we shall introduce on Report an amendment to section 58of the Adoption Act 1976 to make it clear that the restriction applies both off-line and on-line. We intend to bring that into effect this year.

I hope that hon. Members agree that the approach that I outlined is in the best interests of children and will allow those responsible for the new systems time to adjust. I hope, too, that the Committee agrees that we have identified important priority areas for early action to ensure that key improvements are made and that new elements are put in place as soon as practicable.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am sure that the Opposition will go along with the Minister as far as we can comprehend in the absence of a comprehensive flow chart, which in this case would need to be a chronological flow chart. The Minister successfully got her teeth around the technical amendments.

We welcome the news that the Government urgently want to introduce the measures that gained cross-Committee support, especially with regard to adoption support services, which should come into force next year provided that the Bill sails through the rest of its parliamentary stages. The ratification of the Hague convention in the summer is another move that we welcome. In respect of intercountry adoption, I especially welcome the Minister's comments about clamping down on internet advertising, which is a menace that needs to be dealt with. There are many loopholes in that system, and new measures cannot come soon enough.

The Government amendments largely relate to the parts of the British isles outside England. What are the differences between Scotland and England in respect of adoption? Is there a fundamentally different approach between the Scottish Parliament and the United Kingdom Government? What soundings has she taken with her colleagues in Scotland?

New clause 17 includes the phrase

''appear to the Scottish Ministers''.

Does that mean that Scottish Ministers have a different view on overseas adoption and what constitutes overseas adoption in respect of the adoption law that will come into force in Scotland? I hope that England will not be included in their definition of overseas adoption, and that the fragmentation of the United Kingdom under this Government has not gone so far that England is regarded as overseas when it is only on the other side of Hadrian's wall. Will she set our minds to rest on that point?

Will the Minister also tell us when the Bill will come into force in Scotland? As it will have to go through extra processes in the Scottish Parliament, will it have a later start date there? Will the provisions that she said were likely to come into force at an earlier date in England come into force early in Scotland as well? Early in these proceedings, we made the point that, when the last Adoption Act came into force, it took a full seven years before all of its terms came into play. That was far too long, and that would be wholly unacceptable this time round. Given the constraints that are now on us to seek the approval of other legislative bodies in the United Kingdom, will the Minister assure us that all the work by her Department and by this Committee to promote the Bill will result in its coming into force as soon as possible in all parts of the United Kingdom and as extensively as in England and Wales?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

To the extent that adoption is a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament, it is not appropriate for me to answer for Scottish Ministers. What I can tell the Committee is that Scotland is currently reviewing adoption law generally. We are working closely together on the designated list—which is what I referred to under new clause 17—because the new provision will allow Scottish Ministers and Ministers in England and Wales to work together to ensure that, in future, adoption orders made overseas will be recognised in the United Kingdom only when the systems in that country meet criteria set out in regulations and which I spelled out when I was outlining new clause 17.

It is not possible for me to give the Committee assurances about something for which I am not responsible, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have, in the process of developing this legislation, worked closely with Ministers in Scotland and with colleagues in the National Assembly for Wales. There is a clear view that we must avoid the scenario suggested by the hon. Gentleman in which we see people from each part of the kingdom as overseas

adopters or our processes became so out of step that it is difficult for individuals going through the adoption process to see the sense of the range of procedures across the United Kingdom.

Ironically, the need to ensure that the people on the receiving end are not confused by differences between the various procedures has resulted in the legislation being complex in order to ensure that the process is simple and joined up.

The hon. Gentleman asked about commencement for Scotland. That will be a matter for Scottish Ministers. I am sure that people there are raising the same points about the need to make progress in Scotland as have rightly arisen in discussion on this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 264, in page 73, line 30, leave out 'Section 120' and insert

'Sections 120 and [Amendment of Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978: overseas adoptions],'.

No. 265, in page 73, line 32, at end insert—

'( ) Paragraph 15 of Schedule 4 and, so far as relating to that paragraph, section 124 (2) are to come into force on such day as the Scottish Ministers may by order appoint.'—[Jacqui Smith.]

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 266, in page 73, line 33, leave out '3(4)' and insert '3(3) and (4)'.

We turn our attention from northwards to westwards, and Wales—[Interruption]. That is just to show my understanding of geography. Clause 133 makes provision for commencement, as we have discussed. The amendment adds clause 3(3). Hon. Members will remember that that refers to adoption support provisions, which are to come into force on a day appointed by the appropriate Minister. Clause 3(3)(a) enables regulations to be made extending the duty on local authorities to make and participate in arrangements to provide adoption support services to persons prescribed in regulations. Clause 3(3)(b) gives local authorities a power to extend their arrangements for the provision of adoption support services to any other person. That combination of a duty and a power provides the flexibility needed by local authorities in this area. The amendment would enable Ministers in England and Wales to commence the provisions in clause 3(3) separately, should they wish to do so. Ministers will also have the flexibility to prescribe different requirements in the regulations as to the persons to whom local authorities must make adoption support services available. That will ensure that the regulations are appropriately tailored to meet the needs of people living in England and Wales in relation to adoption support services. I hope that, in light of this explanation, hon. Members will feel able to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 231, in page 73, line 33, after '51(1) to (3)', insert—

'[Disclosing information during adoption process]'.

No. 232, in page 73, line 33, after '62', insert—

'[Disclosing protected information about adults] and [Disclosing protected information about children]'.—[Jacqui Smith.]

Clause 133, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134 - Extent

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 267, in page 74, line 3, at end insert—

'( ) So far as relating to provisions extending to Scotland, section 124 extends also to Scotland.

( ) In Schedule 4, paragraph 15 extends only to Scotland'.

Clause 134 defines the extent of the Bill. The majority of the Bill applies to England and Wales. In addition, the provisions listed at subsection (3) also extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is a technical amendment, which seeks to correct a small error in the final provisions of the Bill. The amendment amends clause 134 in so far as the provisions in schedules 3, 4 and 5 extend to Scotland and clause 124 introduces schedules 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill. The second new subsection provides for paragraph 15 of schedule 4 to extend to Scotland only. Paragraph 15 of schedule 4 enables the provisions for parental responsibility orders in the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 to apply to a case in which a child has been freed for adoption or is the subject of an order made under section 55 of the Adoption Act 1976, where the application for the freeing order or the section 55 order is made before the 1976 Act is repealed. Section 55 of the 1976 Act provides for the transfer of parental responsibility prior to adoption abroad. I hope that, in light of this explanation, hon. Members will feel able to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 134, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 135 - Short title

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I gather that there have been occasions when the clause relating to the short title of a Bill has exercised the minds of members of a Committee for several hours. Given that the title of this Bill amounts to only four words, including the word ''Bill'', it would require greater parliamentary expertise than that available to me to spin out such a debate for longer than a few minutes. However, it occurred to me that during our proceedings in the past many weeks and on Second Reading before that, hon. Members have constantly been upbraided, not least by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), because this Bill is not the Children's Bill, which we were trying to amend in 1989. We have often made the mistake of referring to this legislation as the Adoption and Children's Bill when it is the Adoption and Children Bill, which will become the Adoption and Children Act. Given that there is a possibility that the title of this legislation could be shortened to the Children Act, there is potential for confusion with the

Children Act 1989, which it is now too late to amend, in spite of the fact that many of us have slipped into misnaming it the Children's Act.

Therefore, it may be helpful to the many people who will come after us and refer to the excellent legislation that we are about to wave on its way through the parliamentary process, and to the many people who will seek to amend it, which may seem strange because we, or at least the Government, think that the legislation is near perfect, were we to admit defeat to the mistakes that we have maken—[Hon. Members: ''Maken?'']—that we have been making and to amend the Bill's short title to the Adoption and Children's Bill. Then there would be no source of confusion. That would make its title very different from that of the 1989 Act, we would have put the Committee's imprimatur on the Bill and what was previously regarded as the wrong usage would become the correct usage. I hope that that is a helpful suggestion.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I shall speak exceedingly briefly. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government will table an amendment to the clause on Report because its short title is the Adoption and Children Act 2001, but time has moved on.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made an interesting contribution. I notice that he has not had the courage of his convictions to table an amendment. I am unsure whether, when people look back on our proceedings, they will commend us most on our discussion about changing the Bill's title. On that basis, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.

If the hon. Member for North Dorset is right, the change in date will be picked up automatically in the next print of the Bill. Presumably, the process is like the automatic ticking over of a—

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

Clock?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Thank you. That happens automatically as part of the parliamentary process, but I assure the hon. Member for North Dorset that if I am wrong and it is necessary to put the matter before Parliament, we will do so. In the meantime, I urge the Committee to agree that the title of the Bill should be the Adoption and Children Bill, and hope that we will soon be able to celebrate it becoming the Adoption and Children Act.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I hope that you will indulge me for a moment, Mrs. Roe, to make an observation on clause 135. There is currently much discussion about parliamentary reform, especially relating to what might happen in the other place. It is a curious anomaly, which struck me first when considering a different Bill, that each Bill that comes before a Committee of the House of Commons contains a clause that gives the Bill's short title. There is no corresponding clause that gives its long title. That means that, unlike in the other place, the long title may not be amended in the House of Commons.

I am certain that every member of the Committee understands the profound difference that that makes,

because the long title governs what can be debated in Committee and in the House. With future debates in mind, which I would be ruled out of order for referring to at any greater length now, it is worth while highlighting in this relatively uncontentious and interesting Bill that there might be scope for some change in that area.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 135 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 6 - Disclosing information during

New clause 7 - Disclosing protected information

New clause 8 - Disclosing protected information

New clause 17 - Amendment of Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978:

New clause 1 - Interviews with children

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am pleased that we have a little time left in which to discuss the Opposition new clauses. New clause 1 is a probing new clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the ubiquitous hon. Member for Isle of Wight. The new clause seems to be sensible. It would allow evidence from children to be relied on only if it were supported by a video or audio recording of their interviews. He tells me that there is concern that children's statements may be used to influence the court, even if the way in which they were obtained would be out of order for the purposes of a criminal prosecution, and he can cite some examples of that from cases in his constituency. Having made inquires at the House of Commons Library, he also told me that it is unlawful to disclose any reports or other evidence to any third parties without the leave of the court, even after proceedings are concluded. He is concerned that that is perhaps unreasonable because, on that basis, parents who have a grievance cannot even disclose the relevant information to local councillors who are responsible for social services departments or to a Member of Parliament.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that any person who wants such information to be disclosed can apply to the court, giving their reasons, and the court will give due consideration to those reasons? The papers are the property of the court in order to preserve the confidentiality that we would expect in those circumstances.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Yes, I appreciate that. That came up in discussion of the earlier amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, to which the Minister responded. There seems to be an anomaly whereby a parent with a strong direct interest cannot disclose information on a confidential basis, even to a Member of Parliament or a councillor who is responsible for the social services department, who may be privy to the information that is being discussed or decided on in court.

I said that this was a probing amendment. We have, of course, referred at length to the desirability of ascertaining the child's wishes as a party to any of the adoption processes. We have had debates on whether a child's age should be taken into account when their evidence is considered. The Bill contains all sorts of provisions about ascertaining the child's point of view, but there is no compulsion for somebody to go and speak, first-hand, to the child. That is still a weakness, even though one would hope that, in practice, the child would be consulted without such a compulsion.

I cited my own case of parental custody divorce proceedings many years ago, in which a greater input into what was being discussed and written about the circumstances of the child would have been desirable. Given the varying reliability of the child's evidence, which may depend on age, circumstances or the

different emotional pressures on that child, there seems to be a case for ensuring that everything happens as dispassionately and objectively as possible, to minimise the pressure on that child. Keeping a video or audio recording seems a sensible way to do that.

That is the purpose of the new clause. I hope that the Minister can give some assurances as to why it will not be necessary, so that I can convey her message to my eager hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight.

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

On reading the new clause, I was frankly appalled. I know that the Committee is aware of the extent of Labour Members' experience of such situations. The idea that we should interview children on video about their wishes and feelings about an adoption is so bad that words fail me. I cannot believe that anybody would think that that is the right way forward.

Video interviewing of children was introduced in criminal proceedings to ensure that children who had been abused did not have to repeat their allegations in court, as they had had to in the past, often before their alleged abuser. It was designed to protect the child. However, anybody who has ever been involved in a video interview with a child, however it is done, and whatever steps are taken to minimise the distress to the child, will know one would never want one's own child to have go through it, because it is not easy.

Adoption involves civil proceedings, and we are concerned with the importance of knowing the wishes and feelings of children. Hon. Members who have children will understand that children say different things at different times to different people, and that their age and understanding of the issues will have implications for what they say about their wishes and feelings. My hon. Friends who have worked in the social work field will have heard children saying different things at different times, depending on which of their parents they are with or whether they are with their foster parents or their birth parents. It is not easy to get to the bottom of what a child really thinks. In the adoption process and in care proceedings, which often precede adoption, necessary mechanisms are already in place to ensure that the wishes and feelings of the child are taken into account.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I appreciate the hon. Lady's experience of the matter, and her remarks. I remind her that the new clause refers to video or audio. While video may be an encumbrance or an intrusion and as such make such an interview more difficult, I should have thought that taking an audio recording would not pose that sort of problem. The reasons that the hon. Lady has just stated—that children will say different things to different people in different circumstances—surely make it essential that there should be a proper record, which can be referred back to, of multiple interviews. If what children say varies, would such a record not be better than relying on the impression of the person who conducts the interviews, which may differ from one interview to the next and cannot necessarily be substantiated?

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

I was about to say that the CAFCASS officer is there to consider the child's needs. Officers see the child in different circumstances and base their conclusions on observation of the child in a number of situations. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, in addition to everything else that the CAFCASS officer has to take into account, such as ensuring that they develop a relationship with a child and that they interview them in appropriate circumstances, they should also become an expert on audio equipment? Is he suggesting that they should carry that equipment around with them, so that at some point someone is able to play back everything that the child has said and make a judgment on the conclusion reached by the CAFCASS officer? The courts generally have a great deal confidence in the CAFCASS officer and usually respect the fact that they have reflected on what the child has said and the circumstances in which they said it.

It is beyond belief that anyone could think that the new clause provides an answer. The issue is enormously important, and it is difficult to get it right. However, experienced court officers are expected to set out in their reports the tensions and difficulties—especially in the case the older children whom we have been discussing—of what the child is trying to express, as well as how they have reached their view and the circumstances in which they have spoken to the child.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight may be ubiquitous, and seems fairly ambitious. He may be proposing the measure with certain situations in mind, but people should reconsider it, because it is not sensible.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Following the excellent contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, it is hardly worth my while standing up.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham spoke about records not being able to be disclosed without leave of the court. That is true; it and is designed to protect the privacy of the child and the other parties. The parties can, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley pointed out, apply to the court for permission to disclose and that is important, because information disclosed in court may affect other people who also have the right to have their privacy respected.

On the substantive point of the new clause, it is worth noting that audio and video recording are not routinely used or thought necessary by CAFCASS, local authorities or adoption agencies. The Government have not had representations about that from children's organisations or other stakeholders. The court may already consider applications by parties to the case for specific evidence, including video or audio evidence, to be lodged in the proceedings. The child's views may be taken into account in several ways in adoption and placement proceedings, including the presence of CAFCASS officers and solicitors to represent children's best interests.

If there is concern about the extent to which the evidence represents the views of the child, the court process provides the opportunity for statements to be challenged. All children are interviewed sensitively,

taking into account the circumstances of the individual case and the age and understanding of the child. I agree that we need to ask why children should be subjected to the additional pressure of having their views recorded, when, incidentally, that would not be required of adults. The clause would not apply equally to all children. It could not do so, practically, because some children might be too young to be interviewed.

While the use of recorded evidence is common in criminal proceedings—and my hon. Friend pointed out the reasons for that—there is no such requirement about giving evidence in family proceedings. Children of sufficient age and understanding can be made a party to the proceedings and speak directly to the court.

If the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is mainly concerned about how to represent the voice of the child in the proceedings, my response is that we have gone into that issue at length in Committee. Hon. Members may fear that he is making a misguided attempt to force on to children the recording of their views, and I hope that on his behalf the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight will, I am sure, be disappointed, if not wounded, particularly by the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, and the Minister's remarks about his being misguided. I remind the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley that the new clause was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight and that she should not attempt to shoot the messenger. If my hon. Friend is not sufficiently wounded by the power of Labour Members' comments, he may seek to table a version of the new clause on Report, at which point the hon. Lady can target her ire on him directly. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 4 - Extension of the Convention to

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause may be technical, but it is important. It relates to our earlier deliberations about intercountry adoptions and our references to the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999, which the House rightly passed to implement the Hague convention. I was delighted when the Minister told us that the United Kingdom plans to ratify the Hague convention in the summer. With that in mind, and as a matter of public policy, I feel that I should draw the

Committee's attention to the final clause of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999. Clause 18(4) states:

''Subject to subsection (5), this Act extends to Great Britain only.''

Earlier in our deliberations, we agreed to provisions enabling the Government to extend, by Order in Council, the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 to any of the British overseas territories. We shall, eventually, have implemented the Hague convention in Great Britain and the British overseas territories but not in Northern Ireland.

The Government might pray in support of their position the fact that the summary of the explanatory notes to the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 states:

''Northern Ireland intends to introduce legislation at a later date to give effect to the Convention''.

It is my understanding that Northern Ireland has not yet done that. I know that the Northern Ireland Assembly, when it has been in session, has had other things on its mind. I congratulated the Minister on the decision that the United Kingdom would ratify the convention, but I hesitate over that now, because I do not believe that it would be possible for us to ratify it if one part of the United Kingdom had not implemented the legislation to put the convention into effect.

The matter is particularly important because Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom that has a land frontier with a foreign country. That probably makes it the part of the United Kingdom most vulnerable to abuse of the Hague convention. That is not to suggest that the Republic of Ireland is not also a signatory to the Hague convention, although I understand that it has not yet ratified it. None the less, it is a point of vulnerability.

I hope that the Committee will react favourably when I say that the act does not cover the United Kingdom—England and Wales and Scotland have passed the necessary legislation but Northern Ireland has not—the Act should be extended by Order in Council not only to British overseas territories but to Northern Ireland.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Gentleman has explained what he hopes to achieve through the new clause and I have no disagreement with the objective. However, I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the new clause is not necessary. It would enable an Order in Council to be made to give effect to the Hague convention in Northern Ireland. However, that is not necessary, because the Northern Ireland Assembly passed legislation in 2001 enabling it to make provision for Hague convention adoptions. The Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 received Royal Assent in July 2001 and the Assembly can now make the necessary regulations, which will, in turn, enable the United Kingdom to ratify the convention later this year.

I think that when the hon. Gentleman referred to explanatory notes he was alluding to those for the 1999 Act, because, of course, when they were published Northern Ireland had not introduced its Bill. The Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999

provides a statutory basis for the regulation of intercountry adoption so that children living abroad are afforded maximum protection in adoption processes. The 1999 Act and the Adoption (Intercountry Aspect) (Northern Ireland) Act 2001 enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Hague convention on protection of children and co-operation in respect of intercountry adoption, and introduce sanctions against those who bring children into the UK without following proper procedures. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I thank the Minister for correcting me. Obviously, I had been acting on information that was out of date, and I am reassured that Northern Ireland has passed the necessary legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 13 - Provision of information relating to adoption

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It would be nice to be able to say something about each of new clauses. Thus, as we have only a short time left, I will be brief. The purpose of the new clause, which has been loosely drafted, is to probe and draw attention to an important point. Time prevents me from giving a lot of verbatim quotes, but the Government's statements and academic testimony from institutions such as Cardiff university make it clear that there is a shortage of information in many quarters about adoption and its benefits.

I hope that the Committee will forgive me for briefly mentioning a tragic constituency case that I referred to some time ago, in which a 13-year-old girl, whose mother was a financially struggling lone parent, unexpectedly gave birth to a baby. For obvious reasons, the girl had given no indication to her mother that she was pregnant. The family thought that she was putting on weight.

Some aspects of that case relate to the new clause. A social worker visited the thunder-struck, devastated family, intending to do her best under the circumstances. She did not suggest that adoption was a possibility. The 13-year-old child was left with the impression that she had only two options. One was that the baby should be taken into care and fostered; the girl was given an unattractive picture of fostering. The second option was that the girl's mother should look after the baby while she was at school. Their decision might have been different if adoption had been suggested.

I do not want to criticise a particular social worker. However, I was pleased to receive a letter of apology from the director of social services in Kent. I understand that fresh guidance has been distributed

that makes it clear that adoption should be mentioned prominently in such cases.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Does the hon. Gentleman propose to extend the duty to general practitioners?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which the Government should consider.

As I said, no mention was made of adoption at the early stage at which decisions quickly become set in stone. Another point arises from that tragic, difficult case. Let us move from the actual case to a hypothetical variant of it, which is a more common occurrence, and suppose that the girl had told her mother some months earlier that she was pregnant. Whether it be a social worker or, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre rightly said, a general practitioner, one hopes that whoever they consulted would mention adoption prominently as a possible option.

A better local story is that East Kent Community NHS Trust, which is responsible for mental health care in my constituency, said in a presentation to Members of Parliament a few months ago that it commonly discusses options in the tragic cases of which, sadly, we have a disproportionate number in my area because of the moving—I hesitate to use the word dumping—of a number of mental health cases from central London to east Kent. In several cases, women with severe mental illnesses have become pregnant. In some cases the local authority has been very good in considering before birth what will happen to the child and, insofar as is possible, discussing the matter with the mother. It is stressed that adoption is an option and it is discussed with the mother early before the birth.

I do not want to detain the Committee any longer. It is not necessary for the Minister to tell me that the clause is appallingly widely drafted. She understands that it is a probing new clause. I would be grateful for her comments on what can be done to improve the information given so that young girls do not feel that their only options are to allow the child to be taken into care, to have an abortion, or to struggle as a 13 or 14-year-old with a grandparent trying to bring up the child.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall say only briefly that the new clause is extremely broadly drafted, to the extent that were we to go ahead with it we could be in a position, for example, where the providers of day care nurseries should display information to working mothers who leave their child in the crèche about adoption being another option. I do not believe that is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, nor that expectant mothers arriving at a maternity clinic should see information encouraging them to consider adoption even though they have expressed no such wish and are looking forward to the birth of their child.

I accept that the hon. Gentleman said that that is not his intention. I hope that I can reassure him about the extent of advice that is necessary. If an expectant mother raises the issue of adoption or expresses doubts about motherhood, she should receive advice from her

GP—this relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre—midwife, or pregnancy adviser. Professionals are provided with information by their Royal Colleges and others on sources of advice and counselling on an expectant mother's options: to keep the baby, adoption, abortion, and future contraceptive needs. Where a woman is considering abortion, successive Governments have always recognised the importance of objective counselling.

All UK health authorities and private sector clinics carrying out abortions have guidance on the provision of counselling services, which makes it clear that counselling should include the provision of advice and information about all possible alternatives to termination, including adoption.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

There is a difficulty if the Government provide mere advice without an element of compulsion. A high proportion of abortions in this country are carried out in private clinics, so there is a financial interest in the abortion taking place. Surely, in that regard at least, there is a case for some statutory move rather than just guidance?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The new clause proposes pretty strong guidance. It is clear both to health authorities and to private sector clinics that carry out abortions that counselling should include the provision of advice and information about all the possible alternatives to termination, including adoption. Adoption should be raised as an option when pregnant teenagers under 18 seek advice from their GP or pregnancy advisers. Professionals should once again provide all the information on sources of advice and counselling. Each top-tier local authority area has a teenage pregnancy co-ordinator, and they are required to ensure that a directory or service guide is provided for pregnant teenagers under 18. This guide must list sources of advice on future options, such as keeping the baby, adoption or abortion. Family doctors, the sexual health service and pregnancy advisers are provided with an advice checklist, which also includes the option of adoption.

In the light of those comments, and given the sensitivities on this issue, I hope that I can assure hon. Members that there will clarity in the information that must be provided to expectant mothers and others, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his new clause.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 14 - Foster carers and adopters: insurance

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Minister will be aware of the power given to insurance companies in this country, as we saw for example in Clwyd, which have discouraged local authorities from admitting any form of liability for fear of compensation claims. It is quite understandable that apologies and self-criticism are unlikely, and very often users of the system will feel somewhat failed by it.

I will not go into a great deal of detail, but one can certainly envisage a situation in which legal action might be taken against the adopting parents by the birth parents or blood relations of an adopted child. In a current case, I understand from correspondence sent to me, a couple in Flintshire who adopted a child abroad are being taken to court by Flintshire county council over declaration of the adoption. The couple will obviously have to pay a substantial sum of money. A way of avoiding and averting that problem would be to require foster carers and adopters to have the necessary insurance cover for any legal proceedings that might result.

I hope that the Minister will agree that the new clause is logical, straightforward and sensible. It puts in place a safety net, in the form of insurance, and I hope very much that the Minister will accept it.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that we will be able to accept the new clause. The hon. Gentleman made it explicit that it would require foster carers and adopters to be covered by insurance for legal proceedings that might result from any complaints of negligence or failure to provide sufficient information on the part of adoption agencies. However, it is not clear whether the clause is intended to allow foster carers or adopters, as well as the adoption agency, to initiate and possibly defend proceedings against others. Is it his intention to cover the cost of legal proceedings for the adopters who take legal action against the foster carers or even the birth parents of their adopted child where they complain of abuse of that child? Is it also intended that the insurance will cover the cost of legal proceedings in defence of the same foster carers? Is it intended to cover civil or criminal costs? It is not clear from the clause whether the adoption agency should provide the insurance cover.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The new clause is certainly intended to cover resulting costs where there might be an order from the court. It is simply intended to cover the expenses of the legal action. I would have thought that was made clear.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am not sure that it does make that completely clear. Nor does it make clear whether the adoption agency should provide the insurance cover or whether it is something that the foster carers or adopters should have to arrange themselves. The concern may be about those cases in which foster carers or adopters have not been given sufficient information by relevant agencies, and have therefore not been able to meet the child's needs, or the adoptive or foster family have suffered harm.

As the Committee knows, we tabled new clause 6, which through clause 9 provides the power to ensure through regulations that adoption agencies provide all

the key information that prospective adopters need, and we will consult the stakeholders on that. Under the Children Act 1989 regulations, local authority or voluntary adoption agencies that place the children are already required to assess the needs of a looked-after child and ensure that they are met in a way that promotes the child's welfare. Under the regulations, the relevant local authority or voluntary adoption agency should ensure that foster parents have all the information that is necessary to enable them to care for a child who is placed with them. Furthermore, under the Fostering Services Regulations 2001, the responsible authority must continue to be satisfied that the child's welfare continues to be supported by the placement. The national minimum standards provide that under standard 9, matches between children and carers are secured by information sharing between all parties.

To that extent, provision is made to ensure that the situations described by the hon. Gentleman do not occur. If a court decides that an agency has failed in its duty of care towards prospective adopters or foster carers, and that the family has suffered harm as a result, it may award compensation to the claimants and the agency may also be obliged to meet all the legal costs. If the new clause's intention is for the adoption agency to provide the insurance cover for legal proceedings, the insurer would be obliged to cover the legal costs on any complaint of negligence, even for vexatious legal claims. That would inevitably lead to high insurance premiums for agencies, drawing away the resources that they need to provide their services. It would place a burden on voluntary adoption agencies, too. Given that that is not what the hon. Gentleman probably wants to achieve, I hope that he will withdraw the new clause.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

The Minister has been fluent, and we know that she is competent and able. I will take her word on the matter, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 15 - Powers of the Secretary of State

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I will be quick because I gather that we want to wind things up by ten minutes to five o'clock. That gives me about two minutes.

I remind the Committee of a key provision of the Bill, which was in clause 14 and concerned the default power of the appropriate Minister. How will the Minister discover any lack of compliance on the part of local authorities? He will have performance reports from the social services inspectorate, but how will he discover lesser degrees of failure in duty or individual cases? I am sure that the Minister will agree that local authorities are unlikely to point out problems or examples of poor performance, so there is a strong

argument for inserting the new clause. It makes it clear that anyone involved in the process has the right to be informed of the Secretary of State's powers. It would be a simple and straightforward addition. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and I have put a lot of effort into drafting it, and we feel strongly that the Committee should accept it.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I hope that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that his new clause is not necessary. The objective appears to be to ensure high standards in voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities. From April 2003, voluntary adoption agencies will be inspected and registered by the National Care Standards Commission and by the National Assembly in Wales under part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000. Local authority adoption services will also be inspected by the NCSC from April 2003. The hon. Gentleman was right; they are currently inspected by the social services inspectorate.

Adoption is a mainstream social services function, and people have recourse to the complaints procedure, as amended under clause 111. Clause 14 provides default powers for the appropriate Minister if a local authority fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with its duties. We have a comprehensive performance assessment system for social services.

The Care Standards Act 2000 also set up an independent children's rights director, who will have a national overview of the rights of children receiving services regulated by that commission. In the event of a serious failure by a local authority to comply with its duties, the Secretary of State may consider whether to use the default powers. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman considers the proposals put forward by the new clause to be unnecessary, and that we can all share the view that provisions are in place to ensure high standards.

Henry Bellingham (Conservative, North West Norfolk)

I am glad that we have had the assurance that the new clause is otiose. The Minister was impressive: I shall write a letter to her Chief Whip to tell him that she has done well on the Committee, although she has not accepted enough of our amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

On a point of order, Mrs. Roe. I would like to interrupt the love-in. We are approaching the end of the Bill, and I would like to initiate the credits, which are traditional at this stage.

On behalf of the Committee, I thank you, and your co-Chairmen, Mr. Stevenson and Mr. Hood, for their good services in guiding through a technical Bill without anyone falling asleep during the proceedings. I pay tribute to the Clerk, Tom Goldsmith, who went beyond the call of duty helping Committee members to table amendments: that was not easy at times, given the technicalities of the Bill. I thank the Hansard reporters for their understanding during the more

technical debates. I thank all the outside bodies and adoption agencies, which contributed to our deliberations with their technical expertise at the earlier witness sessions, in the dim and distant past when we first embarked on this enterprise. That underlines the usefulness of that exercise.

I speak for the Opposition and the spokesman for Plaid Cymru, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who unfortunately cannot be here today but supported many of our amendments, in saying that our deliberations have been good humoured. We had two apologies from the Minister during this afternoon's sitting alone. This morning, true to form, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre did not disappoint us. In mirroring his Second Reading contribution, he offered excellent contributions throughout the proceedings, though he slightly ruined it by blaming all the ills in the history of mankind on the Conservative party.

The Committee was entertained by the radiance and expertise of the Parliamentary Secretary, and the expertise and ubiquitous flowcharts of the Minister. All Committee members have shown a great amount of expertise and practical experience. Government Members fell over themselves to outbid each other on how many years experience they had as social workers. In the case of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw), that is measured not in blood, sweat and tears, but in the extent of his receding hairline through the years.

I am proud to say that we on the Conservative Benches have precisely zero hours of practical experience with social workers, which has done our speeches no harm. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, whose name we now know how to pronounce, who made some good contributions on his Committee debut.

The Committee was a classic example of where programming was unnecessary, because the Bill had cross-party support. In the programming that we have suffered, 43 clauses have been untouched, and 7 touched only partly. More than a third of the Bill, as well as two schedules, has not been debated in Committee. Nevertheless, we wave on its way a better Bill. The Minister has been amenable to many of our suggestions and she made a major U-turn on access to information, which we greatly welcome. The highlight of the Committee was probably the success of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset in amending clause 87 from ''British colonies'' to ''British overseas territories''. It may be too late for Gibraltar, if the Government sell it down the river, but that is a debate for another day.

We have covered many issues extensively. We have debated the sperm of members of the House of Lords; we have done a Cook's tour of other countries' adoption procedures; we have heard revelations about adopted people not knowing that they were adopted until their 70s or 80s; this morning we have heard the extraordinary paradox of accusations of right-wing political correctness; and we all now know how to pronounce the constituency of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, even if we do not know where it is. Unfortunately, he appears to

have welshed on the bottle of wine deal that he promised earlier.

We wave on a better Bill, and we welcome the two days on he Report to which we shall all contribute some time in the future.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I share many of the hon. Gentleman's sentiments, particularly regarding the good-natured way in which the Committee has carried out its deliberations. I thank you, Mrs. Roe, and Mr. Stevenson, and also Mr. Hood for his cameo appearance. I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for chairing the Special Standing Committee sittings.

I want to put on record my thanks to the Clerks and Hansard reporters for their hard work in supporting the Committee. I also thank my radiant ministerial colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department as well as my equally radiant hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Basildon (Angela Smith) for their sterling work on the Bill. Of course, I want to thank all members of the Committee for the considerable experience that they brought to the Committee. It is not always easy for a Minister when so many members of a Committee have so much experience. In this case, hon. Members put their experience to extremely good use and the legislation will be the better for their representations both during Committee sittings and behind the scenes.

I thank Opposition Members, not only the Front Benches, who have hardly ever been churlish and mischievous, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) for the great good sense that he displayed in his last two contributions this evening. It may not be the done thing to thank officials, but I want to mention the support that they have provided.

The Committee may like to know that James Paton, who appeared before the Special Standing Committee, has been in hospital since Christmas, but is now out and recovering. I am sure that all members of the Committee would want to pass on their best wishes.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

And my officials.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Ably prompted by my hon. Friend, I also want to put on record the support of officials across government, particularly from the Lord Chancellor's Department. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham pointed out, the Special

Standing Committee gave us the opportunity to consider the Bill in greater detail and to receive information from stakeholders more effectively than would have been possible without it. The hon. Gentleman is right to thank the stakeholders and lobby groups for their commitment.

Finally, we can be proud that we are sending on its way a Bill that will put the welfare of children at the heart of the adoption system, cut out delays, place a clearer duty on local authorities to provide adoption support services, give adopters a better deal, provide new rights to be reviewed after assessment, introduce special guardianship orders that will legally underpin the adoption register, and address the concerns expressed by members of the Committee.

We said at the outset that we were engaging in a ''once in a generation'' opportunity to modernise adoption legislation and I want to thank all those who have been involved in ensuring that the Committee stage has been particularly constructive and has made the legislation as good as possible.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

Without hesitation, deviation or too much repetition, I associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. I recently read Giles Brandreth's diaries, in which he said that he went to the Whips and told them that he was an expert on culture, media and sport—so they promptly assigned him to the Transport Bill. I am delighted that no party has taken that approach on this Bill.

I have found very useful the experience of Government Members, which has brought us down to earth on several occasions. I have also very much enjoyed the anecdotal contributions from the hon. Member for Canterbury. Indeed, I am sorry that they have not been mentioned so far, as they brought a human touch to the proceedings.

Marion Roe (Conservative, Broxbourne)

On behalf of Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Hood and myself, I thank hon. Members for their kind comments. It is always a pleasure to chair a Committee that can debate important issues with good humour.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at two minutes past Five o'clock.