Orders of the Day — Adoption and Children Bill — [1st allotted day]

House of Commons, 20 March 2002.

Clause 4 — Assessments etc. for adoption support services

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 24, after "needs", insert—

'or needs of connected persons'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 4, line 30, leave out from "services", to end of line 31 and insert—

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

No. 3, in page 4, line 30, leave out "decide whether to".

No. 4, in page 4, line 31, after "person", insert—

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

No. 5, in page 5, line 9, after "conditions", insert—

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

Government amendments Nos. 48 and 37.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

As this is the first group of amendments in a three-day Report stage, I would like to say how much I enjoyed the Committee stage of the Bill. Originating from a long-running national and cross-party campaign, the Bill aims to help some of the most disadvantaged children. The Committee was packed with people with specialised knowledge and interest.

I will not try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by reiterating the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about the guillotine of the Committee. I share his concerns about that, but I am pleased to have been part of the process.

Our amendments concern support services for adopters. It is difficult to exaggerate how valuable and how brave many parents who adopt a child from care are. It is easy to forget that many children are in care because they have been abused or severely neglected. They bring a package of problems into the homes of the adoptive parents, who must deal with them without any professional training.

I wish to give one example from my constituency of two little boys adopted by a family who discovered that one had been thrown out so often into the cold that his feet had to be treated for gangrene; in fact, he came close to having them amputated. The other had been locked in a cellar for years and, as a result, had no power of speech. Teaching a child to speak at the age of seven involves specialist support services. It is those sorts of specialist services that we are talking about in the amendments.

The Opposition's concern about clause 4, which deals with these services, is that, as it is drafted, social services are required to make assessments, but are not required to provide any services to support parents who have adopted children from care.

There are several points that need making here. The first concerns assessment itself. An assessment must be carried out by a qualified person, in many cases a social worker. We are short of social workers. In nearly all cases, an assessment must be carried out by someone from a category of professionals of whom we are short. Yet very often it is obvious what needs doing, and if the local authority is willing to make resources available, carrying out an assessment involves an inordinate delay and a waste of time. Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 would place on a local authority the duty to provide the suitable services that adoptive parents need.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am entirely in sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about adoptive parents receiving any service that they have been assessed as needing. Would he also apply that to natural parents, and to children living in residential care, foster care and other circumstances? Why should it apply only to adoption?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

In Committee, we agreed that there should be a requirement in some of those cases. Children being adopted from care are special cases. A failure of an adoption is very expensive for the state, as well as being a disaster for the child. This is a matter of prudence for the state, although we would all agree that the overriding concern is the child.

I wish to refer to another case from my constituency surgery; that of a girl adopted by constituents of mine from a London authority. She had been sexually abused over a long period by her father. As a result, she needed profound professional therapy. The family that adopted her was receiving no financial allowance of any kind from the London authority and it provided her with no advice. The adoptive parents were extremely poor and it must have been a desperate decision to take the child on. However, they went out and found the therapy. Their request to the authority was to have the bus tickets paid for, so that the girl could go for therapy two or three times a week. In a case such as this, what possible purpose could there be for wasting resources and time on specialist assessments if the therapy has been found by the parents? Surely the best thing would be to provide them with the bus tickets. In that case there was a happy ending—their MP chased the matter up and eventually we got the relatively small sum out of the local authority.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

A hero.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remark.

Let me give another example. An adoptive mother rang the Adoption Forum last week, asking how she could get immediate help. One of her two children had been through a particularly bad spell and was being threatened with expulsion from school. The mother said that she had a good enough relationship with her local authority but knew that it would take many weeks, if not months, for it to respond to a request for help. She needed advice right then and there because she could see no way forward. She described how desperate she was. She felt that, in her frustration, she might be driven to a physical attack on the child or other drastic action that could be harmful to this already deeply damaged child.

The lesson here is different because the family situation might well need assessment; certainly, some serious work would be needed for the family. However, the mother needed help at the time of her call, or at least very soon. She did not need long-term assessment with no determinate date or promise of help at the end of it.

As Barnardos put it:

"the provisions contained in Clause 4 do give rise to considerable concern. The right to an assessment of their needs will be available to children and families but the local authority is then under no obligation to provide any of the services that it may have decided are needed. Any potential adoptive applicant reading this Bill would not be reassured that should they decide to take on the—"

difficult—

"task of parenting a child with very complex needs, they will not be left to cope without any real entitlement to support."

The Local Government Association sums it up very well:

"Support is vital in promoting successful placements and preventing adoption breakdown and should encourage more potential adopters."

That is the Government's No. 1 objective—more potential adopters.

The point, which relates to amendment No. 6, is that much of the help needed is for the carer—that is, one of the connected persons in the legal terminology—rather than for the child in isolation. Parents taking on a severely damaged child often need help, hence the wording of amendment No. 6.

Let me give an example from the moving testimony that we received from the Catholic Children's Society. Bath time is an important time for every mother—or perhaps, in this enlightened age, I should say every parent. It takes on a whole new dimension, however, if it involves a small child who has been repeatedly sexually abused at bath time, which is apparently the most frequent time for sexual abuse to take place. The challenge of trying to bathe a child who is terrified of being taken into the bathroom is one of a quite different order. In those circumstances, the connected person rather than the child may need the assistance.

Amendment No. 4 is a less stringent requirement for local authorities to provide a written explanation of why support services are not forthcoming. Amendment No. 5 would provide for a review of the decision not to provide such services. I will not dwell on the latter now, as we will come later to a group of amendments on independent reviews. However, if the Government cannot accept amendments Nos. 3 or 7—and I rather hope that they will—surely they could at the very least accept Nos. 4 and 5.

All too many debates in this House relate to resourcing, so it is important to place the amendments firmly in context. The question of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was a fair one. Keeping children in care is very expensive. Not only is a child far more likely to thrive when adopted, but adoption also places a far smaller burden on the state and means that the child is much less likely to impinge, tragically, on the criminal justice system or mental health establishments later on.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

My hon. Friend makes a very important point about how short-sighted it is of the local authority not to pursue the assessment and pay for the support that is required, because compared with the cost of years in care, it is peanuts.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am indebted to my hon. Friend, not least for bringing to mind a particularly telling quote made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) when, as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, he used to pride himself on being the greatest Scrooge in the House of Commons. Those of us who went to meeting after meeting to discuss adoption and left unwatered might even extend that comparison further. He none the less made the very point that my hon. Friend has just made. He said that this was the one area that he had come across in Government spending where there was a case for unlimited resourcing because the saving would be massive compared with the very small sums in outlay. The sad fact is that 20 per cent. of adoptions fail. This willingness to spend relatively small sums up front can save huge sums later.

It is not just about money. A child may go completely off the rails and end up in prison. Some 40 per cent. of under-age prisoners have been in care. We, as representatives of the state have failed them. It is not simply that they are expensive; those children's lives have gone from abuse to an even worse downward spiral and when that happens, we really have failed them. The question is not just what price we put on a child's welfare but what the future holds for the state as well as the child if we do not help adoptions to succeed.

Will the Minister explain where Government amendment No. 37 comes from? It requires the Treasury to be kept informed of certain expenditures. Has Her Majesty's Treasury just woken up to the fact that the Bill involves money?

In summary, the leaders of all the major parties and hon. Members in all parts of the House have drawn attention to the scandal of children languishing in care. They are all solidly behind this measure to get children in care adopted by loving families. The adopters are providing a wonderful service to society at considerable risk to themselves, taking these often very damaged children into their homes. Offering them guaranteed support when they really need it should be a mandatory requirement, rather than simply assessing them.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I would like to add my voice in support of the amendments. I tabled similar amendments in Committee. I must admit to disappointment that, despite a wide-ranging debate in Committee, the Government have remained completely intransigent on the issue. That was not only the case in Committee; it was highlighted on Second Reading. We heard two submissions earlier, but nearly every submission raised that very point. During the evidence-gathering stage of the Bill, many of the witnesses highlighted that point.

As the Bill stands, a local authority must assess the need for adoption services, but is under no obligation to provide those services. Even if it decides to provide them for a short time, it is under no obligation to continue to do so for a prolonged period. The Minister has repeatedly assured us that the rights of the child are paramount. The refusal to provide the necessary adoption support services flies completely in the face of that statement. We want to get real for a moment.

As has been highlighted, we are not talking about cuddly babies—in 2002, babies are not the majority of children being adopted. A significant number of the children being adopted today demonstrate considerable problems and have complex needs. A significant number of them have mental health problems too. It is not putting too fine a point on it to say that prospective parents can be taking on a considerable case load. Of course, they do it out of a sense of love and the hope that they can make a significant and positive difference to a child's life. However, those parents may not necessarily be in a financial position to provide all the services that have been identified to support their child adequately if the local authority is not in a position to do so. Similarly, a short-term agreement to fund certain services is totally inadequate. The parent is making a long-term commitment to the child, so the Government, via the local authority, should also provide a long-term commitment.

Much in the Bill is sensible and I believe that the Government's heart is in the right place on the issue, but this matter was discussed at length in Committee and all Opposition Members were disappointed at the Minister's response. I will remind the House of what she said:

"I turn to the argument . . . that local authorities are very likely just to ignore assessments. That is not my experience of local authorities. In the past, local authorities may not have provided adequate adoption support services when they did not have a duty or the resources to do so."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 13 December 2001; c. 595.]

Unwittingly, the Minister backed my arguments, as she acknowledged that in the past services failed when resources were inadequate.

The Government announced extra funding in December 2000, which was to last three years. By the time the Bill is on the statute book, that pot of money will have disappeared—it will be at the end of its useful life. Who knows what the Government's priorities will be then? There is no guarantee for the future of adoption services in the Bill. Many hon. Members want a greater and more prolonged commitment.

I also support the comments that have been made on the right to appeal. Much has been said about appeal being built into every stage of the procedure. If services are refused for financial or other reasons, the parent, who is acting in the best interests of the child, is in no position to challenge the decision. I ask the Government to think again.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I speak in favour of amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The Government have made much of the worthy proposal that local authorities will provide adoption support services. Indeed, many organisations involved in adoption congratulated the Government on bringing support to the fore in the Bill. It is fair to say that that was before many of them had had a good look at clause 4, which basically states that an assessment must be carried out if a person requests it but that, having made the assessment, it is up to the authority to decide whether it wishes to provide the services.

The reality is that the level of services provided varies considerably from authority to authority. Some councils have effective, efficient and helpful services and some do not. One of the good points about the Bill is that it is intended to raise the general level of service to what is considered to be best practice. The clause as it stands could, however, work directly against that aim. In fact, it could lead to more money being wasted. Hundreds of assessments could be undertaken but they might not lead to the provision of any support, which would be a travesty.

I fully support amendment No. 3 because if an assessment is carried out, support should be provided. Equally, I support amendments Nos. 4 and 5, which would pick up councils for wasting taxpayers' money on pointless assessments by making them explain why they refused to act on them. Surely, however, the Government have done their sums on this matter. If they believe in support, they should back that up by paying for it. Alternatively, if they feel that funds will be inadequate, would it not be more appropriate to limit at the outset those who would be eligible for assessment, rather than paying for everyone to be assessed and turning them down afterwards? That could lead to fewer adoptions rather than more, which would be totally contrary to the purpose of the Bill.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Is the hon. Gentleman therefore suggesting that he wants councils to carry out assessments of whether somebody needs an assessment?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I am not suggesting that. I am speaking in favour of the amendment, under which assessments should be carried out and funding provided. My argument is that if we accept the Government's approach, it would be more sensible to do as the hon. Gentleman suggests. That would at least avoid getting people into the system, building up their expectations and then spitting them out again. That is what could happen, which could lead to real dangers in the system.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

The hon. Gentleman has agreed that his suggestion is as I said—everybody who would otherwise present themselves under the Bill in its current form would present themselves for an assessment as to whether they needed an assessment.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I am not suggesting that, but I shall move on. I have made the point that clause 4 still lacks clarity. I do not believe that it is in the spirit of the Bill, and I hope that the Government will re-address the issue.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I support amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 7.

First, I want to deal with the question of duty. As we know, local authorities have various duties, some of which are obvious, such as that under the Education Act 1944 to provide a reasonable standard of education. Some of them are even more mundane, such as the duty to collect refuse. If, at the core of this Bill, the interests of the child are paramount, I cannot understand why we decline to impose a statutory duty on local authorities to follow their own assessments and provide what is seen to be necessary per the assessment.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Can the hon. Gentleman indicate any other area of local government social policy in which there is a statutory duty to meet and identify assessed need of an individual or family?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Yes. It exists in relation to children who are statemented and to provision for dealing with special needs in schools. Even if I were wrong—I think that I am right—the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has already referred to a more learned person than me making an exception of this area in terms of Government spending. I realise that we are dealing with a finite purse, but only a given percentage of youngsters will be subject to adoption. We have already heard that 20 per cent. of adoptions fail; it is a tragedy when that happens. We all know what occurs: the slide into criminality, awful drug problems and so on. Often—not always, of course, thankfully—the root cause is an unhappy childhood, and frequently that is partly because an adoption has gone badly wrong. I hope that this will be a landmark Bill, but clause 4 is badly drafted and does not provide for this particular duty to be imposed.

The ignoring of assessments was raised earlier in the debate. I am not saying that local authorities will ignore assessments, but their funding will be finite, and they will therefore be directed as to what services they provide by the amount of money that they have. That is a fairly obvious equation. When local government makes assessments of the care component and the residence component for the elderly, all manner of fun and games occur. The assessments are cost-driven, and we all see the unfortunate results of that.

I took part in the Special Standing Committee procedure. I congratulate the Government on that positive step forward. We heard from many knowledgeable people and received memorandums from individuals, experts and societies—or stakeholders, in the Minister's words. However, why are the stakeholders being so obviously ignored? The hon. Member for Canterbury referred to the views of Barnardos—it succinctly asked what the point of an assessment would be if it were not followed through. That point is logical.

The Bill—there is much to commend in it—seeks to introduce uniformity in practice across England and Wales. As we know, one of the problems is that the quality of adoption services depends on where one lives. We have heard of postcode prescribing, and in adoption some areas are switched on while others are most definitely not. The Bill also seeks uniformity among providers and agencies, so I do not wish to criticise the Bill for the sake of it and merely because I sit on this side of the House.

These points were made in Committee but, more important, they reflect what the stakeholders say. Unlike me and possibly several other hon. Members, the stakeholders are experts, and we are here to produce the best possible legislation. If stakeholders tell us time after time that delivery must follow the assessment, we should pay attention to them.

As I pointed out in Committee, the ATD Fourth World memorandum states:

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

The Adoption Forum's memorandum added:

"One of the laudable aims of this Bill is to bring adoption/permanency support into the front line."

I agree entirely with that, as I am sure we all do. It went on:

"Adoptions that fail do so because families feel unable to cope and support has been all but impossible to find and fund."

We all want to improve the rate of success, and the memorandum continued:

"If the rate of success is to be improved—and it is difficult to see why there would be much point in upping adoption figures unless adoptions are going to succeed—then there must be help available."

I could read further memorandums, and we all heard the evidence in Committee. I am disappointed that that evidence is being brushed aside without proper consideration.

I know that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) shares my wish to improve the Bill, but I know what he will say. That is not to suggest that he is boring. I readily admit that he has far more experience in social services than I have, and he will say that funding is finite. However, I have experience in child law, and I anticipate that he will argue that we cannot issue a blank cheque. Perhaps I am wrong, so he might wish to intervene and make another point.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I cannot resist the invitation. The hon. Gentleman makes a point, but no one is talking about writing blank cheques. Surely his remarks about a lack of support services entirely underestimate the effects that the Bill will have. It will provide a remarkable improvement in adoption and post-adoption support services to children and families. I question why he is so concerned to give unlimited resources to particular people in certain circumstances when he is not arguing the same for children in all other parts of the care system. He is certainly not arguing the same for families with children living in poverty.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and those arguments will doubtless be made in another debate, but today we are dealing with adoption law.

The hon. Gentleman asks why there should be a carte blanche in terms of resources, but we are dealing with the most needy and vulnerable people in society. The point is that these young kids have probably already been through turmoil in reaching the point of being placed for adoption. We should make the resources available, so that a need can be met whenever an assessment identifies one. Otherwise, there is no point in any of this, and we will be letting children down. Although we all sign up to the principle of the paramountcy of the child, the risk is that the Bill will let children down.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is much in the Bill to commend it. It contains several mechanisms that are most welcome and extremely useful, but a weakness has been identified, and in the light of the circumstances, the Special Standing Committee procedure and so on, it is right and proper that we debate it.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a form of postcode lottery operates, whereby people are in effect dependent on living in an area that happens to have a good agency? If the agency can provide the necessary support, they are in luck; if not, that could be to the detriment of the child and others.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

That is right, and to be fair to the Government, they have identified that problem. Much of the thinking behind the Bill is very clear, but the laudable aim is to introduce uniform quality of service throughout local authorities in England and Wales. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: as things stand, there is a postcode lottery. The system is haphazard and the outcome depends on where one lives. Those of us who are members of the all-party adoption group—including the hon. Member for Canterbury—have heard that said year after year. We are therefore delighted that the Government are introducing the Bill, but I am afraid that it is flawed, and it behoves us all to make plain our dissatisfaction with this particular aspect of it.

Of course, there are degrees of adoption services—some major and others relatively minor—and the Adoption Forum has expressed concern in that regard. It asked what will happen if a local authority agrees that support is needed, but says that it does not have the staff to provide it. Such a situation is not acceptable, but under the Bill as drafted, a local authority could say as much. That is totally unfair.

I support amendment No. 4, which would require a written explanation of reasons why support services were not forthcoming, and amendment No. 5, which would require a review. As other Members have made plain, many local authorities are failing, and often because of nothing more than a lack of resources. Although it has been said that some local authorities are prejudiced against adoption, I doubt whether any are, and I shall not pursue that red herring now. If the problem is a lack of resources, we must look to Government to provide them. As I have said, in any event we are dealing with only a percentage of youngsters. The problem could be worked out, and the Government could examine the budgeting situation.

Given that we have gone through the Standing Committee process, heard evidence from the experts in Special Standing Committee, and heard extremely useful and constructive contributions from Members on both sides of the House, it would be a terrible shame if we fell short of our intention to bring in a ground-breaking Bill that will provide an excellent service for those most in need of support.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I am following the hon. Gentleman's comments with interest and great support, but the problem may be even worse than he suggests. Because of the crisis in many social services departments, whether in the care of children or of the elderly, departments are increasingly having to limit their activities to their statutory responsibilities. Therefore, the responsibilities that are not statutory requirements are taking a lower priority, whether the departments wish that to happen or not. That is exactly what would happen to adoption support services if they do not take on the statutory obligation.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. That is precisely the position as I see it. Adoption UK told us that it welcomes some of the changes to clause 4 and is delighted that adoption support services will include all those affected by adoption. However, it continues to make the point:

"Our 30 years experience of supporting adoptive families has shown us that these families need access to the actual provision of support post-placement and post-adoption, not simply an assessment to determine the nature of that support."

I have made the case as strongly as I can, but I wish to refer briefly—in due deference to the fact that several Labour Members have previously been involved in social work—to the British Association of Social Workers, which said:

"Clause 4 needs substantial improvement . . . Social work support in connection with adoption should always be available and it should not initially be conditional on an assessment of the person's needs having already been carried out."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 21 November 2001; c. 168-352.]

That goes even further than what we are arguing.

I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government's position on clause 4. She rightly referred several times to stakeholders as she opened the debate. If stakeholders mean anything, they should be listened to.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I feel as if I am entering a private party among the members of the Committee. I contributed on Second Reading, but I was not a member of the Committee so I am returning to some of the issues. In this instance, it is a surprise and a disappointment that the issue was not resolved in Committee in the direction that my hon. Friends and other Opposition Members have urged the Government to take.

I support my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). He rightly referred to the group of amendments and their various aspects. If it were my choice, I would ask the Minister to fix on amendment No. 7 as most deserving of acceptance by the Government. One slight difficulty that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has advanced is that inevitably there will be limited circumstances in which the Government will legislate that a local authority has a duty not only to provide services but to provide all such services as are required by a person regardless—effectively—of the resources available to it. As hon. Members have rightly pointed out, the Exchequer and individual local authorities would receive obvious positive benefits from a successful placement for adoption, but resource constraints may still make provision of the services in question difficult for local authorities. Amendment No. 7 would at least recognise that local authorities would exercise a judgment, having interpreted the need for adoption support services, and then be able to follow that through. Rather than support all the amendments willy-nilly, I express my support for amendment No. 7.

In Cambridgeshire, the annual report on adoption and permanence for the local social services illustrates my point well. Some 26 children were placed for adoption in 2000-01 and adoption allowances were agreed for 16 children, six of which were in-principle agreements that focused on the possible need for treatment or extra provision in the future. The report drew attention to the high proportion of adopted children who require such financial or other support. It states that it

"is a reflection of the physical and psychological difficulties which many children have and/or of the need to keep siblings together. The 6 "in principle" allowances reveal the uncertainty which adopters accept when children's previous history or genetic inheritance suggest significant difficulties may develop in future."

That passage points to the importance of providing a countrywide system of support on which those adoptive families can rely, if we are to sustain—as is one of the Bill's principal intentions—the number of those adopting and prevent the disruption of those adoptions once they have taken place.

My hon. Friends have referred to the difficulties associated with the current inconsistency in the levels of support that are being provided. I understand that the legislation is intended to deliver greater consistency, but there is a question as to the level at which consistency will be delivered. In Cambridgeshire at the moment, a more stringent means test is being applied to adoption allowances. Cambridgeshire now falls mid-band among local authorities in the level of the means test but, as the report also shows, difficulties have emerged when families who adopted in the past, under a more generous scheme, have sought an allowance for a further adoption. If we are going to introduce a degree of consistency we must expect it to be consistency at a level of provision that is relatively high when compared with the present level; otherwise, there will be substantial disincentive effects.

I am keen that, in the course of amending clause 4, we should push not only for consistency but for a fairly high level of provision, and a degree of certainty on the part of adoptive parents that that provision will be made available to them if they are assessed as having need of adoption support services.

When I approached the legislation afresh I was seriously concerned that the Government, having understood what was required, had failed to legislate precisely for that to happen. It was the Government, in their White Paper "Adoption: A New Approach", who presaged this legislation. In paragraph 6.27, they said that they would introduce new legislation

"to place a clear duty on local social services authorities to provide post-adoption support, including financial support, planned jointly with local education authorities and the NHS, and any other relevant agencies. This support will be available from the time a placement is made, for as long as it is needed."

That was not a commitment on the part of Government to introduce legislation providing that local authorities had a duty to decide whether to provide post-adoption support. It was a clear commitment to introduce legislation placing on social services authorities

"a clear duty . . . to provide post-adoption support".

In the absence of amendment No. 7, the Government will have moved away from the commitment in the White Paper to something watered down. The loophole that will have been created is one through which it would be possible to drive a coach and horses in subsequent years, if local authorities were not properly resourced and the Government did not give them the necessary support. I therefore urge the Government to adopt amendment No. 7.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I agree with parts of the arguments made by Opposition Members. In particular, I agree that at present the provision of adoption support services across the country is patchy and inconsistent, in that in many areas very little support is available for adopters once a child has been placed for adoption. However, we part company over the suggestion that the Bill does not significantly address that issue, because its new provisions on adoption support will tackle that inconsistency.

The Bill places for the first time a clear duty on local authorities to make and participate in arrangements to provide adoption support services, which will include financial support, delivering on the commitment that we made in the White Paper quoted by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). That new duty is set out in clause 3 and it will ensure that local authorities make available adoption support, including that financial support.

Clause 4 gives people affected by adoption a new right to request and receive an assessment of their needs for adoption support services from their local authority. That is a new right introduced by the Bill that delivers a key commitment made in the White Paper. The Bill goes even further than the White Paper, in which we made a commitment to give families adopting children a new right to such an assessment. The Bill extends the right to an assessment to all the people listed in clause 3(1), namely children who may be adopted, their parents and guardians, prospective adopters and adopted people, their adoptive parents, birth parents and former guardians.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Does the Minister accept that she is talking about assessments, not about the services themselves? As every major stakeholder who has written to us pointed out, clause 4 covers assessments, not services.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I shall deal with the importance of assessments in a moment.

I was talking about the important duty in clause 3 to provide the service, the important right in clause 4 to receive an assessment, and the extension of that right to people prescribed in regulations made under clause 4(1)(b)—namely, those listed in regulations made under clause 3(3)(a). The Government intend that they will include birth and adoptive siblings of adopted people and children who may be adopted.

The assessment will ensure that adoptive families and others no longer have to fight against the system to get the help and support that they need. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) referred to such fights, and many of us will have heard tell of them at constituency surgeries. They are the legacy of a system that has not properly prioritised the need for local authorities to provide adoption support.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The Minister said that clause 3 provides the services required, and she is now helpfully moving on to cover assessment. I ask her to look at clause 4(4), which reads:

"Where, as a result of an assessment, a local authority decide that a person has needs for adoption support services, they must then decide whether to provide any such services to that person."

I am afraid that that drives a coach and horses through the hon. Lady's argument.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that I am coming on to that point. The Bill will ensure that public services are properly joined up in the provision of support services on adoption.

Several hon. Members asked about the nature of the assessment and expressed concerns that it might contribute to delay. I assure them that assessment under clause 4 can cover a full range of assessments from a quick decision with a very rapid response to a full multi-disciplinary assessment where that is required to put together a support package. People who gave evidence in the Special Standing Committee told us that there may be occasions on which it will be important to have such a proper assessment in relation to a child with multiple needs. That was seen not as a barrier to the provision of adoption support services, but as an important gateway to the provision of those services and to ensuring that they were provided in a joined-up way. Of course, adoptive families will not need to wait until an adoption order has been made to request and receive an assessment of their needs for adoption support services. They will be able to request an assessment at any time—for example, when they have been matched with a child or when the child has been placed with them.

Amendments Nos. 3 and 7—Conservative Members have not tried to hide this—seek to restrict the discretion of local authorities to make decisions about the way in which they provide adoption support services. Local authorities must, of course, act reasonably in deciding whether to provide adoption support services following an assessment, but clause 4(4) makes it clear that it is for the local authority to make a decision on whether to provide adoption support services in each individual case.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

It occurs to me that there are interesting parallels with education. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have frequently been approached by parents who are unhappy with the provision for their children. The county council's attitude seems to be, "This will do," rather than, "This is what is best for the child." The Minister appears to be describing a similar set-up.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was actually talking about the need to ensure that local authorities had discretion in this context, as they do—my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) made the point—in the context of many other public services.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) mentioned assessments of older people's needs, but did not go as far as suggesting that the proposals to limit authorities' discretion should also apply to them. I do not know whether that reflects his relative priorities when it comes to needy older people and needy adopted children. The hon. Member for Canterbury was very honest in expressing the view that adopted children's needs should have priority over those of others needing social services assessments, including children in care. He was honest; I am not so sure about the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I shall not repeat my reasons for considering these children to be a special case, in both personal and financial terms. I merely say that if we compare this provision with provision for special needs in schools where local authorities have statutory duties, we see that there are fewer children adopted from care in a single year in most local authority areas than there are special needs children in many individual schools.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

There is no argument about the importance of adoption support services. That is why, for the first time, we have a Bill that imposes a duty on local authorities to provide such services.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

As the Minister accused me of dishonesty, let me point out that I thought she was dealing with the Adoption Act 1976, which deals with children. To say that I rank children below or above elderly people is to reach an unjustified conclusion which in fact does little justice to the Minister. May I declare an interest? My own mother is going through an assessment, and I am offended by what the Minister has said.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I am sorry if I offended the hon. Gentleman. I was simply examining the logic of the argument that discretion for making decisions about the provision of adoption support services should be removed, while discretion relating to other services should not. Members must face up to the logic of their arguments in the context of amendments Nos. 3 and 7.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The Minister still has not dealt with the basic point. If councils are to have discretion not to provide services, how is it rational to require them to provide an assessment? Why should they have to waste money on an assessment if they are not going to spend money on support afterwards?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As I have said, an assessment is important as a gateway to the provision of services. Given the extra investment and given the duty imposed by the Bill to provide adoption support services, it cannot be said that the vast majority of authorities will not supply massively better services for adopted children and their families than were supplied under the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported until 1997.

My point is that amendments Nos. 3 and 7 remove local authorities' discretion. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear on Second Reading on 29 October last year, ultimately local authorities provide the adoption service, so they must decide who needs what level of support. I would like to provide two more quotes about the importance of the discretion given to local authorities. Quote No. 1 is:

"We will put our faith in local councillors, the people who are closest to those who will rely on us to deliver better public services."

Quote No. 2 is:

"community government must mean giving greater freedom to local authority.

We can deliver that freedom if we are prepared to trust that our councillors will use that freedom responsibly to deliver better services."

Those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who appears to disagree with hon. Members this evening. Discretion for local authorities is important. The effect of the amendments would be to remove that discretion from local authorities.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

That argument is even more disingenuous than the argument that the Minister used in Special Standing Committee to try to weasel out of the commitments. She is not taking away the requirement on local authorities to provide an assessment, but she is allowing local authorities to place a lower priority on providing support services. That is nonsense. It is a waste of money, and it has absolutely nothing to do with giving greater autonomy to local authorities. If the requirement on providing the service is there, there is a greater chance that the Government will, rightly, provide the resources for the services that we all agree are essential, so let us not have any ridiculous arguments about the autonomy of local government being infringed by what we are proposing.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I appear to have hit the mark. Opposition Members seem to be suggesting that the legislation reduces the likelihood that local authorities will offer adoption support services but it is placing a duty on local authorities to provide those adoption support services in a way that never existed before. It is providing a right for people to be assessed for those services, which will lead to local authorities being able to provide the appropriate packages, but they must have the discretion that exists in relation to every other assessment to determine how those services are provided.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Does not this part of the debate exemplify the way in which the Opposition missed the point over the issue of assessment? Surely, when we are delivering a much improved adoption support service, the process of assessment will follow much more naturally and organically out of the improved relationship and ongoing commitment of local authorities to children who have been adopted.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

As always, from his experience, my hon. Friend makes a very important point.

Opposition Members have raised the issue of resources. We can expect a substantial amount of the extra £66 million for adoption that was announced in the White Paper to be used by local authorities to improve their adoption support services. It will ensure that many more people receive the support that they need. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is chuntering about support to social services departments. This is £66 million on top of the 20.4 per cent. real-terms increase that has gone to social services authorities, an annual real-terms increase of over 3 per cent. per year. I ask hon. Members, in considering the provision of adoption support services and social services funding. to compare that amount with the 0.1 per cent. real-terms increase in the last five years of the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported,

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

On that point, simply repeating and re-repeating the sum of £66 million under the quality protects programme does not make that figure any more than £66 million over a three-year horizon. If the Minister is serious about it, will she give an undertaking now that when the three years have run out, a serious sum of money—at least as much as that, and at least as much as is required to provide serious support services—will be forthcoming? Simply to repeat the sum of £66 million does not make it go any further.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I was talking not only about the £66 million but about the other significant investment that the Government have put into social services—money that the Conservative party notably failed to pledge to match at the last general election. I will give the hon. Gentleman a commitment: of course we will consider the provisions on adoption support as part of the current spending review process. When the results of that process come through, I shall challenge the hon. Gentleman on whether his party, if in government, would match the investment that we are making in social services.

I shall now deal with the other amendments. Amendment No. 4, which was debated in Committee, would require local authorities to provide a written explanation of their reasons for not providing adoption support. As I said in Committee, that is not a matter for primary legislation. It may be good practice for local authorities to provide a written explanation of their reasons, but it is more appropriate for that to be covered in guidance to local authorities. In some cases, it may be more appropriate to provide a verbal explanation.

Amendment No. 5, which we have also debated in Committee, would enable regulations to provide for a review of a local authority's decision not to provide adoption support services. Where a local authority decides not to provide adoption services following an assessment of needs, a complaint can be made to the local authority in the usual way. Adoption is a mainstream social services function. It is therefore appropriate for complaints to be dealt with, following the changes in the Bill, through an improved local authority social services complaints procedure.

Amendment No. 6 would require the local authority, in addition to carrying out an assessment of needs for adoption support services of the person who has requested the assessment, to carry out an assessment of the needs of connected persons. It does not make clear who those connected persons might be. The examples mentioned by the hon. Member for Canterbury were largely of adoptive parents who already have a right to an assessment under clause 4(1). I do not dispute the importance of the issue, but those people are already covered, so the amendment is unnecessary.

I shall briefly move on to the Government amendments. Amendment No. 48 relates to clause 9, which provides a general power to make regulations concerning the activities of adoption agencies and adoption support agencies. Regulations may be made for any purpose relating to the exercise of the functions of local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies in relation to adoption and the exercise of functions of adoption support agencies in relation to the provision of adoption support services.

Subsection (2) provides that this general regulation- making power is not limited by any of the specific powers included in the Bill. Amendment No. 48 is therefore a technical amendment stemming from changes made to the Bill during the Special Standing Committee. It inserts in subsection (2) of clause 9 a reference to clause 52, which was added to the Bill by Government amendment in Committee.

Hon. Members present in Committee will remember that clause 52 makes it clear that the general regulation-making power in clause 9 may be used to set out the key stages at which adoption agencies are to provide information to prospective adopters, and the information that they are to be obliged to provide. The amendment makes it clear that the exercise of the regulation-making power in clause 9 through clause 52 does not limit the generality of that power.

Finally, Government amendment No. 37, which the hon. Member for Canterbury asked about, relates to payment of grants to local authorities in respect of their adoption services. Clause 124 amends section 93 of the Local Government Act 2000, which enables the Secretary of State to pay grants to local authorities in respect of welfare services.

Clause 124 clarifies that grants may be paid under section 93 in connection with welfare services, as well as for their direct provision. That means, for example, that the Secretary of State may pay grants to local authorities to help re-engineer or develop their current adoption services, as well as to help them provide new services.

These provisions are important because they will be used to meet commitments made in chapter 7 of the White Paper to support local authorities in generating best practice models for managing and improving their adoption services. We intend to pay grants to support local authorities in piloting new ways of working, such as the commissioning of children's services and arrangements for consortiums.

Amendment No. 37 clarifies the Treasury's powers to give consent to, or withhold consent from, spending Departments for the making of grants to local authorities in England under section 93 of the 2000 Act. It explicitly recognises that the Treasury must approve the proposed terms and conditions of any grant made under that section, and it is able to take those factors into account when deciding whether to consent to the making of a grant. The Treasury rightly takes an interest in everything that happens across government, and it is, of course, appropriate to represent that in the amendment.

I ask hon. Members to support the Government amendments and reiterate the significant improvements that the Bill makes to the provision of adoption support services. I oppose the Opposition's amendments. They fail to recognise those improvements and would limit the discretion of local authorities to make them.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The purpose of the amendments is to assist a small but deserving number of people. We are not convinced by the Government's arguments, but in the spirit of our support for the Bill, and in light of the fact that there is little time to discuss other important measures, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 — General Power to Regulate Adoption etc. Agencies

Clause 10 — Management etc. of Agencies

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 9, line 7, leave out—

'fee of a prescribed amount'

and insert "prescribed fee".

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 79, 82 and 44 to 47.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Before I begin, I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on what happened to Government amendment No. 37.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

That comes a little later in the amendment paper. I will not overlook it.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I have every faith in you. The Bill is close to my heart and I want to ensure that we get through it all.

The amendments provide greater consistency in the approach to prescribed fees and ensure that the powers in relation to fees are flexible and clear. Amendment No. 47 is relevant for the purposes of all the other amendments in the group. It inserts a new subsection in clause 131, which provides a general interpretation of the terminology used throughout the Bill, and clarifies the meaning of a power to prescribe a fee.

Where the Bill confers a power to make regulations to prescribe that a fee must or may be charged or paid, or where it confers a power to prescribe such a fee by way of an Order in Council—for example, in relation to the adoption and children register—that fee can be any of the fees set out in the amendment. It could be a fixed amount. Alternatively, it could be a fee not exceeding a fixed amount, as made clear in proposed paragraph (a), or a fee that is calculated in accordance with a formula set out in regulations or in an Order in Council, as made clear in proposed paragraph (b). Proposed paragraph (c) provides that the fee may also be a reasonable fee, determined by the person to whom it is payable.

The remaining amendments ensure that in every case in which the Bill confers a power to prescribe a fee, the term "prescribed fee" is used consistently. That ensures that any of the fees that I have just described can be prescribed in regulations or in an Order in Council. If the provisions already refer to a prescribed fee—for example, in clause 11—an amendment is, of course, unnecessary.

Although I am willing to go into the details of each amendment if hon. Members so wish, I think that that sets out our approach to them all.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

These amendments will probably be known as the prescribed fee group, because, as the Minister has explained, that is essentially what they deal with. However, I should like to question her on a few issues that arise from them. She said that these amendments had been introduced in the guise of greater consistency, flexibility and clarity. I am somewhat at a loss to understand, for example, why Government amendment No. 43, which simply changes the terminology from

"fee of a prescribed amount"

to "prescribed fee", has taken two months to produce after the end of the debates in Committee.

On a more substantive point, under Government amendment No. 79, the word "prescribed" will be inserted before the word "fee" in clause 118(3), which states that the order

"may require an agency giving information which is entered on the register to pay a fee."

Will the Minister clarify—she said that she would like to do so—the guidance, which her Department issued to adoption agencies last August, that gave them the strong impression that her Department had promised to fund the adoption register? Why does the question of fees arise—whether they are prescribed fees, charges or whatever she wants to call them?

On 21 August, it was reported that the Department of Health would pay for the use of the adoption register information. A Department of Health briefing, issued on 26 August last year, stated that it

"will be fully funded by the government and will be free to use by councils and voluntary adoption agencies."

So will the Minister explain exactly where those fees will be directed and for what purpose, as certain adoption agencies have been given the impression that the register would be funded by the Department? That is something of a mystery, so perhaps she could explain that in the interests of clarity and consistency.

I have no argument with Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45, which will bring into effect the charging of prescribed fees for using the contact register, as does Government amendment No. 46.

Government amendment No. 47, which the Minister dealt with first, relates to clause 131. Will she provide further clarification of some of the definitions used in that clause? In particular, will she explain proposed paragraph (c), which states:

"a fee determined by the person to whom it is payable, being a fee of a reasonable amount."?

How would she define the term "reasonable amount"? Who will determine the amount? How often will it be redetermined to ensure that it is still a reasonable fee? Will the fee differ for the various agencies in different parts of the country? Will it differ by local authority, given that the Minister is apparently a late convert to giving local authorities greater autonomy?

Government amendment No. 47 is rather widely drafted, and hon. Members would benefit if the Minister would provide greater definition, but I am particularly keen for her to explain, for the benefit of the agencies involved, why a fee will apparently be charged, given that it was strongly suggested that no fee would be required of voluntary agencies.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I should like to make it clear that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is right to say that the Government are funding the operation of the adoption and children register. The Government do not intend to charge adoption agencies for the use of the register. However, consequential effects and possible future decisions need to be represented in the legislation. Of course, the existing inter-agency fee system, whereby an adoption agency pays a fee to another adoption agency to cover the costs of recruiting and assessing an adoptive family on its behalf, will continue to operate as it does at the moment, but the Government have promised to keep the inter-agency fee under review. The provisions in clause 118(3) and 119(4) help to provide the flexibility to make changes in the arrangements should that be considered necessary. I reiterate that the Government are indeed funding the register, which is currently operating very successfully, bringing together adopted children and potential adopters.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We need to get this absolutely clear. I think that the Minister is now suggesting that there will not be charges but that the Government are establishing the potential for their introduction. Will she cast her mind forward, as we need clarity for the long term? In what circumstances might her Department institute charging for operating the register, so that it will not be wholly Government funded?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I certainly did not say that we were considering imposing charges. I said that a review of the inter-agency fee arrangements, whereby authorities pay each other for the recruitment of adopters, could involve a routing of the fee via the adoption register. What is important is that, in drafting legislation that will exist for some time, we provide opportunities for the consideration of such issues.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the definition in proposed paragraph (c) of amendment No. 47—that the fee may also be reasonable if it is determined by the person to whom it is payable. We discussed the charging of reasonable fees at some length in Committee, such as in the context of inter-country adoption, where it would perhaps most appropriately fit. The Government intend to make regulations under clause 11(2) to enable local authorities to continue to charge prospective inter-country adopters a fee to cover reasonably incurred expenses.

In this context, a reasonable fee would of course bear in mind the fact that each adoption agency has slightly different costs and should be able to reflect those costs in the fee charged. Agencies should not, as was made clear in Committee, be able to recover more money than they expend; they should be able to recover only their costs. What would be a reasonable fee for inter-country work might vary from adoption agency to adoption agency, and it would therefore clearly be inappropriate for a fixed amount to be prescribed. The proposed subsection enables the flexibility on reasonable fees that we discussed at some length in Committee.

I hope that, with those reassurances, hon. Members will feel able to support the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12 — Independent review of determinations

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 9, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

'(1) Regulations under section 9 may establish a procedure under which any person in respect of whom a determination has been made by an adoption agency may apply to an organisation or panel, independent of any local authority or voluntary adoption agency but approved by the appropriate Minister for a review of that determination.'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 23, in clause 14, page 10, line 40, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

'(1) If as a result of an independent review any local authority is found to have failed, without reasonable cause, to comply with any of the duties imposed on them by virtue of this Act, the appropriate Minister may make an order declaring that authority to be in default in respect of that duty.'.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

As the clause stands, most of the important detail is left to regulations. For those of us who have been pressing for many years for an independent appeals process for adoption-related matters, the clause is welcome. None the less, it is disappointing that the Minister said in Committee on 18 December at column 676 that regulations are likely to focus on only two matters—at least initially. They are, first, prospective adopters' suitability for the new national list, and secondly, the provision of information by adoption agencies.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The Minister may wish to clarify this, but I think that, following the Government's changes on access to information, the regulations will now focus on only one area.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

My understanding is that the review process will still focus on the two matters. Crucially, that does not seem to apply to other parts of the adoption process. In particular, it is not likely to apply to decisions on individual matchings. That is a come-down from the Secretary of State's apparent pledge on Second Reading, when he said:

"It is right that we build in independent review throughout the system"—

his words—

"whether of the provision of information to adopted children about their birth families, or of decisions to place a child with a particular family"—

the Secretary of State's very words—

"They are difficult issues."—[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 659.]

Explaining the need to limit the review process, the Minister in Committee stressed issues of resourcing. She claimed that the review process inevitably draws on the same over-tapped pool of professionals and social workers, who are in short supply and must come off their current tasks to review past ones. That is a weak argument. There is a strong case for lay involvement in the review process. None the less, there is a large range of other circumstances in which things can go badly wrong in the adoption process, and there is no redress for prospective adopters, other interested parties or the child.

Given the short time available, I shall not restate points made in Committee about how expensive judicial review is or the fact that the ombudsman is powerless and that there is little point in appealing to the local authority.

Our amendment No. 22 seeks, first, to extend the scope of reviews from qualifying determinations to all determinations. That does not automatically make all determinations subject to review. It merely allows the Secretary of State to set out such wider categories as he sees fit. Secondly, the amendment seeks to set up an independent framework for the hearing of such appeals. Amendment No. 23 is largely consequential. Under amendment No. 22, the Minister will be able to allow an independent appeal process across the entire range of activities, so it seems reasonable to limit the Minister's powers to the outcome of such appeals.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

By moving the amendments, is not the hon. Gentleman in danger of putting the interests of adults before those of children? Does he not run the risk that placement decisions and the efficient and proper implementation of placements will be subject to the activities of vexatious litigants?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

In Committee the hon. Gentleman discussed the matter at length. To summarise my argument, there are all sorts of ways of putting filters into the process. Perhaps the best answer to his intervention is to go straight on to some examples.

The current appeals procedure would not cover approved adopters who are denied a match with the child whom they wish to adopt, even if there is no other applicant for the child and has not been one for a long period. Surely there could be no clearer example of the vital interests of the child. As another example, if a care plan is not being heeded or a bad decision has been made, how will the child or the child's representative—perhaps a foster carer or an independent visitor—get justice?

Further examples include a child being moved on unwillingly to yet another set of foster carers, foster carers being refused permission to adopt a child whom they have fostered for years—the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) will know that the Government- commissioned research produced in Cardiff two years ago showed that some local authorities never allowed foster parents to adopt—and approved couples who are again and again refused matchings. I could go on. I shall give two other examples, before returning to a more detailed case. What will happen when information has been retained on a child's background? All those who served on the Committee heard strong testimony about the importance of getting that information released. There is currently no recourse if the local authority refuses to give the parents information about the child's history, which is so vital if the child has been abused. Above all, what recourse will there be for whistleblowers in the social services system? Such people are brave professionals who often write off their entire careers by putting principle before their own interest for the sake of children.

It might be helpful if I describe in detail an actual example at the end of that list of hypotheticals. Mr. and Mrs. J, who live in central London, would have liked to appeal on several grounds. No avenue of appeal was available to them, and the Bill, as currently worded, would not provide one. They said to the Adoption Forum:

"We live in a very mixed area, racially speaking. Our circle of friends and acquaintances is also mixed. We adopted a 7-year-old white English boy from our local authority in 1996 and, with the usual ups and downs, it is a stable and happy relationship for my husband, me and our boy. In 1999 we applied to adopt his mixed-race . . . half-sister, then 13. We had grown very fond of her after regular contact ordered by our local authority and she had been moved several times in foster care and expressed a desire with live with us. Our local authority refused the placement on the grounds that she was of mixed race and we were not. We did our utmost to try to persuade them but nothing was achieved. We still abide by the contact order. The girl is still in foster care (she has been in several placements) which we all value. But we believe the girl, our relationship with the girl and, inevitably, with our son, too, have been ill-served by the decision not to allow the placement".

Surely such a case is worth a review? However, as the clause is worded, without amendment No. 22, it would not get one—unless the Minister's thinking changes.

The clause also establishes an appeal structure. There is a concern that, under the clause as currently worded, the appeal might not be truly independent. For example, it might be considered by people from the local authority involved, and the adoption agency might be made to pay for it. In the case of voluntary agencies, that could be disastrous and would be a burden on local authorities, too.

The Government have a mass of tribunals stretching across many different Departments, covering everything from employment to parking fines. Surely our most vulnerable children—those in the care system whom we in Parliament have failed in all too many cases—are worth an independent appeal heard by a properly constituted independent panel.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I rise to support amendments Nos. 22 and 23, which relate to the new procedures to be put in place for what the Bill refers to as an "independent review of determinations". As it turns out, that title is rather ambitious. Two issues seem to be involved in reviewing what counts as a qualifying determination, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) suggested.

My hon. Friend also mentioned that on Second Reading the Secretary of State said:

"It is right that we build in independent review throughout the system".—[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 659.]

I draw attention to the word "throughout". That does not describe what has happened, as things have turned out.

We know little about the purpose of the proposed review panels. We do not know who will sit on them, how and when they will be convened, what their procedures will be, or the time limits for convening them. Indeed, in Committee, the Government did not even know when the system would be introduced.

We need to consider why review panels are important. Gradually over the past 30 years, people have lost confidence in the adoption system. Many potential adopters feel that they have received unfair treatment at the hands of agencies and social workers, that their wishes have been sidelined, that delays in the system are unacceptable, or that a decision made in the adoption process was wrong. Currently, complaints go through councils, where one can go through three stages of complaint procedure. Of course, one is taking one's complaint to the very same council that one has the complaint against, which is hardly an independent process. Alternatively, in some cases, one may be able to go to judicial review, but that is a very expensive process, open only to a very few.

The main thrust behind the Bill is to emphasise the importance of the child who, under clause 1, is to receive paramount status. That being the case, it becomes more important that other parties to the adoption process should receive an independent right to redress. I would certainly accept that a properly convened, easy-access, low-cost and informal panel system would work well. That would allow for any person, including natural parents and adoptive parents, to apply in relation to any adoption agency determination. That is proposed by the amendment, and I fully support it.

It is important to appreciate that, as things stand, even if the panels are formed, they will be available only to one party—the prospective adoptive parents—and then only in relation to their being refused permission to adopt, and then only to those who make it to the formal stage of the adoption process. However, only 10 per cent. of those who apply get to the formal stage of the adoption process in the first place, which means that the measure would apply to 4 per cent. of prospective adoptive parents.

This is being called an independent review system but I would hardly call it a full and comprehensive system. It is turning out to be little more than a sham. It does nothing to demand a review of a child who is moved between foster carers, or to allow for a review of the suitability of a child for adoption with particular prospective parents. It gives no recourse to a review of delays in the process, or to the giving of parental consent to adoption, or to assessing whether the child's views have been taken into account in the process. There is no provision for a review of the parents' assessment for support—if they are to get any at all—or issues relating to the content of or access to the three adoption registers; or, indeed, inter-country adoptions.

For all those reasons, I support the amendments.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Hon. Members have expressed concerns about various different stages of the adoption process, and their conclusion has been that the independent review process should be extended to all those stages. I hope to demonstrate not that I do not believe that those are justifiable concerns, but that, given the other structures that are in place, I do not believe that an extension of the independent review process would be the most appropriate way of dealing with those concerns.

As the White Paper made clear, the intended purpose of the independent review mechanism is to build confidence in the adopter assessment process, to address concerns that there was bias or that a decision was not soundly based and—to reassure the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—to provide a means for an independent review of some of the decisions made on the access to information provisions introduced by the Government. I reassure him that that remains a purpose of the independent review. It was never intended, as appears to be the intention behind the amendments, as a means of micro-managing the day-to-day business of adoption agencies.

The hon. Gentleman referred to foster carers who, for four years, have been blocked from adopting. Under clause 41(4), they can apply, regardless of the local authority's views, if they have had care of the child for one year. Adoption standard B5 emphasises that assessment for foster carers should be speedier; four months, rather than eight.

The hon. Gentleman again raised his concern about the use of the independent review mechanism with regard to adoption agency determinations about matches between children and approved adopters. I undertook to consider whether, as we consulted on the use of the independent review mechanism, that might be an appropriate determination to be considered. The consultation is due to take place in the autumn. We have also undertaken initially to implement the independent review mechanism in 2003 and, as I said, to consult on the extension that he referred to in Committee.

I hope that I can reassure hon. Members by outlining some of the regulatory and quality assurance mechanisms. Some are enshrined in the Bill and many involve independent scrutiny, which I hope will overcome some of the concerns that have been mentioned.

As a starting point, the Bill places every agency under a statutory obligation to make the child's welfare the paramount consideration in any decision relating to the adoption of a child. All adoption agencies will be regulated by the independent National Care Standards Commission. Voluntary agencies will have to be registered to perform their functions legally. The NCSC will set national minimum standards for all agencies covering the facilities, staff, qualifications, skills and procedures that should be in place for the organisation properly to perform the functions of an adoption agency. All voluntary adoption agencies and local authorities will be subject to regular independent inspection by the commission against those standards.

Aside from the overall regulatory structure, as we touched on earlier, local authorities have to set up complaints procedures under the Children Act 1989 in respect of children and the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 in respect of adults. Both procedures require an independent person to be appointed to supervise the conduct of the complaints process, which we are reforming and improving.

In relation to the hon. Gentleman's concerns about young people—

It being Two hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Orders [29 October, 23 January and this day] put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Speaker then put the remaining Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 14 — Default power of an appropriate Minister

New Clause 8 — Use of an organisation as agency for payments

New Clause 9 — Territorial application

Clause 116 — Adoption and Children Act Register

Clause 117 — Use of an organisation to establish etc. the register

Clause 118 — Supply of information for the register

Clause 119 — Disclosure of information

Clause 120 — Supplementary

Clause 124 — Payment of grants in connection with welfare services