Orders of the Day — Adoption and Children Bill — [2nd Allotted Day]

House of Commons, 16 May 2002.

Clause 1 — Considerations applying to the exercise of powers

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I beg to move amendment No. 162, in page 1, line 9, after "life", insert—

', and that of any sibling or half-sibling of the child, having regard to their age and relationship.'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 159, in page 2, line 16, after "the child" insert—

'(4A) The court or adoption agency may not have regard to any estrangement of the child from his parents caused wholly or substantially by the application of provisions of this Act or of the Children Act 1989.'.

No. 1, in page 2, line 19, after "background", insert—

', subject to the proviso that such consideration shall be secondary to the matters to be considered in subsections (2) and (3).'.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

When I became a Member of Parliament, I did not expect to have to deal with a large number of inquiries in my constituency surgery relating to child care and adoption issues; but, in my first few months here, they were some of the most significant issues that came before me. I am glad therefore to have this opportunity to move an amendment based on my experience before and after my election.

It is said that hard cases make bad law, but it is certainly true to say that bad law makes hard cases. I hope that amendments Nos. 162 and 159—the two very simple amendments that I have proposed—will alleviate two possible injustices in the Bill. Indeed, if such provisions had been effective previously, they may have alleviated injustices that may have taken place.

It is obviously not my intention to refer in detail to any case, but I shall refer to my long association with one of the families involved—it dates back to 1999. It is almost difficult to understand, certainly from my lay position on such matters, that a decision on a child taken into care at the age of nine months in 1997 was not taken until September 2000. In other words, he spent three years and four months in a sort of limbo because of the toings and froings of the judicial and child care process, which concluded with the decision that he should be adopted.

The Bill could address two issues that may or may not have made a difference to the decision in that case, but they would certainly have made the proceedings fairer, and I address those issues in my two amendments. Amendment No. 162 relates to families where one child is being put forward for adoption, but other children may not be. Clause 1 clearly states:

"The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life."

Of course, if children come from a family, there may be more than one child whose welfare should be considered. The fact that one child is being put forward for adoption does not in any way diminish the responsibility of the court to take account of the interests of the other children. The clause, however, refers to the child who is the subject of the proceedings; it does not refer at all to children who may not be the subject of proceedings.

My first amendment therefore proposes that the interests of a sibling or half-sibling should also be of paramount consideration, having regard to their age and relationship to the first child. Clearly, if the sibling is an older brother who is away at university and has little contact with a child of nine or 10 months, the court may wish to place less emphasis on that relationship than on that of, say, a twin, particularly if the twins were six years old. If one is put forward for adoption and the other is not—I realise that this may be unusual—it seems wrong that the second child should not be considered on an equal basis with the first. That is the reasoning behind amendment No. 162.

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

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is important for each child's concern to be considered individually? Their needs in relation to their family relationships with siblings and other family members are dealt with in subsection (4)(c) and (f). That is the appropriate way to consider the needs of siblings.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I agree with the hon. Lady's first proposition but not with her second. The reason for that is to do with the word "paramount". If one child's interests are paramount, those of the other child are, by definition, of less importance—they must be taken account of but they are not equal. I see no reason why two children in the same family who may be of the same age should be treated unequally by the courts in relation to such proceedings. Clearly, an effect on one may be equal on another; indeed, it may be equal and opposite on another. I accept the intention of subsection (4), but it does not deal with the issue of the word "paramount".

Amendment No. 159—my second amendment—considers the length of time that proceedings can go on and the effect of that estrangement on the natural parents of a child. I should like to refer to the judgment in the case that I have in mind. Among other things, it states:

"There has been delay in this case"—

three years and one month's delay. It continues:

"The obvious consequence of this is that"—

the child—

"has been able to become more firmly settled in the home of"—

the prospective adopters—

"whilst contact with his parents and"—

his sister—

"has continued at a level which would usually be regarded as inconsistent with a plan for adoption."

That is the judgment. It seems incredibly unfair to parents who are simply pursuing their rights, as the local authority is pursuing the rights of the child, under this and other legislation, that the passage of time should lead to the estrangement of the child to such an extent that the court may consider that nothing may have been wrong in that relationship except the passage of time. In the case that I have in mind, no charge has ever been preferred against either parent, and no arrest has ever been made of either parent. The only reason that I can see, in reading the judgment, is the passage of time.

I accept, of course, that three years and one month in the case of a child who was four at the time of adoption is a very long time. That period allows much time for the formulation of bonds with the foster parents and prospective adopters. However, the parents concerned feel deeply that it is unfair that the court should take into account that estrangement, which is not their fault, when deciding on adoption.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

Unfortunately, I feel that the amendments are unnecessary, although I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). Everything that we need is written down in black and white in clause 1(2):

"The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life."

The court is considering the child who is being adopted and must put his or her interests first.

I was moved by the hon. Gentleman's example of a case involving twins, who might be split at birth, which would have a profound effect on them. Ultimately, however, the court must deal with the case before it and put that child first. When considering a placement for a child, the situation of siblings and half-siblings must be taken into account, but all those considerations cannot be paramount.

Similarly, amendment No. 1, which would downplay considerations of ethnicity and religion, is well meaning, but misguided. It is right and proper that some consideration should be given to the religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background of the child. However, that must not become an absolute credo. Perhaps that is what the amendment is aiming at. In the past, social workers have sought a perfect fit. In today's culturally diverse society, one could search in vain, for example, for someone who is one eighth Pakistani, three quarters Welsh and one eighth Scottish. What is far more important is that the child should find a place in a loving home that can provide the best care and love available for a child in need—nothing more and nothing less.

I am not a regular churchgoer, but I recognise that for some people acknowledgement of their religion is very important. If a person or a couple felt that they had to give a child up for adoption, the assurance that religion would be a prime concern would be powerful. Christians baptise their children at a very young age and would want to ensure that that commitment was honoured. They would believe that doing so was fundamental to the child's spiritual welfare. It is important that we retain the religious element, whatever the religion.

Having said that, the amendment would serve a purpose. When a social worker has to decide about a placement, I suspect that it is always a case of balancing all the complex factors and influences in an attempt ultimately to achieve what is right for the child.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Although I welcome the thinking behind the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), I cannot say that I support them. On amendment No. 162, my hon. Friend is right that the welfare of siblings is extremely important and I have also dealt with a number of harrowing constituency cases. None the less, those on the Opposition Front Bench support the view of almost all people concerned with adoption that the paramount consideration before a court must be the welfare of the child whose case is being considered. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) said, there is scope elsewhere to take account of the views of siblings.

I shall focus on amendment No. 1, which we tabled. Should we not get the assurances that we seek from the Government, I should like a separate vote on that amendment. Almost every critic of the adoption system has focused on the delays. It is extremely rare that an adoption goes through in the 12-month period that is now the Government's target. Sometimes, they can take three or four years. In most cases, they do not happen at all.

The reasons for the delay are many. One factor that is mentioned again and again is what the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, described as seeking the "perfect fit". No one in this House would disagree with clause 1(5) when it states that the court or adoption agency must pay

"due consideration to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background."

The Opposition's concern is that that consideration is being put on a par with subsection (3), which refers to delay, hence our amendment, which would ensure that subsection (5) should be

"subject to the proviso that such consideration shall be secondary to the matters to be considered in subsections (2) and (3),"

that is, the paramountcy and delay provisions.

I shall give the House two examples, the first of which made the national press. A single mixed-race woman of independent means was approved as an adopter. Through the adoption agency concerned she found a child who had been in care since she was a baby. Babies are the easiest children to place and it is disgraceful that there should have been such a delay in placing a baby. The child was two and a half years old at the time. Although the woman was of mixed race, it was a slightly different mixture from the child, but each of them had a middle eastern and a European element. The woman, however, was Christian and the baby came from an Islamic background. Islam has no tradition of adoption. Children who cannot be cared for by their own parents are normally looked after within the extended family. After a lengthy delay, the woman was turned down on both racial and religious grounds. By that time, the child had been in care for three years. No other adopter was in sight.

If a court were faced with that case, is clause 1, as drafted, clear? Is what Parliament intends clear—that delay must override those other considerations if necessary? I do not believe that it is and that is why we want those innocuous extra words added to make it clear which subsection overrides which—that delay is more important than those other factors.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that one or two cases of that nature, which are indeed a cause for concern, get into the national press shows that common sense prevails for the vast majority of children? Children are placed in loving families that best meet their needs. If those families can match their cultural, linguistic and racial characteristics, that is the best case, but that is not achieved for the vast majority. Therefore, a good match is found and children are placed quickly in loving homes. To suggest that the paramountcy provision is not paramount is nonsense.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I agreed with the last point made by the hon. Lady, for whom I have the greatest respect, but I could not disagree more strongly on these matters. Study after study in the past few years—including the Prime Minister's own review—has identified the delay that is endemic in the system as one of its greatest single weaknesses. The plain fact is that the vast majority of children in care—even those who have been in care for several years—are not satisfactorily adopted. The most recent figures that I have seen show that about 1,500 adoptive parents are still waiting for children. Therefore, I do not accept the hon. Lady's argument.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

I am sure that my hon. Friend supports the Government's aim to increase the number of these children who are adopted. Those of us whose friends have tried to adopt know that they have encountered bureaucratic difficulties and delays. Adoption is not an easy process for many people at present. Does he agree that if the Government could streamline that process and deal with the problem of delay, we would be well on the way to increasing the number of children adopted, which would be one practical measure to emerge from our proceedings?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, the Government have stated that it is their purpose to deal with delay.

Let me give one more example. A couple who contacted the Adoption Forum lived in a racially mixed area of central London, which was reflected in their circle of friends. In 1996, they successfully adopted a seven-year-old white English boy into their family. In 1999, they applied to adopt his mixed-race older half-sister who wanted to live with them. The local authority concerned—I will not name it, but it has one of the poorest records on adoption and is at the bottom of the adoption league table—refused the placement on the grounds that she was of mixed race and the couple were white. The ruling has had a detrimental effect on their relationship with the son and, even more so, between the son and his sister. The girl remains in foster care and has suffered because of having to had move many times.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

We discussed that matter in Committee. One of the key things that we picked up from the evidence sessions, which were many and worth while, was that we do not want hard and fast rules when we deal with adoption. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the keys to increasing adoption to meet the Government's target of 40 per cent. is for adoptions to be successful? I do not want delays in the process, but it is crucial that we get assessments right. Nothing could be worse for a child than to be placed with an adoptive family and for that placement to break down. The consequences of that are perhaps even worse than a delay. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that assessment is crucial and that it is vital and paramount to take account of matters in the Bill?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Assessment is important, but cross-racial adoptions do not always fail, a point repeatedly made by a number of Labour Members. The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety made that point when he was Minister of State, Department of Health. In the debate on the Adoption and Children Bill that fell just before the election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) asked that Minister's successor, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), to note that

"a requirement to match the religious background of a child with that of would-be adoptive parents has previously made it difficult to find adoptive parents."

The Minister replied:

"We have always made it very clear that we want the system to operate as efficiently and speedily as possible, and that we shall not allow issues to do with political correctness to get in the way of a child's best welfare interests."

I intervened to say:

"Just now,

the Minister

"was absolutely clear about the need to eliminate unacceptable delay in the process. However, clause 1(4) omits anything about that need. Instead, that subsection includes the words 'due consideration', which, legally, are not absolutely clear cut."

I then asked the Minister:

"Could not those words make it possible for courts to return to the very political correctness against which he has rightly and repeatedly spoken?"

The Minister assured us:

"Ultimately, however, we have made it very clear that we believe that there should not be unnecessary and unacceptable delay in the process. If that is one of the issues that can give rise to delay, the Bill should address it."—[Official Report, 26 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 704–705.]

All we want to do is to ensure that considerations are secondary to the paramountcy principle and the problem of delay.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) highlighted some worrying cases from his own experience, but other hon. Members reinforced the Government's position on the amendments. It is clear—we have widespread support for this—that clause 1 ensures that foremost among the principles that govern decisions on adoption is the welfare of the child throughout their life. That should be the paramount consideration. It is not to say, however, that the interests of siblings and, in particular, the relationship that adopted children have with their relatives should not be considered.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) said, subsection (4)(f) explicitly states that courts and adoption agencies are obliged when considering a child's welfare, to consider the relationship that he or she has with relatives and any other relevant person. The definition of relatives makes it clear that that includes siblings. There is a wide-ranging obligation to consider the views and wishes of siblings and parents, which is the focus of the hon. Gentleman's amendments. As hon. Members made clear, however, it is not possible both to have paramountcy for the adopted child and to give equal consideration to another issue. That is the fundamental problem with amendment No. 162.

Government amendment No. 163 suggests that estrangement is a function of delay and should be taken into consideration. The Bill sets out important safeguards to ensure that delay does not happen. In relation to bearing down on delay, it is clear in clause 1 that courts must have regard to delay and welfare. Clause 105 introduces for the first time timetables in court to avoid delay.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that when children have been placed for a long time, the decision is, in effect, a fait accompli when they get to court. The point of the placement provisions is to bring forward either the time when parents consent to their children being placed for adoption or the time when that is determined by a placement order so that it happens much earlier in the process. In that way, we expect to avoid the problems that the hon. Gentleman identified.

On amendment No. 1, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned delay. We rightly debated that at length in Committee. I share his concern and desire to eradicate delay from the process wherever possible. However, clause 1 sets out the general principles that apply across the adoption provisions. Subsection (3) places a duty on courts and adoption agencies to bear it in mind at all times that any delay in reaching a decision is in general likely to prejudice the welfare of the child. Subsection (5) places an obligation on the adoption agency, when placing a child for adoption, to give due consideration to the child's religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background. It is the interaction of those two subsections that is the focus of amendment No. 1.

The starting point in considering the issue has to be that the subsections need to be read together. That is their legal effect. Subsection (5) cannot override the obligation in subsection (3) to have regard to possible harmful effects of delay. That overarching provision applies across all decisions relating to the adoption of a child, including the placement decision. However, during the debate in Committee and in interventions today, my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) and for Sheffield, Heeley made the important point that we must give due weight during the adoption process to the factors set out in subsection (5) that could have a significant impact on lifelong issues of identity—for example, the child's racial and cultural background.

The clause ensures that that will happen and that there is appropriate consideration. However, the Government share the concerns that have been expressed about eradicating unnecessary delay from the system. We are determined to bear down on that delay. That is why our new national adoption standards make it completely clear that while a child's ethnic origin, cultural background, religion and language should be recognised, we need also to target our recruitment efforts to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of people wishing to adopt to enable children to be placed with families that reflect these factors.

The standards are equally clear on the harmful effects of delay. They provide explicitly—almost in the words that the hon. Member for Canterbury used—that children will not be kept waiting indefinitely for a perfect family. They set challenging time scales for matching children. They state that a plan for permanence must be made once a child has been in care for four months. That plan must have clear, monitored time scales. We have issued binding statutory guidance to local authorities to enforce that.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am well aware of the circulars. The Minister will know how many local authorities ignore these binding instructions. Many children did not have care plans for many years after such plans became a statutory requirement, for example. Why will the Minister not put such provisions into the Bill so that the court rather than the social services department will recognise its duty?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

There is delay before we get to the court. The importance of adoption standards, and the statutory basis for them, is that we ensure that adoption agencies bear down on delay. The standards are not optional extras, which seems to have been suggested. They are statutory guidance, and they will be expected to be in place from April 2003. We have already begun to focus on eradicating delay from the system so that we might make some progress. The average time for which a child is looked after before being adopted has fallen from three years and four months in 1996–97 to two years and nine months in 2000–01.

That is still too long, and that is why we are taking action—we began to do so after we debated these matters in Committee—to set a challenging new time scale to our adoption PSA target. Our aim will be to ensure that nationally by 2004 95 per cent. of children should be placed for adoption within 12 months of the decision being taken that adoption is in their best interests. That is a further signal of our determination to tackle harmful delay.

Through legislation and through the wider action that the Government are taking, there has been progress in reducing delay. We shall monitor progress and we shall ensure that continued progress is made to tackle harmful delay. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 159 on the basis of the Minister's response. The hon. Lady's response to amendment No. 162, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, illustrates a simple difference of opinion. She and my hon. Friend believe that the interests of one child should be paramount over those of another child. I believe that the interests of two children should be equal and should be considered as such. However, I realise that perhaps this is not the time to press the issue. I hope that it will be considered in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

We will move on to discuss Government amendment No. 26, with which it will be convenient to take Government new clause 6.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What will happen to amendment No. 1?

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

We have not missed the opportunity to vote on amendment No. 1. We take amendments in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to vote on his amendment in due course.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you tell us when we are likely to take a vote? We are not clear.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Amendments and new clauses are debated in certain groupings, but they are voted on in a different order. Amendment No. 1, on which the hon. Gentleman wishes to vote, will be dealt with after we have debated Government amendment No. 26 and Government new clause 6. He will then have an opportunity to vote.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 2, line 5, after "harm", insert—

'(within the meaning of the Children Act 1989)'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 6—Meaning of "harm" in the 1989 Act.

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

I am pleased to move the amendment and to discuss the new clause, which I believe will assist in tackling the scourge of domestic violence and the terrible effect that it can have on children. One woman in four experiences domestic violence at some point in her lifetime. A survey undertaken in 2001 showed that one in five applications for contact with children involved allegations of serious domestic violence. We know also that 70 per cent. of children in care are likely to have experienced violence at home at some point.

I thank in particular the Women's Aid Federation of England, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo's and the NCH for the candid and constructive way in which they have entered into discussions with me and officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department on this important subject.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Ms Shipley), who have all campaigned for greater protection for the victims of domestic violence.

As a result of the campaigning and our own research, the Government are acutely aware of the concerns that have been raised. We believe, as many organisations have made clear, that it is right that the interests of the child are protected and are paramount in the court process. That is why we want to clarify the provisions in clause 1, which set out the key principles that are to apply throughout the adoption provisions.

Clause 1(4) sets out a checklist of factors to which courts and adoption agencies must have regard in considering the welfare of the child. Government amendment No. 26 makes it clear that the meaning of "harm" in subsection (4)(e) of the checklist is to be the same as that used in the Children Act 1989. In other words, harm includes ill-treatment or impairment of development. We think that it is the interpretation that the courts would use anyway, but one of the aims of the Bill is to bring adoption law into line with the Children Act. It is appropriate that we spell it out for the avoidance of doubt.

During the proceedings of the Special Standing Committee, a number of children's charities and organisations, which I have already mentioned, expressed concern that not enough account was being taken of the impact on children of domestic violence. On 17 January, in Committee, I made it clear that the Government were seriously considering how these concerns could be met. First, the Government considered the approach in Northern Ireland, which seeks to ensure that domestic violence is considered in all applications for contact or residence. However, we want to go further and ensure that the impact on children of witnessing abuse is considered in all proceedings under the Children Act when the welfare checklist is used, in both public and private law. As I said, Government amendment No. 26 would extend that to adoption proceedings.

At present, a court, when deciding whether to grant contact between a parent and child, has to take into account the welfare checklist in the Children Act, which includes considering whether a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering any harm. New clause 6 amends the definition of harm in the checklist to include a harm that a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering as the result of witnessing the abuse of others, including domestic violence and violence which, while not domestic, may nevertheless have affected the child, such as a parent continually being harassed or intimidated or a parent harassing or intimidating others.

The definition of ill-treatment is already provided for in the Children Act; it is broader than physical violence, and includes sexual abuse and forms of ill-treatment that are not physical. However, the Government recognise that amendments to primary legislation are not enough on their own; I certainly accept concerns that existing provisions in primary legislation are not being applied consistently. We therefore have in hand a broad programme of work that will provide more effective protection for children and victims of violence. I pay tribute to the president of the family division, Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, who has done a lot of work to ensure that it is aware of action that courts should take.

We hope to take a number of steps, such as amending court application forms to include specific questions about violence or ill-treatment of children. We shall also amend court rules to oblige courts to determine whether violence or ill-treatment has taken place if an allegation has been made and, if so, what impact that has or is likely to have on the child. We are also looking at the way in which we can disseminate more effectively the guidelines on parental contact with children in cases of domestic violence, which were produced by the Children Act sub-committee of the Lord Chancellor's advisory board on family law.

We are aware of the many concerns about the availability of support at contact centres. We are working with the National Association of Child Contact Centres, and the Lord Chancellor's Department has launched a consultation so that we can define more effectively the support provided by such centres.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Will the hon. Lady give the House an assurance that she is satisfied that the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service will have sufficient officers on the ground if supervision is required? I agree entirely with what she is saying and accept wholeheartedly what the Government are doing in that area, but will she nevertheless assure the House that there will be sufficient funding and manning in that part of the CAFCASS operation?

Rosie Winterton (Labour, Doncaster Central)

When meeting CAFCASS staff, I have been extremely impressed with their ideas on contact centres. Our priority is to ensure that we are using existing funding for contact centres effectively. Many cases involve possible domestic violence or violence against a child, so we have to make sure that proper services for supervised contact are available. We are therefore working with the National Association of Child Contact Centres to make sure that we have a good definition of such contact and eventually, through CAFCASS, can ensure that there are clusters of contact centres in each region.

I accept that we need to undertake further work, but we can make immediate changes with the amendments and secondary legislation. I hope that we will continue to work with voluntary organisations, making use of their experience and expertise to develop our proposals. The amendments send a clear message about the Government's determination to tackle domestic violence and protect children. I very much hope that that message is reinforced by support from Members on both sides of the House.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I wholeheartedly welcome the amendments, which, if overdue, are based on good research. A 1999 survey of 130 parents by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that during contact 76 per cent. of the children were abused; 10 per cent. were sexually abused; 15 per cent. were physically abused; 62 per cent. suffered emotional harm, with which I suspect we are dealing in the amendments; 36 per cent. suffered neglect; and 26 per cent. were abducted. There is therefore a clear need for the amendments, and I am sure that they will receive wholehearted acceptance. The hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) has campaigned long and hard on this issue, as have other Members.

The Minister said that the thrust of the Bill was to bring a particular area of law into line with the Children Act 1989; the checklist and the proposals in the amendments are both useful and helpful. Experience tells me that some of the most damaged children have witnessed violence being perpetrated on others—typically, but not exclusively, violence by the father on the mother. Often, those youngsters have not suffered physical violence per se, but have undoubtedly suffered emotional damage. I therefore welcome the amendments and the consequent change to the Children Act.

The amendments will go some way towards addressing the awful problem of emotional harm inflicted on young people and children. Like me, other Members may have received a letter from a lady from Essex. I do not have her permission, so I shall not give her name, but last week she wrote to me:

"My ex-husband received five years' imprisonment for GBH."

During his imprisonment, her ex-husband applied for contact. There were obviously good grounds for objections but, in due course, he gained unsupervised access, which is ridiculous. A violent person with a history of violence against many different people who breached a number of undertakings is unfit to have any contact at all. The lady concludes:

"Remember, contact/residence is the child's right, not the parent's. Children should never be forced to have contact."

That is quite right. I know that other Members wish to speak, so I conclude by saying once more that I wholeheartedly agree with the amendments, which are a considerable step forward.

Margaret Moran (Labour, Luton South)

I warmly welcome Government new clause 6 and the comprehensive set of measures being discussed to tackle a difficult and sensitive issue. The Government have taken a landmark decision to recognise in child protection legislation the impact of domestic violence on a child and the harm that a child may suffer as a result of witnessing domestic violence.

The further amendments to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred require the courts, when they make contact orders, to decide whether domestic violence has taken place and, if so, its present and possible future impact on the child. That is a significant step forward in protecting our children, which is warmly welcomed not just by many hon. Members, but by a coalition of children's charities, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, NCH Action for Children, Barnardo's, the Children's Society and the Women's Aid Federation. The wide scope of the measure, which deals with violence and other forms of abuse that may harm a child, is particularly welcome.

The Bill extends the right of contact to unmarried parents. It is right that parents, married or otherwise, should have contact with their children in all normal circumstances, but we must ensure that where such contact takes place, the child's welfare is paramount and the necessary safeguards are in place. I welcome the restatement of that principle in my hon. Friend's remarks today.

The courts must ensure that the welfare of the child is taken seriously. The Government and children's charities recognise that as a major issue. In more than half the cases in which court welfare reports are produced, domestic violence occurs where contact is ordered. The new clause recognises the trauma caused to a child by witnessing ill-treatment.

As my hon. Friend knows, there is concern about whether case law precedents have distorted the intended meaning of the Children Act 1989. I refer to three cases in which that concern has been raised. In re H and R (Child Sexual Abuse) 1995, the House of Lords ruled that a higher standard of proof than the simple balance of probabilities is required in family law cases involving serious allegations of abuse of children. That raises concern about the welfare safeguards in the Children Act.

Similarly, in re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) 1995, the Master of the Rolls ruled that contact is almost always in the child's interest. Many children's charities are worried that these cases, alongside A v. N (Committal: Refusal of Contact) 1996, have to some extent resulted in the courts, when making contact orders, attaching insufficient importance to the welfare of the child, and particularly the safety of the child. We therefore need to restate the paramount importance of the child's welfare, and consider further ways of making that clear, whether through regulations, best practice or other measures.

We know from research carried out by the Women's Aid Federation and others that despite guidelines intended to tighten up contact proceedings and to prevent contact where there is evidence of violence or abuse to the child, it still takes place. The courts continue to grant contact, frequently unsupervised contact, to violent or abusive parents. A recent survey revealed cases in which orders for unsupervised contact were granted to schedule 1 offenders and to parents whose behaviour had resulted in children being placed on the child protection register.

In two recent cases, three children were put on the child protection register after one of them was assaulted by the father during a contact visit. Despite that, the court subsequently granted unsupervised contact to the father, and recently there has been another violent incident involving the children. The mother, who was diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome as a result of that man's violence towards her, says that she is not opposed to contact, but has repeatedly asked for visits to be supervised. One child told his teacher that he has nightmares about his mother being killed, and that he wants to die.

In another case that illustrates the point, a woman was advised by her solicitor that there was no point in contesting her violent ex-partner's application for a contact order, because the father and child had the right to see each other. The solicitor gave that advice knowing that the father is a convicted schedule 1 offender. The mother reluctantly agreed to an order that specified unsupervised contact every fortnight.

Similar cases go through the courts all too frequently. I welcome the moves in the new clause and, I hope, in subsequent discussions to consider further measures to ensure the safety of our children and to prevent them from being put at risk of severe harm, violence or abuse.

I hope that when we consider the measures that my hon. Friend outlined, we will examine closely the training of the judiciary. I understand that members of the judiciary are required to undertake only 30 minutes of statutory training in relation to domestic violence, even though more than half the cases with which many of them deal are domestic violence cases. Such minimal training cannot be acceptable for those dealing with such difficult and sensitive cases.

Andrew Turner (Conservative, Isle of Wight)

I am pleased that the amendments have been tabled, and like many hon. Members, I have been asked to support them. However, I am concerned about a certain imbalance in the hon. Lady's—and, for that matter, the Minister's—presentation, which tended to emphasise violence by the man against the woman. I am sure that the hon. Lady will accept that the reverse is possible. Will she clarify whether the amendment is designed to cover mental cruelty as well? I see that the Minister agrees. Does the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) agree that mental cruelty can be perpetrated by the parent with care against the child by slagging off the parent without care?

Margaret Moran (Labour, Luton South)

Of course I concede that there are instances of violence by the mother in the circumstances under discussion, although research has shown that that is infinitely less frequent than violence by the father. The new clause is gender-neutral. We are all endeavouring to prevent violence and harm to a child from either parent. Domestic violence by men against women is more prevalent; one in four women are likely to experience some sort of domestic violence during their lives.

The courts seem to believe that the Children Act 1989 contains a strong presumption of contact almost always being in the best interests of the child, but that needs to be balanced against the possible risks to the child's safety. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she is doing, in conjunction with her ministerial colleagues in the domestic violence inter-ministerial group, to address such serious issues as the lack of definition and standards for supervised and unsupervised contact.

I warmly welcome the work that is being undertaken to ensure that proper contact centres are available when and where they are needed, given that only 12 per cent. of contact centres currently offer supervised contact, and most are run by excellent and worthy, but possibly less experienced, volunteers. I also strongly agree that we need to ensure consistency in court practice and make it clear to the courts that the welfare of the child means just that. I welcome the amendments and I hope that we shall have continuing dialogue on how to ensure that every measure is taken to protect our children in these circumstances.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I support the Government's amendments, and I do so briefly, mindful of the fact that we have 94 amendments and one new clause to deal with before 3.45 pm. A later group of amendments also deals with parent contact and I hope that if we do not reach that, this important subject will be revisited in another place.

In Committee, we supported the intentions of the amendments. The Minister did a lot of work subsequently into how they could best become part of the legislation. I am glad of that, and I welcome the resulting Government amendment No. 26 and Government new clause 6. I also fully appreciate the great experience of and work done by the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) in furnishing her own amendments. They are based on much detailed work, and I am sure that the pressure that they have brought to bear has enabled the Government to move further along the road, although not as far as many of us would have wished. However, it is a good start.

We are all aware of horrendous cases of domestic violence and its effect on children—the subsequent break-up of families, homelessness problems and the psychological effects on children who are scarred for many years thereafter—many of which we heard about in Committee. We heard many alarming accounts of the injury that can be inflicted on children during contact with violent parents—mostly men, but not exclusively—resulting, in the most horrendous cases, in the death of a child. We heard some truly awful stories.

I, too, congratulate the women's refuges, the Women's Aid Federation and the Children's Society on their intensive, sensitive and effective lobbying. I declare an interest as patron of Brighton's women's refuge, which does a good job in my part of the world.

I particularly welcome the fact that the amendments extend the definition of harm to include the damage done to children witnessing the results of domestic violence between parents in the home without their having to be an eye witness to that domestic violence. That is domestic violence, although not in the strict sense of the definition that we have had. It is right that the Minister has taken account of that because it all constitutes ill-treatment and abuse, which has devastating effects on children who may then end up being the subject of adoption orders.

I know that there will be problems of definition in the courts. I, too, have spoken to family division judges who have said that it is already a problem. However, the amendment and the new clause send out a clear statement of intent to judges and to the courts that the Government take the problem seriously, as do we. It is right that those factors should be taken into account when considering contact orders and what is best for the child's welfare, which is, after all, what is at the heart of the Bill.

As the Minister says, the amendment goes further than the Northern Ireland model and much of this will also have a bearing on the sort of adoption support services that are structured within the Bill. I echo the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who was an active member of the Committee, including his concerns about the staffing of CAFCASS, which has been a problem and to which reference was made in Committee.

This is the first time that domestic violence has been legally recognised as a child protection issue, and I associate myself with that development. I realise that much work remains to be done and that we need to go a lot further, but that is for a more specialised piece of legislation dealing primarily with the subject. I hope that, in due course, the Government will revisit the subject, giving a greater airing to the complicated problems of domestic violence. The amendment and the new clause are a good start. They have the Opposition's full support and I congratulate the Minister on them.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I want to join the love-in and congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) on highlighting the issue so effectively in Committee. As a result of her work the Minister has been brought on board and introduced the relevant measures.

I was initially pleased to add my name to the extensive new clause 10, but that has been withdrawn because it needs considerable further work. I hope that that will be done in the other place, but I do not know whether there will be sufficient time.

In most cases, I agree that the interests of the child are best served by maintaining contact with both parents, but, unfortunately, as it stands, the system fails to protect children from abusers who are known to them.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned the lobbying that has taken place. I suspect that all hon. Members have been deluged with mail from charities and women's refuges. One cannot fail to be moved by some of the cases. Many of the letters were the same, but there were some heart-rending personal stories, including cases of children who have been murdered during unsupervised contact. That sounds melodramatic, but the 1999 survey of parents found that 76 per cent. of the children of parents interviewed had been abused in some way during the contact visits ordered by the courts. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) broke those figures down even further. That is a powerful message that we must keep sight of.

In many ways, it is a great sadness that it is necessary to introduce the amendment at all, because it means that in the past we have failed. In particular, we have failed children who are too vulnerable to take care of themselves. Since being elected it has been a huge sadness to me to hear from parents who have just gone through a divorce. Invariably, children are used as pawns in an unattractive game in which the parents score points against each other. It is not uncommon for a parent, or even a grandparent or set of grandparents, to make serious allegations about the behaviour of the other party, which may be unfounded.

It is essential that strenuous efforts are made to establish the truth. I cannot emphasise that enough. If someone gets it wrong, it means that an innocent parent is being prevented from seeing their child. The balance is a fine and difficult one, but it is up to us to try to strike it. The question is vexed. We must protect our young without creating a climate where we encourage ever-escalating litigation and counter-litigation.

I support new clause 6, which improves the definition of harm in the Children Act. It is essential that we highlight the fact that domestic violence is unacceptable. Writing this speech, I was worried that if I banged on about men beating up women I would receive letters from men saying, "Hey, what about us. We get beaten up by our wives as well." But we must acknowledge that domestic violence against women is a bigger problem, and I make no apology for saying that today. However, any violence is unacceptable.

If children regularly witness domestic violence, they believe that it is the norm. Children believe that their immediate environment is the usual one and they have no experience of a kinder world. It is essential that this self-perpetuating cycle is broken and we must do all that we can to achieve that. I welcome new clause 6.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I welcome the amendment and the new clause. I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) on all the work that she has put in on the subject. I have been pleased to be associated with her in tabling amendments in Committee and new clause 10, which we have now dropped.

These are important amendments. That fact was brought home to me within the past month in my constituency surgery, when a distraught mother came to see me about a contact order that had been granted to her ex-husband although he had a record of violence and sexual abuse. The court welfare officer was indifferent to that, and the judge dismissed it out of hand and granted unsupervised access to the children.

The Government have more work to do, but if we can get this message into the Bill perhaps in time they can introduce further measures.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The discussion of contact is welcome because it was one of the most important matters that we did not discuss at all in Committee, owing to Government timetabling. That is an important point to make, not least because members of the Committee received more letters on the topic than on any other. That said, I note that the contact provisions themselves are so far down the selection list that they will probably again fail to be discussed, so it will be left entirely to the other House to review the matter.

I do not want to add much to what has been said, partly because we need to move on. I speak to many people who are not as knowledgeable as hon. Members present about the process of adoption, and they often assume that the question of contact does not often arise, because adoption involves the child being permanently taken away from the natural parents. It is important to place on the record that that is absolutely not the case in this day and age. The norm is that there will always be contact, which is right and proper. We should therefore see this as an issue that affects the vast majority of adopted children and one that it is particularly important for us to address.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 2, line 19, after "background", insert—

', subject to the proviso that such consideration shall be secondary to the matters to be considered in subsections (2) and (3).'.—[Mr. Brazier.]

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 2, line 27, leave out from first "order" to end of line 28 and insert—

'(or the revocation of such an order), a placement order (or the revocation of such an order) or an order under section 25 (or the revocation or variation of such an order)'.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 164.

Amendment No. 108, in clause 17, page 12, line 19, leave out "section 18 or".

Government amendments Nos. 166 to 169.

Amendment No. 109, in clause 18, page 13, line 1, leave out clause 18.

Government amendment No. 170.

Amendment No. 110, in clause 19, page 13, line 23, leave out from "the" to "may" in line 24 and insert—

'making of a placement order under section 20'.

Government amendments Nos. 111, 172 and 173.

Amendment No. 112, in clause 20, page 14, line 8, at end insert—

'or

(c) each parent or guardian consents to the making of the order.'.

Amendment No. 113, in page 14, line 9, after "order", insert—

'under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2)'.

Amendment No. 114, in page 14, line 11, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment No. 20, in page 14, line 17, leave out "section 23" and insert—

'sections 23 and 34(1) and (2)'.

Amendment No. 308, in page 14, line 17, after "23," insert "or 34(1) or (2)".

Government amendment No. 174.

Amendment No. 21, in clause 21, page 14, line 29, at end insert—

'or—

(e) the child has been returned to them due to the circumstances of section 34(1) and (2).'.

Amendment No. 309, in page 14, line 29, at end insert—

'(1A) A local authority must apply to the Court for a new placement order when a child has returned to them due to the circumstances described in section 34(1) or (2).'.

Government amendments Nos. 290, 175 and 176.

Amendment No. 116, in clause 23, page 15, line 33, leave out—

'each of the following conditions'

and insert "the following condition".

Government amendment No. 177.

Amendment No. 115, in page 15, line 36, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

Government amendments Nos. 178 and 179.

Amendment No. 117, in clause 24, page 16, line 5, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment No. 119, in clause 25, page 16, line 14, leave out clause 25.

Government amendment No. 291.

Amendment No. 118, in clause 28, page 18, line 5, leave out clause 28.

Government amendments Nos. 191 to 193.

Amendment No. 123, in clause 29, page 18, line 20, leave out from "is" to "a" in line 21 and insert—

'subject to a placement order'.

Amendment No. 128, in page 18, line 21, leave out "the prospective adopters" and insert—

'any placement made by the adoption agency.'.

Government amendment No. 195.

Amendment No. 124, in page 18, line 31, leave out subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6).

Government amendment No. 196.

Amendment No. 125, in clause 30, page 19, line 10, leave out clause 30.

Government amendments Nos. 198 to 201.

Amendment No. 126, in clause 31, page 19, line 30, leave out clause 31.

Government amendments Nos. 202 to 206.

Amendment No. 127, in clause 33, page 20, line 29, leave out clause 33.

Amendment No. 134, in clause 34, page 21, line 26, at end insert—

'( ) Where the actions described in subsections (1) or (2) are taken, any placement order in place at that time shall be revoked.'.

Government amendments Nos. 207 to 210, 250, 251, 220 and 230.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

This large group of amendments deals with some of the Bill's most important provisions: clause 1 and the process for placement for adoption, which is set out in the initial clauses of chapter 3. It is worth emphasising that there are so many amendments not only because we are considering an important part of the Bill but because, given the Government's consultative approach through a Special Standing Committee, it was appropriate to respond through Government amendments to some of the anxieties that hon. Members and stakeholders raised.

I shall speak briefly to Government amendments Nos. 163 and 164. Government amendment No. 163 clarifies the important phrase

"coming to a decision relating to the adoption of a child",

which triggers the obligations on courts and adoption agencies that are set out in the provision. That also covers orders under clause 25 for contact while the child is placed, or the revocation or variation of those orders. Amendment No. 164 clarifies the position on consideration of the decision to dispense with parental consent. It makes it completely clear that the decisions on dispensing with consent should be governed by clause 50(1). Paragraph (b) provides for dispensing with consent if

"the welfare of the child requires the consent to be dispensed with."

That is a strong requirement.

It is worth reminding hon. Members that the aim of the placement system is to try to resolve the substantive issues that relate to parental consent to adoption earlier in the process. That will provide greater certainty and stability for children by dealing as far as possible with the bulk of issues before they are placed. It will reduce the extent to which birth families are faced with a fait accompli at the final adoption hearing, and try to reduce the uncertainty for prospective adopters who currently have to confront the possibility of a contested court hearing.

Chapter 3 provides two routes for placement for adoption: placement by parental consent under clause 18, and placement through a placement order under clauses 20 and 21. The second route is available only to local authorities. Some of the amendments try to remove placement by consent to ensure a court hearing in every case. Although I understand some of the anxieties behind the proposals, it is nevertheless wrong or unnecessary for reasons that I shall outline. First, the Bill ensures that there are considerable safeguards around parental consent. They include providing for the consent to be witnessed, taken by a CAFCASS officer and reported to the court. There is, therefore, court consideration of the nature of the consent.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

My hon. Friend rightly says that there has been some concern about these provisions. Does she understand that that is not least because once a person—a mother—makes the decision and crosses the line of consent, there is no going back, even if the circumstances where the child is placed change? For example, if the couple with whom the child is placed split up, the child's circumstances will become very different from those that pertained when the mother gave consent. Does my hon. Friend agree that requiring leave of the court would at least give confidence to people providing consent?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I do not accept my hon. Friend's view that there is no going back. In fact, it is important to stress that placement by consent is intended to be entirely voluntary. If the parents withdraw their consent before the final adoption order application is made, the child must be returned to them unless the local authority is under a duty to apply for a placement order. We have listened to the concerns about the removal provisions, in particular those relating to reducing the time limit for returning a child to a parent who has removed consent if that child is not placed, from 14 days to seven.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I accept all that my hon. Friend is saying about the way in which the Government have listened to the important issues that have been raised on this complex and difficult part of the Bill. Does she accept that a huge range of children's organisations, as well as Labour Back Benchers, are still extremely concerned about these issues? There will obviously not be time to discuss them today, but will she please ensure that her officials and colleagues in the other place are open to further discussion on this important aspect of this important Bill?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

Of course we have to continue to talk about these provisions. My officials have met—and undoubtedly will meet—people to talk about their concerns. I think it would be worth my while to spell out the changes that we have already made in response to those concerns. I have already talked about the removal provisions. We shall also ensure that local authorities apply for placement orders within the time limit rather than simply saying that they have a duty to do so. On revocation, we have recognised that the one-year test was too rigid, and we have reduced it.

I have to say to my hon. Friend, and to those who believe that placements should be made only through the court system, that one of the Government's major concerns is the practical issue of whether that would increase the number of court cases. We do not believe, given the safeguards that are in place, that that provision would be necessary. To give people some idea of the scale involved, 16 per cent. of children adopted out of care are currently adopted with consent. If the Government meet their targets, that could necessitate up to 600 extra court cases if we insisted that placement could be made only through the court system.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I thank the Minister for giving way. We have no time at all to debate this important group of amendments. Does she accept that under the current provision, with the Government's amendments, a child could in theory be placed with families over and over again following disruptions prior to an adoption order, without any court overview or input of any kind from an independent representative for the child, such as a guardian ad litem?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I will come to that issue in a moment. I want to emphasise our concern about introducing the courts into the situation when we all believe that we need to bear down on delay.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

No, I will not. I want to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). Conservative Members were concerned in their amendments about ensuring that placement orders were more specific. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's contention that we need to move away from the general placement order, which has received widespread support in consultations, to what I suspect he is suggesting—namely, the necessity to return to court every time a placement breaks down. That proposal does not recognise that a placement order is about determining whether placement for adoption is right for that child, rather than determining a particular placement. It would also ensure that delay would be brought into the system—the hon. Gentleman earlier rightly urged us to bear down on delay—because, by necessity, if a placement unfortunately broke down, instead of a local authority being able to place the child in another placement, it would have to return to court—

It being 3.45 pm, Mr. Deputy Speaker proceeded, pursuant to Order [this day] to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 164, in page 2, line 38, leave out paragraph (c).—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Clause 17 — Placement for adoption by agencies

Clause 18 — Placing children with parental consent

Clause 19 — Advance consent to adoption

Clause 20 — Placement orders

Clause 21 — Applications for placement orders

Clause 23 — Revoking placement orders

Clause 25 — Contact

Clause 26 — Contact: supplementary

Clause 27 — Further consequences of placement

Clause 28 — Further consequences of placement orders

Clause 29 — General prohibitions on removal

Clause 30 — Section 29: recovery by parent etc. where child not yet placed

Clause 31 — Section 29: recovery by parent etc. where agency not opposed

Clause 34 — Return of child in other cases

Clause 40 — Recovery orders

Clause 41 — Child to live with adopters before application

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I beg to move amendment No. 211, in page 25, line 25, after "Court" insert "or

( ) the applicant is a parent of the child'.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 212 to 218.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I feel a bit like the warm-up act in relation to this group of amendments, so I hope that I will be able to warm people up and get on with it.

These amendments clarify clause 41, which sets out the period that a child has to live with a prospective adopter before an application may be made for an adoption order. They also make minor modifications to the provision in clause 43 that covers the process of giving notice to local authorities in non-agency adoptions.

In the case of the changes to clause 41, amendment No. 211 corrects an omission in the Bill as currently drafted, by providing that in the rare cases in which a natural parent is applying to adopt their own child, the residence period required will be the same as that for agency-approved adopters, as it is under the Adoption Act 1976.

Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 improve the wording of subsection (3), which relates to step-parent applications. They make it clear that, when a step-parent is applying to adopt a child jointly with the natural parent, the six-month residence period for step-parent applications is still to apply, as it does for single step-parent applications.

Amendments Nos. 215 to 218 concern the process of non-agency adoptions. When an adoption is not happening through an adoption agency, the adoptive applicant has to give notice to the local authority in which he has his home, so that the local authority can investigate and report to the court—an important safeguard for children in cases where an adoption agency has not been involved in selecting and matching the adopters for the child.

These amendments allow for cases in which an applicant fulfils the domicile requirements in clause 47, but does not in law currently have his home in a local authority area. It might be helpful to hon. Members if I explain that this problem was brought to our attention by the Ministry of Defence, because it relates to members of the armed services or, for example, to diplomats temporarily stationed abroad. Obviously, we would not want to block such individuals from adopting under British law simply on these grounds. The amendments would allow us in these cases to prescribe, in regulations, which should be the appropriate local authority in cases where the applicant did not currently have his home in the UK.

In addition, Government amendment No. 215 makes it clear that, although the report to the court and the investigation are the responsibility of the local authority, it could arrange for elements of them to be carried out by other suitable organisations. For example, in the case of step-parent adoption applications by service families stationed overseas, we would envisage that the Service Families Adoption Agency—a registered voluntary adoption agency—would conduct the investigation and visit the family, as required by clause 41(7), and pass the results to the relevant local authority. If the authority were satisfied, it would then submit the report to the court.

In conclusion, these amendments clarify the provisions in relation to clause 41, and ensure that an unsatisfactory situation relating particularly to our forces stationed overseas has been satisfactorily sorted out.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

For fear of becoming a subsidiary to the warm-up act and being booed off the stage, I do not intend to go into any detail. In any event, we were notified of this raft of amendments late in the day.

It is difficult to see anything contentious in the amendments. I am especially pleased that the Minister has taken account of the special position of diplomats and members of the armed forces, which we raised in Committee in regard to other provisions. I hope that it will be taken into account in other parts of the Bill, but for now we have no reason to challenge the amendments. No doubt Members will wish to proceed to the next group.

Amendment agreed to.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I beg to move amendment No. 310, in page 25, line 27, leave out "married".

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 311, in page 25, line 36, leave out "married".

Amendment No. 312, in page 25, line 43, leave out "married".

Amendment No. 148, in clause 47, page 28, line 41, leave out "married".

Amendment No. 10, in page 28, line 41, leave out from "couple", to end of line 42 and insert—

'(b) an unmarried couple, or

(c) one person,'.

Amendment No. 18, in page 28, line 41, leave out "or".

Amendment No. 14, in page 28, line 42, after "person", insert—

', or

(c) an unmarried couple.'.

Amendment No. 11, in page 28, line 43, leave out "or 49" and insert—

'49 or [Adoption by unmarried couples]'.

Amendment No. 15, in page 28, line 43, leave out "or 49" and insert—

'49 or [Adoption orders unmarried couples]'.

Amendment No. 149, in page 29, line 1, leave out "spouses" and insert "couple".

Amendment No. 16, in page 29, line 2, after "section 48)", insert—

'or one member of the unmarried couple (in the case of an application under section [Adoption orders: unmarried couples]).'.

Amendment No. 12, in page 29, line 2, after "48)", insert—

'or one member of the unmarried couple (in the case of an application under section [Adoption by unmarried couples])'.

Amendment No. 150, in page 29, line 4, leave out "spouses" and insert "of the couple".

Amendment No. 13, in page 29, line 5, after "48)", insert—

'or both applicants (in the case of an application under section [Adoption by unmarried couples])'.

Amendment No. 17, in page 29, line 5, after "48", insert—

'or both applicants (in the case of an application under section [Adoption orders: unmarried couples]).'.

Amendment No. 24, in page 29, line 13, at end insert—

'(6) References in this Act to an unmarried couple will apply only to a man and a woman living together.'.

Amendment No. 151, in clause 48, page 29, line 15, leave out "married".

Amendment No. 152, in page 29, line 16, leave out "spouses" and insert "of them".

Amendment No. 153, in page 29, line 17, leave out "married".

Amendment No. 154, in page 29, line 19, leave out "spouse" and insert "of the couple".

Amendment No. 155, in page 29, line 21, leave out "spouse".

Amendment No. 156, in clause 49, page 29, line 24, at end insert—

'(1A) An adoption order may be made on the application of one person who has attained the age of 21 years if the court is satisfied that the person is the partner of a parent of the person to be adopted'.

Amendment No. 157, in page 29, line 27, leave out paragraph (a).

New clause 2—Adoption by unmarried couples—

'(1) An adoption order may not be granted on the application of an unmarried couple unless the court is satisfied—

(a) that both of the applicants are over the age of twenty–one;

(b) for the period of 2 years ending with the date of the application, the partners have lived in the same household (otherwise than merely by reason of one of them being the other's employee, tenant, lodger or boarder); and

(c) that the applicants are not close relatives of each other.

(2) "Close relative", in relation to any person, means his grandparents, parents, children, step–children, uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces, brothers and sisters and step–brothers and step–sisters.

(3) In relation to any application made under this section, the court may take into consideration the arrangements which the applicants have made, or intend to make in order to safeguard the welfare of the child involved, should their relationship break down.'.

New clause 3—Adoption orders: unmarried couples—

'(1) An adoption order may be made on the application of an unmarried couple where both members of the couple have attained the age of 21 years.

(2) An adoption order may be made on the application by an unmarried couple if the court is satisfied

(a) that they have been living together for at least two years at time of application,

(b) that the relationship between the couple is stable and is intended by each of them to be permanent, and

(c) that the unmarried couple has made arrangements to safeguard the financial and practical security of the child in the event of the ending of their relationship and to meet their joint and individual parental responsibilities.'.

New clause 13—Suitability of adopters—

'(1) Regulations under section 9 may make provision as to the matters to be taken into account by an adoption agency in determining, or making any report in respect of, the suitability of any persons to adopt a child.

(2) In particular, the regulations may make provision for the purpose of securing that, in determining the suitability of a couple to adopt a child, proper regard is had to the need for stability and permanence in their relationship'.

Amendment No. 158, in clause 131, page 74, line 51, at end insert—

'(2B) In this Act, a couple means—

(a) a married couple, or

(b) two people (whether of different sexes or the same sex) living as partners in an enduring family relationship.

(2C) Subsection (2B)(b) does not include two people one of whom is the other's parent, grandparent, sister, brother, aunt or uncle.

(2D) References to relationships in subsection (2C)—

(a) are to relationships of the full blood or half blood or, in the case of an adopted person, such of those relationships as would exist but for the adoption, and

(b) include the relationship of a child with his adoptive, or former adoptive, parents,

but do not include any other adoptive relationships.

(2E) For the purposes of this Act, a person is the partner of a child's parent if the person and the parent are a couple but the person is not the child's parent'.

Amendment (a) to the amendment, in (2B)(a), leave out—

'whether of different sexes or the same sex'

and insert "of different sexes".

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

This is an important group of amendments, which if passed could bring hope to thousands of children—hope of a happier life than that provided by serial foster-parenting, notwithstanding the efforts of hard-working, excellent, commendable foster parents; and hope of a happier life than years of childhood spent in residential care. The amendments could give those thousands of children hope of adoption, and of living in suitable homes with loving families.

The amendments are about putting the welfare of children first. They are about looking at the advice offered to us by adoption agencies, children's charities, local authorities and professionals. All those people and organisations urge us to support the amendments, which are about accepting research evidence and having an evidence-based approach—having a rational rather than an irrational basis for adoption policy.

Children, after all, must grow up in the real world. They must grow up in the 21st century, in which, whether we like it or not, 40 per cent. of children are born outside marriage, and in which many people who are committed to each other choose not to marry. That applies to 15 per cent. of households, and the figure is expected to rise to 30 per cent. In this real world, loving stable families—in the Minister's memorable words—come in all shapes and sizes. Indeed, dysfunctional families come in all shapes and sizes, including the so-called orthodox. Children do not grow up in an idealised world that never was, but that some Members who are present may wish existed.

Currently, and according to the unamended Bill, the only people allowed to apply to adopt are married couples or single people. Adoption agencies assess the suitability of applicants, and write a report for the courts that will decide whether the adoptions should proceed. Unmarried couples cannot apply to adopt as couples; single people can apply even if they are part of a couple, but they must apply as single people.

The arrangement has two impacts. First, unmarried couples cannot currently adopt as co-parents, even if they have their own non-adopted children and are both parents to them. Only one can be a parent, while the other can at best obtain secondary status, which will be recognised only until the child reaches the age of 16 or 18. That in itself has two consequences. The parents are legally unequal, one being second class, which is not in the child's best interests; and some potential adopters are deterred from applying because they cannot do so as a couple. That leaves children in residential care, or in serial foster care, rather than with suitable adoptive families. It does not make the child's interests paramount.

A higher proportion of unmarried couples than married couples may think of adopting. We hear that about 10 per cent. of potential applicants are unmarried couples who may be put off by the fact that they cannot adopt on an equal basis.

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

If a couple are desperate to have a child and if there is no impediment to marriage, they have an easy answer. If there is an impediment to marriage, there is a real ground for their not being allowed to adopt as a couple.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I disagree. The hon. Gentleman must know that in the case of such applications adoption agencies write reports on the circumstances, which the courts take into account. If he is saying, as he appears to be, that no unmarried couples are suitable to adopt as couples—if he is saying that a priori—I do not think he is making the child's best interests paramount. He is putting his own preferences first, and I feel it is incumbent on us all not to do that.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

The hon. Gentleman said he wanted an evidenced-based approach, and that there was evidence that the present legal status deterred unmarried couples from adopting. What is that evidence? It is referred to in a letter from the British Agencies for Adopting and Fostering. When I asked the BAAF what the evidence was, it said that actually it had none.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

It certainly does have evidence. I believe the evidence was gathered during national adoption week, when the BAAF recorded the reasons why people who had thought about adopting were put off. I do not want to take up the House's time, because I am sure others with expertise will deal with the right hon. Gentleman's point, but there is no doubt that many unmarried couples would like to adopt as couples, but the Bill, if unamended, will put them off.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we only see adoption legislation approximately every 25 years? Is it not important, therefore, for legislation we introduce to take account of the next generation? Given the change in society, is it not sensible to make our own change now?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Absolutely.

The second impact of the current position and, indeed, the unamended Bill is that although gay men and lesbians are already able to adopt, and do adopt, they cannot do so as couples. In that sense, the debate on the extension of joint adoption rights to unmarried couples has veered off its original course. Gay adoption per se is not at stake here, although people want it to be. The sexuality of an applicant in itself in no way bars him or her from the right to adopt under current law, as a single person.

There are three reasons for seeking a change in the law. First, it is not in a child's best interests, when members of a couple play equal parts in his or her life, for only one member to have full legal responsibility. The other parent is downgraded to second-class status, without the power to make vital as well as casual decisions in the child's life that call for legal guardian status. Problems are also caused when the adopter is ill or dies, as no legal relationship is left between the child and the other parent. Especially given that any residency orders are valid only until the child is 16 or l8, depending on the circumstances, that does not make the child's best interests paramount throughout his or her life.

Secondly, as I have said, many suitable unmarried couples are deterred from applying to adopt. That clearly is not in the best interests of tens of thousands of children in serial foster care, or in care waiting for suitable adoptive families.

Thirdly, the current law clearly discriminates against unmarried and same-sex couples. Given the stringent application process for adoption and the rigorous assessments that are made on a case-by-case basis, there is no justification for disqualifying a couple from adopting jointly simply because they do not possess a marriage certificate, if they clearly possess all the characteristics that the agencies would otherwise expect from suitable adoptive parents.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

Is it not in the best interests of the child to have a mother and a father whenever that is possible?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

The hon. Gentleman may think that in an ideal situation it is in children's best interests to have mothers and fathers who are very wealthy, who have nannies and both of whom have jobs. Children today do not grow up in an ideal world. The hon. Gentleman must decide whether he thinks it better for children to be left in care, or suffer the problems that clearly result from serial foster care, than for them to be accepted into the loving stable environment provided by an unmarried couple, if that is what is on offer.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Certainly the most desirable adoptive arrangement is for the child to have a mother and a father who are married, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that in other circumstances it may well be in the child's best interests to be adopted according to other arrangements?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Each child's circumstances are different, and it is not necessary to accept the hon. Gentleman's point of view to recognise that we have to find the best solution in each individual case. I am not willing to condemn unmarried couples who have their own children—I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is, either—and if we take the view that married parents are the ideal, we attack the many thousands of our constituents who choose not to get married for perfectly valid reasons, or cannot do so. Hon. Members can put their views—

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

rose—

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

In a moment. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance once I have made more progress.

What is at stake is making it possible for an unmarried couple to adopt jointly, so that they can both have a legal relationship with the child. It is about recognising the changing structure of social relations, and ensuring that we offer children currently in care the best opportunity of finding a home by allowing unmarried couples to consider adoption in a manner that does not downgrade their relationship. It is also about taking a stance against, and putting an end to, discrimination in whatever form.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

The hon. Gentleman talks about recognising changes in social trends. Does he acknowledge that in 2000 the number of marriages in fact increased for the first time in eight years? For the avoidance of doubt about the Liberal Democrats' position, can he clarify matters by saying whether or not he thinks the best possible arrangement is for children to be brought up by a married couple consisting of a man and a woman? Advancing that argument does not diminish the alternatives; it merely states that, where available, that is the best possible scenario. Does he deny that?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

This is a pointless debate, and the hon. Gentleman's position is illogical. He cannot raise one group of people to a higher status without implying that another group are of a lower status. If he asked his questions honestly, he would be more likely to find answers to them, but first he must recognise the reality of the proposition that he puts.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I am keen to make progress as I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak.

I should point out that there are many justifications for recognising that unmarried couples are suitable for adoption purposes. The argument will be advanced that they are inherently more unstable, but it is based on poor research that does not compare like with like. Other types of partnerships who wish to adopt often last longer than many marriages. A generalising, simplistic analysis of figures that do not even compare like with like across socio-economic groups does the debate a disservice. If the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) argues that case later, I shall seek to intervene on her.

I also question the view that children placed into same-sex partnerships that are otherwise suitable to adopt are damaged in any way. Evidence produced by Professor Golombok, and the review conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics, makes it clear they suffer no short-term or long-term damage, and do very well in such partnerships. Again, I shall seek to intervene on anyone who tries to argue against that evidence.

Liberal Democrats are proud to work with like-minded members of other parties to introduce this measure. In our manifesto—

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I may be wrong, but I think this is the first major contribution to the Bill that the hon. Gentleman has made. In the interests of the consensus that he apparently seeks, would he not have done better to align himself much more clearly and solely with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), who has a solid background in children's issues?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

The hon. Gentleman will find that I alone among Front Benchers raised this issue on Second Reading; indeed, it was amazing that so little other discussion took place of such an important issue. He will know that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, I was not.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Why was the hon. Gentleman not on the Committee?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I was considering another Bill in Standing Committee, and if the hon. Gentleman inspects the record, he will find that I have contributed to such debates more frequently than he has.

Given that I am being provoked, I should point out that we had the courage to call in our manifesto for reform of the fostering and adoption law. That lends legitimacy to my argument, so the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) should perhaps question his attack. The manifesto placed emphasis on the suitability of potential adopters and on the needs of the child, rather than on arbitrary rules that are set centrally. We also called for the registration of civil partnerships to be based in part on the legal effects and duties of marriage, including adoption and fostering. The hon. Gentleman cannot claim, therefore, that I am suddenly springing this view on the House. We have no compunction in calling for and supporting these amendments on a party Whip. In terms of the way in which hon. Members vote, it is through the party Whip that a party shares the accountability of its members.

We know that some sections of the press will pillory us for the position that we take, but it is better to face that and argue the merits of it, rather than hiding behind shifting positions, prevarication and free votes. I am not surprised that the Conservative party has a three-line Whip against the liberalisation of such matters: it is not a liberal party. Conservatives put their prejudices and illiberal views before children's welfare and considerations of fairness.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

In different ways, the hon. Gentleman repeatedly refers to discrimination. Is he aware that the International Court of Human Rights recently ruled that preventing homosexual partners from adopting is not considered a breach of human rights?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I know of the case to which the hon. Gentleman mis-refers—it was heard not in the International Court of Human Rights but the lower chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. Moreover, the vote, which was four to three against the application, is being appealed, and the British judge was one of the three who voted in favour. The amendments that the hon. Gentleman is likely to support are not compatible, therefore, with human rights legislation—a point on which the Minister doubtless also has a view.

The failure of the Labour Government to support the amendments is very disappointing, given their high opinion poll rating, their large majority and the admirable interest that the Prime Minister has shown in the matter. I pay tribute to the Minister, her ministerial colleagues, and the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) and for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for winning the battle for a free vote, at least. A battle it must have been, given that, on 25 January 1999, the former Home Secretary appeared to agree with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who said that his understanding was that there would be no legal adoption by homosexual couples. We can safely say, therefore, that there is no unanimity on this point among the senior ranks of the Government.

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

Given that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned to make progress on this issue, will he withdraw his amendments? If accepted, they could create problems for the rest of the Bill in terms of consequential amendments. Will he instead support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

That is a legitimate point, which I shall come to in a moment.

We should applaud the Secretary of State for Health's personal support for these measures, but we look forward to a time when free votes are offered across the board on genuine points of principle or ethics, and when Governments accept accountability for children's welfare. [Interruption.] I have an important question for the Minister, in which hon. Members will have an interest. If this measure is adopted, what will happen when the Bill reaches the House of Lords and they reject it? Will the Minister give an undertaking now to send it back a second time. Those of us who will vote for these measures want to know that we are not doing so in vain. If necessary, will she use the Parliament Act to force through not just the Bill but the measure? It is important that the Minister replies. We know that, in the end, Governments must be responsible for getting Bills and measures through.

In answer to the hon. Lady's question, like amendment No. 148, amendment No. 310 deletes the word "married". Amendment No. 158 defines "a couple" either as married, or as two people both over the age of 21 who are not closely related, and who live as partners in an enduring family relationship. We believe that that definition is effective, and that the amendments are good. The hon. Member for Wakefield will himself want to talk about his new clause 3, but I suspect he agrees that the wording of amendment No. 158 is superior to both previous such attempts. Therefore, I have no compunction in saying that I shall not press new clause 2 and its consequential amendments to a division. However, in a sense, amendments Nos. 310, 311, 312, 148 and 147 are all consequential on amendment No. 158—and vice versa—and there is no doubt that amendment No. 310 is necessary. If it is not agreed by the House today, the Government will have to introduce it in the House of Lords. I ask hon. Members why they intend to vote against amendment No. 310, because it is an inevitable part of the measures. That is my understanding from the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, which sent me a letter today stating:

"BAAF's position is that we want to see the principle of unmarried couples being able to adopt jointly going through the House today."

That is what amendment No. 310 would achieve. The BAAF continued:

"We urge MPs to vote for any amendment which will have this effect—I am unclear which will be debated but the principle is what is important at this stage."

Stonewall, which also has an interest in the issue, e-mailed me today to say:

"Re: today's vote on the right of unmarried couples to apply to adopt, Stonewall very much hopes that this proposal will be supported today by MPs. I am happy to confirm that if Amendment 310 is put to the vote that we would like to support it, as it will carry with it support for the rest of the amendments associated with it—148-158—which we also support."

I have had no notice from the Government about any technical problems—although I will listen to what the Minister has to say—but because we have a clear position on the issue, we would like to press amendment No. 310 to a division.

Amendment No. 24 and amendment (a) are simply wrong. They are discriminatory and incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. They have no place in a modernisation of the law. I understand the sincere reasons of those who wish to press the matter—they want to feel that, even as Conservatives, they can support the general trend of the Bill—but it is unsuitable to victimise a sub-group and refuse to allow children the benefit of being adopted by that sub-group.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because my name appears on both the amendments that he has just mentioned. He has not yet satisfactorily answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) so I shall ask him again. Is it the position of the Liberal Democrats that they do not believe that the best environment in which to bring up a child is with a mother and a father?

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

That is an academic argument, because each case is different. If there is a violent father in the household—it is usually fathers who are violent—it is not a suitable environment. Unless the hon. Gentleman is prepared to say that those of his constituents who do not live together as married husband and wife are less worthy of his consideration, I am not prepared to go any further into what is a sterile debate.

New clause 13 is important and will assume greater importance. It is the one change proposed by the hon. Member for Wakefield that I cannot support, because it would give new and unnecessary regulation-making powers to the Secretary of State. If hon. Members are serious about scrutinising the Government, they should look at the new clause carefully. General regulation- making powers exist in clause 9 already and could cover that area as they cover the functions of adoption agencies and local authorities, including writing reports for courts. Clause 1 already provides that agencies and the courts must have paramount regard to the welfare of the child throughout his life. In addition, statutory guidance already exists on the issue, and adoption agencies can provide further guidance. The additional regulatory powers are unnecessary. Moreover, we have not seen the powers, so we could be voting for restrictive secondary legislation based on measures in the Bill. The Minister might even admit that that is exactly the point of new clause 13. If the Government wanted powers in that area, they should have published the regulations before today, which is the last opportunity that the House has to see what it is being asked to accept.

The amendments are about putting the welfare of children before old-fashioned views of the world as we would like it be rather than as it is. They are about putting fair treatment before unnecessary discrimination, and putting the best interests of children—making their welfare paramount—before prejudice. I urge the House to support the amendments.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I shall speak to amendment No. 148, amendments Nos.149 to 158, which accompany it, and new clause 13. I shall not press the other amendments that stand in my name. I hope that if the debate is interrupted by the knife at 6 o'clock, we will have a separate division on amendment No. 148—and, if necessary, on the other amendments that go with it.

I am pleased to be able to contribute to a debate on this important and welcome Bill, which is long overdue. However, I have been astonished by some of the media coverage of the purpose of the amendments that I have tabled and the changes I have proposed to the Bill. The coverage in the media in the past few days has ranged from grossly inaccurate to frankly outrageous. It has been suggested that the motive behind my amendments is political correctness. I have been told by close friends among hon. Members that I am one of the most politically incorrect Members, so it is an unusual experience for me to be accused of political correctness.

I have read the article by Melanie Phillips in Monday's Daily Mail that suggested that the amendments were a deliberate attempt to destroy marriage. It states:

"Ranged behind the BAAF are the Government"—

which does not include me—

"and the moral bankrupts of the intellectual and political establishment",

which presumably does include me. That is the first time I have been accused of being an intellectual.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

What about being morally bankrupt?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I shall not respond to that intervention. The article continues:

"the interests of vulnerable children are just about the last thing under consideration here . . . It is the latest salvo in the relentless and illiberal campaign to destroy marriage as the fundamental reference point for family life and to give cohabitation equivalent status."

That paper is read by many people, and the letters and telephone calls that I have received show that one or two people are daft enough to believe that nonsense.

I wish to make my personal position clear. My concern is not to undermine marriage. I have a deeply held personal belief in marriage. I am married, and one of my great regrets is the extent of marriage breakdown and family breakdown that I have witnessed in our society. I also regret the failure of society to emphasise sufficiently the importance of marriage and the family in contributing to a decent, civilised and stable society. However, I was encouraged to hear from a Conservative Front Bencher that the number of marriages is going up under Labour. Perhaps we are moving in the right direction.

I have one simple concern and motivation in tabling the amendments, and that is the interests of the vulnerable children to whom Melanie Phillips refers in her article. Some hon. Members may be aware of my background, which is that before becoming an MP I spent nearly 20 years in local authority social work. I often worked on the approval of adoption applicants, which is a very skilled process. Indeed, I pay tribute to the work of the agencies and individuals involved in a difficult, challenging and important task. I spent many years working as a guardian ad litem on behalf of the courts. The guardian ad litem protects the specific interests of a child who is being placed for adoption. I was also, for several years, a member of the adoption panel for the Wakefield local authority that approved placements for adoption. By and large, it did so very successfully.

I come to the matter from the point of view of someone who knows about the situation of adoptive applicants. I know about the circumstances facing many children who could be adopted, and how their best interests might be served by a change in the law.

I entered the House in 1987. With my background, it was a privilege to be invited to serve on the Standing Committee considering the Bill that became the Children Act 1989. I pay tribute to the Conservative Government on their introduction of that fine piece of legislation. It succeeded because at its heart lay what was called the welfare principle—that the best interests of the child should underpin any decision relating to that child's welfare.

This Bill is a positive measure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State deserve great praise for being able to find time in a tight parliamentary timetable to put this long overdue provision on the statute book.

The Bill reflects the personal concerns of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Some two years ago I had an interesting discussion with him, and he told me that his father had been in care. I had had no idea about that, but it is clear that my right hon. Friend has some insight into the concerns of children in that situation. He has initiated what I think is a long overdue and important change in the law.

I also had the privilege, in the previous Parliament, to be Chairman of the Select Committee on Health when we conducted an inquiry into looked-after children. One of our recommendations was that there was a need to make much greater use of adoption. We also said that the law governing adoption should be reformed. That reform is contained in this Bill.

The Bill enshrines the welfare principle—the principle on which the Children Act 1989 was founded—in adoption law, but it fails in one key area. Our debate on this group of amendments is concerned with that area of failure—the fact that the Bill does not allow unmarried couples to adopt, even if a child's best interests would best be served by that. The amendments and new clauses in this group are designed to change that.

I welcome the fact that the Government have recognised that the problem exists, and I also welcome their willingness to listen. I strongly commend their decision to allow a free vote on the matter. It is exactly the sort of issue that should be left to personal conscience. Many Labour Members to whom I have spoken disagree with me on this matter, and many agree. I have talked to Conservative Members about the matter, and some of them would like to go most of the way with what I am trying to achieve. I presume, however, that they are prevented from doing so by what I understand to be a three-line Whip.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the status quo is unacceptable? At present one member of an unmarried partnership can adopt, yet the other member is left out. Surely that cannot be a basis for a permanent, loving and caring relationship with two adult carers?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

That problem is at the heart of my concerns about the way in which the Bill is drafted. My hon. Friend is right: the law permits adoption by single people and joint adoption by married couples. The prohibition of joint adoption by unmarried couples is continued by clause 47. As drafted, the Bill requires that all decisions by the relevant agencies or courts must be based on the principle that the child's welfare, throughout its life, must be the paramount consideration. However, in a small number of cases the agency or court is prevented from making the decision that is most likely to promote the child's welfare. They may be few in number, but those cases are important, and that is why I think that the Bill needs to be amended.

In practice, a small number of children—possibly as few as 1 per cent.—are placed for adoption with an unmarried couple. Alternatively, a child may be placed with its existing foster carers. There is no requirement that such carers be married, and they may wish to adopt the child. Sadly for the child, in those circumstances only one of the foster parents can in law become the adoptive parent. The other partner may acquire more limited parental responsibility for the child—for example, by being granted a residence order.

However, such orders end automatically when a child is 16, or 18 at the latest. As a result, the adoptive parent's partner will have no lasting legal family relationship with the adopted child. We have to understand the implications of that. I shall not go into detail, but questions of inheritance, pensions, insurance, and in certain circumstances even nationality, need to be considered.

Most importantly to my mind, the present arrangements also affect the child's ability to have an equal relationship with both adoptive parents. That is why I propose that unmarried couples should be allowed to apply to adopt and to be approved, where suitable and where there is clear evidence of stability and permanence in their relationship.

I emphasise those conditions, as I am concerned that we should be aware of the need for permanence in the relationship of any people applying to adopt. It is worth noting that the 1983 adoption regulations for reports to adoption panels and the 1984 adoption rules concerning reports to the courts require comments on the stability of a married couple's relationship.

I know married couples who do not have an exactly stable relationship, so it is wrong to make the automatic assumption that people who are married have a stable relationship. Sadly, in my experience, that is not always the case.

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

Does my hon. Friend agree with the editorial in The Times today? It commends his amendment, and states:

"Any couple who can demonstrate financial commitment, enduring love and domestic stability should be free to adopt."

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I have not seen that editorial, but I agree with the sentiments.

The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) expressed concern about new clause 13. The regulations and accompanying statutory guidance would require specific consideration of the duration and permanence of the relationship between the couple as part of the adopter assessment process. That is very important.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

A constituent sent me an e-mail this morning, in which he stated that he accepted the need to open up the process to include stable unmarried couples. However, he wanted to be reassured that the process would not be opened up to unstable couples. Does my hon. Friend agree that the existence of a marriage would offer a certain amount of prime facie evidence for stability, other things being equal?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Some of the most unstable people that I have met in my life have been married. Marriage does not necessarily indicate stability. However, regardless of whether we are talking about married or unmarried couples, the existence of a stable, enduring and loving relationship is crucial when it comes to adoptive applicants securing approval.

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

Will not new clause 13 make it a requirement, for the first time, that the regulations should cover inquiries into suitability? It is clearly spelled out that adoptive applicants must have a relationship that is stable and permanent, and those conditions apply to married couples, single people and unmarried couples. That requirement has not existed in previous legislation covering adoption.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

My hon. Friend is right, and I pay tribute to her for the long and hard work that she done on this measure. Her background is in social work, and she worked in my constituency some time ago.

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

I was chair of the adoption panel.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

My hon. Friend therefore knows a bit about this subject, and I appreciate her expertise and commitment.

I want to say something about the number of children who need adoption. My hon. Friend the Minister of State may have up-to-date figures on the number of children in care, but the organisation British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering has calculated that some 5,000 more adoptive families will be needed in the next year. It is worried that the Government's aim of increasing the number of children adopted from care by 40 per cent. by 2004 will need many more adoptive applicants than are evident at present.

Julie Morgan (Labour, Cardiff North)

Is my hon. Friend aware of the statement made in the media today by the director of BAAF, to the effect that the organisation can get no applicants at all to appear in its "Be My Parent" book who want to adopt boys of more than five or six years of age?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

The briefing sent by BAAF to Members refers to that point. It is worrying that many children do not have the opportunity of the loving family environment that all or most of us take for granted.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

The hon. Gentleman is giving a very good speech, although I do not necessarily agree with his conclusions. He is at least making the case for stability. It is true that six out of 10 cohabitations turn into marriage, but of those that do not, eight out of 10 break down within 10 years. Does he think that it is wise to place a child with a couple when there is a four in five chance of that relationship breaking down? Is that in the interests of the child?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

Sadly, many marriages break down within the same period. I worked with colleagues who were involved with adoptions, and sometimes the marriages broke down not long after the children were adopted, which deeply affected the children. I do not think that we can ever predict whether that will happen. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but we cannot guarantee that married people will stay together.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the difference is that an unmarried couple seeking to adopt a child would be subject to a rigorous assessment, and would need to demonstrate stability? We are not comparing like with like, so the example given by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is not appropriate.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

My hon. Friend's background, like mine, is in social work. I suspect that many Opposition Members do not have the depth of knowledge that some Labour Members who have done the job have, about the extent to which such issues are examined. It occasionally results in social workers being accused of prying into issues that they should not investigate. This has to be a thorough process, and I think that the regulations that follow what I hope will be an amended Bill will be thorough on the subject of stability and security.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I agree with some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. He said that more people needed to offer to become adoptive parents. Has he any figures to show how many people who seek to adopt and make no progress opt for out-of-country adoption? Are those figures recorded with our lists of those waiting for adoption?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I do not have those figures; the Minister may be able to offer some advice on the subject. I have deep reservations about out-of-country adoptions. I have a vivid memory of being in Romania 10 years ago in what was supposedly an orphanage. Many people from this country wanted to adopt Romanian orphans, but I found out that most of the kids surrounding me were not orphans but had families who were too poor to look after them. The message that came over loud and clear is that we need to support the countries where those youngsters come from and ensure that they can be fed and cared for by their own families. I do not have the figures but I am uneasy about the idea of inter-country adoptions without very strict regulations.

Gary Streeter (Conservative, South West Devon)

I respect the hon. Gentleman greatly for the work that he has done on this matter, although, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), I do not necessarily share his beliefs. He has done a terrific job, however, and is making a very good speech. Reference has been made to hard-to-adopt children, particularly boys of five, six and seven. What evidence does he have that if his amendment is passed into law, a queue of unmarried couples will want those hard-to-adopt children?

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

I cannot give an answer on individual cases. However, I know that BAAF and other organisations have had significant inquiries from unmarried couples. The information sent to all right hon. and hon. Members shows that during national adoption week in 1999, 10 per cent. of the inquiries received came from people who were unmarried and were actively considering adoption.

The figures discussed in Committee showing how many people cohabit rather than marry nowadays are worthy of note, too. I do not defend those figures—I have made my position clear—but the general household survey shows that in 2000, 11 per cent. of men and 12 per cent. of women between 16 and 59 were cohabiting, and 30 per cent. of women aged 18 to 49. I am told that according to the projections, in 20 years' time—no doubt this legislation will still apply then, because I suspect that, as has already been said, it will be 25 years before there is another Adoption Act, so we need to get it right—the figure for cohabiting couples will be 20 per cent., and may even be higher. Personally, I hope that marriage becomes fashionable—and under Labour, that may happen.

I want to emphasise the need for the thorough assessment that already takes place with regard to stability and long-term relationships. I believe that that can be delivered by the amended Bill and by regulation.

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentlemen who put their names to amendment (a) to amendment No. 158. I worked with them on the Health Committee, and I know their deep commitment to child welfare. However, I urge the House to oppose amendment (a). Sadly, the media interest in this debate has focused on the red herring of same-sex adoptions. Frankly, such arrangements are not my central purpose, but I believe that it could be in the interests of a particular child to be adopted by a same-sex couple, so that should not be ruled out.

I say that on the basis of the experience that I had in the late 1970s of approving, as de facto foster parents for a particular child, a lesbian couple. I had reservations and Leeds authority, which I worked for and which was in Conservative hands at the time, had very serious reservations. The decision on that placement went to the Conservative chair of the social services committee, and she agreed that the proposal was in the best interests of that child. The lady concerned is still around, and she will confirm what I say. I understand that the child was subsequently adopted by one of the women involved.

I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to remember that we are here to deal with the best interests of the child, and those should be paramount in this debate.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. There are many right hon. and hon. Members trying to contribute to the debate in a very limited time. We have had two very substantial opening speeches, and I appeal for brevity from other right hon. and hon. Members.

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on a speech that was moderation and reason itself compared with the one that we heard from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I particularly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his support for marriage as an underlying principle. It is a sad day for British politics when a Front-Bench spokesman consistently refuses to say that the best thing that a child can have is a father and mother in a stable married context. That is a great pity, and for that reason alone, I wish that we were going to vote on the hon. Gentleman's amendment first. I do not agree with it and will not support it, but I congratulate him on the very serious way in which he has tackled a difficult subject. He has raised some challenging issues.

David Rendel (Liberal Democrat, Newbury)

Does the right hon. Lady really believe that it is better for a child to be brought up in a stable relationship between a man and a woman who are constantly abusing that child than by a couple who are unmarried but who provide warmth, security and love for their children?

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

The hon. Gentleman does not even measure up to an 11-plus standard of debate.

I should like to address the very serious issues raised by the hon. Member for Wakefield. First and foremost, we should be seeking to give any child, but particularly an adoptive child who has already suffered considerable instability and may be very vulnerable, security and stability. It is only by maintaining the current law and by making it the norm that adoption is undertaken by married couples that security and stability can be achieved.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I want to make progress, as so many Members want to speak. You have asked for short contributions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall be unable to make mine short if I give way—I say that with respect, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would have made an interesting point.

In the name of security and stability, I believe that the present law should stand. I shall first consider security. Marriage brings not only privileges but legal responsibilities which, I believe, provide greater security for a child. If two people really wanted to adopt a child, and were considering the interests and security of that child, they should want to marry—unless there was an impediment. For example, unless the cohabitee is joint legal owner of the shared home, she has no rights over the property, but when a married couple split up both spouses have statutory rights over the matrimonial home.

In the short term, a cohabitee can apply for court orders allowing her—I am presuming that it would be her rather than him, although I realise that it could be the other way around—and the child to stay in the shared home for a maximum of 12 months, whereas a married parent left with the child would be given the right to live in the home until the child reached the age of 18, and would also be granted at least 50 per cent., and sometimes between 60 and 70 per cent. or more, of the matrimonial home in their own right.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I am going to make progress.

If a cohabitee lives in a home owned by the father of the child—I am presuming that the parent with care is the mother, although I accept that that is not always so—it is possible that he could sell the house from under them, as no entitlement for her to live there would be recorded at the Land Registry. Matrimonial rights over property are protected by an entry on the land register. To help provide for a child, a cohabitee can apply for an order that the other party pay a lump sum, or pay for specified items such as school fees, but for a married spouse there is a duty of financial support for the children, and the payments may be substantial.

The mother herself has no right to maintenance payments if she is a cohabitee, and that could be extremely important if she is left with a child, whereas the courts can make a wide range of financial orders for the support of a spouse in her own right—such awards are not merely dependent on the child.

Certain basic securities spring from the legal status of marriage that would not be available to protect a child in what is called an "informal relationship".

Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I am sorry. I am not being awkward; I normally give way a lot, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I am following your orders, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that you are delighted that I am doing so.

I shall now discuss stability. Statistics collected by the Office for National Statistics—not an organisation with an axe to grind—show that 8 per cent. of married couples split up in the five years following the birth of a child, and that 25 per cent. of cohabiting couples who later marry split up. However, 52 per cent. of couples who cohabited and never married split up, so the adoptive parents of a child placed in one of those arrangements would be six and a half times more likely to split up than married adoptive parents.

The consideration of those clear facts—the type of evidence that we sought and did not get for the contrary argument—leads me to believe that we are right to maintain the security and stability that marriage offers at present. It would be dishonest if I did not tell the House that I also believe that, as a society, we should continue to distinguish in favour of marriage. We should continue to recognise that marriage confers rights but also responsibilities, so I believe that it should be actively promoted by society. The hon. Member for Wakefield would probably agree.

David Hinchliffe (Labour, Wakefield)

indicated assent

Ann Widdecombe (Conservative, Maidstone and The Weald)

I cannot support the hon. Gentleman's amendment, but I again congratulate him. I do not dismiss either the passion or experience that he brings to the debate, but fundamentally I believe that it is in the interests of the child that married couples be the adoptive parents.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) who made an outstanding contribution. He gave a measured speech that encapsulated the feelings of many hon. Members.

During the Special Standing Committee, we heard evidence from 30 professional organisations. The gathering of evidence from expert witnesses was certainly the best way of ensuring that the legislation was right. As several hon. Members have pointed out, we only introduce such legislation once in a generation and considerable efforts have been made on both sides of the House to get it right.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the current legislation is deficient. We asked all those 30 professional witnesses, representing various organisations, whether they agreed with the proposals that are now set out in my hon. Friend's amendment—I tabled a similar amendment in Committee. Twenty-nine of the witnesses agreed that we should widen the pool, especially if we are to reach the 40 per cent. increase that we all want. We all believe that adoption offers the best opportunity for stability for children.

There is a hierarchy involved. The optimum is a married couple—a mother and a father. That is first and foremost. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) referred to the number of boys who were included in the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering "Be My Parent" booklet and pointed out how few inquiries were made about them. That is true for many, many children. At present, the pool is not wide enough so we must widen it.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I want to speak only for a short while.

We need to face the situation that I have described not only for the present but for future generations. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) asked how many more adoptive parents there might be: we do not know. At present, unmarried couples are unable to adopt, so it is wrong to compare—

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I shall give way in a moment.

It is wrong to compare the breakdown rates of cohabiting couples, who are not subject to the rigorous assessments for adoption, with those of unmarried couples who might become prospective adopters. We need to dispel the general argument put by those who oppose my hon. Friend's proposals.

The key point about such legislation—whether on adoption or child protection—is that we consider it only once in a generation, so we need to ensure that we do the best we can. Are we doing the best that we can for children who want to be adopted?

I was a social worker for more than a decade. We had permanent adoption plans for many children, but there was not a big enough pool of adoptive parents for them. When I visited such children, they would ask whether I had found them a permanent family: "Have you found me a mummy and a daddy?" I had to say, "Not yet". I had to keep saying, "Not yet, not yet".

I do not know whether the provision will change that. I do not know whether it will mean that social workers will be able to assess more adoptive families, but I believe that it is worth trying. It is certainly worth trying to ensure that we can widen the pool.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Has the hon. Gentleman any evidence for the assertion that a tremendous number of cohabiting couples want to adopt? The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering claims that

"some adoption agencies process an adoption as if it is by a single person when in fact the person is cohabiting."

That organisation commissioned Cardiff university to carry out a study of almost 2,000 adoptions, in which it

"did not record any adoptions by a cohabiting couple."

I am afraid that any evidence. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) not listen to the first point that I made? Some agencies deliberately flout the law and process an application

"as if it is by a single person when in fact the person is cohabiting."

Not one of the 2,000 people in the Cardiff study was cohabiting. Where is the evidence to show that great numbers of cohabiting people want to adopt?

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

If there is evidence of people flouting the law, people should pass it on to the proper authorities, but we took evidence from 30 professional agencies and witnesses from different spectrums of child care. They were not all of one type; there was a whole variety of people. When we asked, 29 of them agreed with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and said that we need to do the best that we can.

There is no assertion that scores and scores of unmarried couples want to adopt, but such an amendment would increase the pool. There is no pure equation, but we have to deal with such things in child care. We have to put our hands on our hearts and say that we will do the best that we can. We have to take a view of the world that we live in. I believe that, to increase the number of children being adopted, we should support amendment No. 158, and I commend it to the House.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

It seems a long time ago that a small number of hon. Members and I raised precisely this issue on Second Reading. At that time, those on the Front Benches ducked the issue. On this occasion, they have half ducked it, but it is important that, as the Secretary of State for Health said at the time, we have a debate and that the House decides. I do not normally comment on how the usual channels work and how the whipping goes on such things, but this is very much the sort of issue on which hon. Members, from their own experience, are best able to form a judgment. Things would be better done that way, rather than through the medium of a whipped vote.

I am pleased to follow, among others, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) because, as he rightly said, I was a member of the Select Committee on Health under his chairmanship, when it considered children looked after by local authorities. Indeed, we recommended reform of adoption law. That reform was overdue then, and it is very welcome now.

I do not repeat what has been said, not least by the hon. Member for Wakefield, with whom I very substantially agree—I shall come on to where and why we disagree—but I want to encourage colleagues, particularly on this side of the House, not to think about this issue as though, by resisting the hon. Gentleman's amendments, we can roll the world back to a situation where the only people who want to be adoptive parents are married couples, or where they would come forward in sufficient numbers, notwithstanding the improvements and reductions in delay that may occur as a consequence of the Bill.

Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), let us construct the argument around the best interests of children based on what happens now, not on the proposition that there is an additional pool of prospective adopters—although I happen to agree that there would be some additional potential adoptive parents as a result of allowing unmarried couples to adopt. About 6 per cent. of those who adopt now are single. Overwhelmingly, they are in cohabiting relationships and are unmarried couples—heterosexuals in the great majority.

So the question is what is in the best interests of the child where those couples are concerned. Having established to the satisfaction of the relevant agencies and the courts that one person in that relationship is the best person to adopt the child, is it in the best interests of the child for the other person in that relationship not to have a long-term, lasting legal relationship with that child? That is not in the best interests of the child.

Conservative Members have established that, if there is a hierarchy of the best interests of the child, it is that a child should be brought up by a mother and a father, first, in a married relationship, or, if there is not a married relationship, an enduring, loving relationship. That seems to be the best way to proceed. If children are to be placed for adoption with a couple—a mother and a father—but the current constraints of the law provide that only one of those two parents can have the legal relationship with the child, that is not in the best interests of the child.

It would be advantageous to free up the possibility for couples to adopt, even though they are unmarried. The evidence that I have seen so far from our inquiry and from talking to directors of social services and others in my constituency and elsewhere and from the adoption agencies makes it perfectly clear that a number of potential parents who are unmarried have their own reasons for not wanting to marry.

Should we see the Bill as some form of social engineering? Is it designed to try to force people to marry in order to become adoptive parents? I think that we should conclude that people should marry if they love one another and if they want to show that to society at large by using that form of relationship. If we do not take that view—I am sorry to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—would we really saying that the increasing number of people in our society who have natural children and who, as a couple, do not marry are in some way not considering the best interests of their children? They have their reasons.

It is not for us to try to use adoption legislation, which should be designed around the best interests of the child, as a mechanism to effect a change in social circumstances in society at large, still less to try to go back to a different time. Many couples have their own many and varied reasons for not marrying. In some cases they face impediments to marriage. There may not be legal impediments, but there could be religious reasons and so on, which make things very difficult.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because he is the chairman of the all-party group on children and young people in care.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I follow his logic entirely and share his views on social engineering. Do not his arguments apply equally to same-sex couples?

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman takes me precisely to my next point. Thus far I have agreed with the hon. Member for Wakefield, and my purpose in speaking is not least to say that, if the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) were to be passed, I would want to press amendment No. 24, which is designed to define unmarried couples for this purpose as a man and a woman living together. However, if the hon. Gentleman's amendment is not passed, and amendment No. 148 and the consequential amendments associated with it were passed, I would want to press amendment No. 158(a), which is designed to remove same-sex couples from the definition of couples for this purpose.

My understanding—you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is that the Division on amendment No. 158 will take place not now but on Monday, but we must make the argument now. I hope that hon. Members will understand that we can debate same-sex couples today, but we shall have to vote on Monday. I hope that, on Monday, having indicated that they are prepared to allow unmarried couples to adopt, hon. Members will not, for the reasons that I have explained, extend that to same-sex couples.

Some of the arguments that I have presented are exactly the same as those that Stonewall has put to me. I have great respect for its arguments and we have had some interesting discussions, but we have not reached the same conclusions. Stonewall says that if a child is placed for adoption with a couple who happen to be of the same sex, why should not both partners in that relationship have a long-term, lasting legal relationship? My purpose in speaking to the amendment is not perhaps the same as that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), whose view may be shared by other Opposition Members. Their view is that they would not wish children to be placed for adoption with a gay person in a gay relationship. That does happen—I am working on the basis of what happens now. On Second Reading, I noted—I probably did not refer to it—that last year's October issue of Be My Parent illustrated, at length, precisely such a relationship: a lesbian couple who had adopted, over time, four children. I hope that that is successful; I cannot say anything more than was set out in that newspaper.

This is the issue: why should we go on to create, for gay couples, a legal relationship that would not apply in a natural birth family? As a consequence of allowing unmarried couples to adopt, we will create, as one would normally expect, a legal mother and a legal father. As a consequence of the hon. Member for Wakefield's amendment, were it not amended as I propose, we would create two legal mothers or two legal fathers. Some other parts of legislation work on the basis of parents, but I am not persuaded that we have yet reached the point at which all our legislation should treat all parenting as wholly non-gender-specific.

I accept that there is a degree to which the parenting skill often crosses gender. Some fathers are better at being mothers to their children and some mothers are better at being fathers. By and large, however, most of our legislation, although it may be written in terms of parenting, is understood in terms of the respective responsibilities of mothers and fathers. There tends to be an understanding of how parenting works in that relationship. We should consider very carefully whether to take the novel step of creating two legal mothers or two legal fathers, especially when the provision may be used more often to assist the lesbian partner of someone who has given birth to a child through donor insemination than it ever will be to assist gay couples to adopt children, who may often be older or severely disabled and for whom there is a significant lack of adoptive parents.

Nick Palmer (Labour, Broxtowe)

Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the arguments that he advanced for the deficiency of an arrangement in which one partner is the legal adoptive parent and the other is not also apply to a gay relationship? How confident is he that his amendment is compatible with the European convention on human rights.

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

I shall make two points in that regard.

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has been listening to me carefully, as the essence of my argument is that, although I accept the case in respect of unmarried couples, we would create a whole new legal situation in relation to gay couples. It is not therefore directly comparable with the situation for unmarried couples, so we should not necessarily read across.

On the European convention on human rights, the case of Frette v. France gave effectively a margin of appreciation to the French Government not to allow a gay man to adopt. I think that that was wrong, and that it was probably incompatible with convention rights.

My amendment proposes that we do not create in UK legislation at this stage a possibility for there to be two legal mothers at the same time through gay adoption. I suspect that the European Court of Human Rights, were it to consider the matter, would allow at least that margin of appreciation, as we are not precluding gay adoption. Everyone has made that clear—gay adoption happens now. It was established in a case in Scotland, which points to exactly the situation in which gay adoption is most likely to happen.

In the Scottish case, which established the principle, a nurse who had substantial experience of dealing with a child who had severe disabilities was able to adopt that child. Circumstances therefore exist in which gay adoption happens, and in which it may be in the best interests of the child. As a consequence of that, circumstances exist in which the partner in that gay relationship may seek a joint residence order. A joint residence order may not be all that gay partners want in such a relationship, but it is sufficient for the time being, while we think carefully about the consequences of trying to establish the proposition that one can have two legal mothers or two legal fathers rather than what we have understood to be the case up to now—that we should have parents, which, in British law, implies a mother and a father.

For that reason, I shall vote for the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Wakefield—I hope that my colleagues will follow me—but I hope that he will understand if, on Monday, I seek to amend it.

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

I shall be brief, because I believe that much has already been said in this debate, and I commend hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which this issue is being discussed.

One of the problems with adoption is that we tend to approach the issue as we would that of two people having a natural child. Years ago, that was perhaps how adoption was most frequently seen—a couple who were unable to have their own children would seek to adopt a child from somebody who could not keep a child. We are now in a very different situation, in which most children who are adopted come through the care system, most are older children, and most have experienced some form of abuse and are likely to have significant emotional problems.

Today, adoption is about looking for families for children. Nowadays, in our society, families come in many types. In my view, we should not rule out any adult who, after rigorous assessment, is thought to be able to offer a loving, lifelong relationship to a child. We have heard a lot about what is considered the ideal, and about what our ideal would be were we to have children, but that is not what we are talking about. The ideal would be to have enough adoptive parents for all the children who currently seek adoptive families and for all the children whom we would like to seek adoptive families.

That is not the situation. In fact, there are more children awaiting adoption than there are adoptive parents. It is nothing short of political correctness to rule out unmarried couples whether of different sexes or the same sex. To suggest, as did the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), that it is okay for one person to adopt is wrong—we will be creating new legal relationships whether in relation to unmarried couples of different sexes or unmarried couples of the same sex. Indeed, it was those very technical and complex legal difficulties that delayed consideration of these amendments in Committee, as the Minister said, so I do not accept the arguments of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire.

We must ensure that the needs of children are put first.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The hon. Lady says that we must ensure that the needs of children are put first, and the whole House shares that concern. Does she appreciate that not all types of family are equally likely to be stable? While she is right that there are many types of families, they are not all likely to offer the adopted child the same level of security, stability and consistency.

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

I entirely accept that not all families are equally stable, but I reject the idea that certain types of family are less stable. We are talking about individual children being placed in individual family homes. Adoption panels and social workers spend a great deal of time trying to match children with people who can meet their needs.

I have been involved in placing children in same-sex couples. The process was particularly interesting and that was not because I found that those couples were very different from heterosexual couples. As hon. Members know, a rigorous assessment takes place. There is a full report—sometimes, it is considered to be too intrusive. I have read literally hundreds of those reports. One reads about people's life experience, childhood, work, relationships, what they do at the weekend and their experience with children. The few reports that I have read on same-sex couples struck me because they were extraordinarily ordinary. Their lives are the same as everyone else's.

Couples who are offering a home to children are focused on exactly that. They want to have children in their lives.

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

I read an article in an American newspaper some two months ago about a young child who was seriously ill and not expected to live and who had been adopted by a same-sex couple. Eventually, the child prospered. When the child reached the age of 10, the authorities decided that it should no longer be fostered but should be adopted. Under the law in that state—Florida—the authorities were not allowed to place the child with a same-sex couple. Legally, they had to take the child from the couple who had raised it since it was very young and place it with a different family.

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

Clearly, in my hon. Friend's example the needs of the child were not properly considered. That has to be the bottom line. We do not have enough adults who want to adopt. We do not have enough people offering families. We have to widen the pool and look to the future by saying that anyone who can offer the love, care and stability that children in care need should be approved and enabled to look after a child.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

I approach this subject in the light of my experience as Secretary of State for Social Security, when it became clear to me, in terms of social problems, that children who had had the advantage of adoption tended to do as well if not better than average, whereas those who remained in care did far worse than average. Four times as many were unemployed. They were 12 times as likely to have no educational qualifications, 40 times as likely to go to prison, 60 times as likely to be roofless and 66 times as likely to have children who had to go into care, thus perpetuating the process.

I start from a presumption that we should encourage more and speedier adoption. When the British Agencies for Adopting and Fostering wrote to me, saying

"it does not make sense to exclude a significant proportion of the adult population from consideration"

for adopting children, I was inclined to agree. I started from the position expressed by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), which was also described very lucidly by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw). Although marriage is undoubtedly preferable—the ideal is that children should be brought up in a loving, married family—if there are not enough loving, married families to go around, in principle I would be prepared to widen the scope. After all, we allow children in care to be brought up by people who may be married or single, cohabiting or not, homosexual or otherwise.

I agree with the BAAF that it would not make sense to exclude a significant proportion of the adult population from consideration for adoption. However, no one is, in fact, excluded. Under present law, no one is legally excluded from consideration for adoption: one may be married or unmarried, cohabiting or single, gay or lesbian, young or old, or black or white: one is legally entitled to adopt. Last year, 300 single people adopted children—about 6 per cent. of the total number adopting. I do not believe that the change proposed will increase by one person the number of people with the right to adopt. The numbers argument is therefore bogus.

Having vaguely acknowledged the situation, but without making it clear, BAAF went on to say:

"BAAF research shows that many unmarried couples do not come forward for this reason"—

namely, that they cannot adopt collectively as a couple; they can only adopt if one of them acts as sole legal adoptive parent. I phoned BAAF to ask for the evidence and spoke to Mrs. Felicity Collier, the chief executive of the organisation, who wrote the letter. She said that there was no evidence to that effect as such. In the letter, she was referring to a study of 500 parents during national adoption week. At the beginning of the sample, 15 per cent. were unwed; at the end, only 8 per cent. of those who carried it through to close to completion were unmarried. A disproportionate number of unmarried people had dropped out, but they were not asked why. No information was gathered on that.

So the assertion in the letter was not backed up by evidence. Indeed, no hon. Member has produced evidence today to support the idea that a significant number of people are put off adopting by the legal situation. It is certainly the case that no one is legally excluded from adopting.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

I said that we do not know whether there is a large pool. We have to make an assessment, and that is based on what we know—on how society is shaped. We also take account of those people who provide adoptive placements for children. Some 29 of the 30 agencies agreed with the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe).

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

The hon. Gentleman is honest enough to admit that there is no evidence. I am referring to a lobbying body that is pre-eminent in adoption. It wrote to me pretending that there is evidence, which, on closer inspection, does not exist. Why Mrs. Collier, who seemed nice and honest, should put her name to such a tendentious letter, I do not know.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

I am sorry, but I must continue, for the reasons made clear by other hon. Members.

There seems to be an agenda to raise the importance of rights above responsibilities—to equate cohabitation with marriage and homosexual relations with heterosexual relations. To some extent, children are being used as pawns in that game. I accept that it would be equally wrong to use children as pawns or a bait for marriage. I am not saying that I believe we should legislate to provide the incentive to marry that only married people can adopt. That is not the reason for our approach. What matters is that we act in the interests of children—not in the interests of married couples, unmarried couples, gay people, elderly people or younger people.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

rose—

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

rose—

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

I will not give way, for the reason that I gave.

The practical effect of the change will not be to bring about a significant increase in the number of people who apply to adopt. What it will do is raise the priority given to unmarried parents and reduce the questions that are asked about whether their relationship is likely to be as stable as a married relationship.

We know that overall there is a surplus of parents who want to adopt relative to the number of children. It is babies that are in short supply. What we need are more parents who are willing to adopt not the babies but the children who are harder to adopt. They are the most vulnerable children. They have the greatest difficulties and are in most need of stable relationships and a secure environment. In practice, I do not think that many of those 300 or so who have come forward to adopt and who are not married are particularly likely disproportionately to take on those children who are so hard to place.

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

They do.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

I said, "particularly likely." I am not saying there are no examples of that happening, but those couples are likely to displace married couples from applications to adopt and reduce their priority when it comes to adopting babies. That is likely to be the major consequence of the proposed change.

It has been asked whether Conservative Members are saying that the unmarried are automatically unstable and unlikely to remain together, and so on. In fact, we are talking about statistics. The House will be given statistics showing the frequency with which unmarried couples break up as against married couples. These are statistics, and the differences can be felt. There will be unmarried couples who live together peacefully, harmoniously and lovingly all their lives. There will be unmarried couples who are as committed as any married couple. Indeed, from a theological point of view, in the sight of God they are married, because marriage is the commitment and not the public institutionalisation of it. Unfortunately, I do not have the insight of God—none of us has—and so I do not know who is committed and who is not. It is simply more difficult to know if people will not make the commitment public and declare it through the institution of marriage.

That is the difficulty and the problem. We are asking social workers to assess which of the comparative minority among unmarried couples are every bit as committed, as stable, as permanent and as long term as the average marriage. Of course, some of the wedded couples will break up: some are not committed and should be excluded. If they can be identified ex ante they should be excluded from adoption, although that is difficult.

It is surely foolish for us to write it into the law that consideration should be effectively uninfluenced by whether or not people make a public commitment to the responsibilities that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) spelled out as being part of marriage and the commitment that is an intrinsic part of it too.

Children are not trophies to whom anyone has the right. Children are not and should not be tools of social engineering, either by those who pursue a politically correct agenda or by those of us who believe in marriage. The children we are talking about are the most vulnerable, and have the greatest difficulties if they are not satisfactorily adopted. We should be seeking the best for them, and not the best for parents.

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

I am a married man and I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I believe also that it is vital as part of the social infrastructure of modern society. I am the father of three young children. I am grateful beyond words that they are brought up in a loving, stable family environment. I also happen to be a Christian. It is because I am a Christian who believes in the family that I strongly support the amendments, whereby non-married couples, including same-sex couples, will be able to adopt children.

In the shifting values of modern times, there are few, if any, absolute values on which all of us agree. However, one value that comes closer than many to achieving that consensus is, I suggest, the imperative to love and cherish children. It is not only a biblical imperative. It is one that is shared by those of all faiths and of none—people who believe, like me, that the interests and needs of children are paramount and that they should always come first.

If we hold that view, it would seem that our duties today in this place are clear. First, we must examine the evidence to ascertain whether the interests of children are currently being put first. Secondly, if they are not, we must decide what needs to be done in the real world in which children live to ensure that that is remedied. Thirdly, we must decide for ourselves whether that requires statutory expression through the amendments. I shall look at those three questions in turn.

First, it is clear that children are not being put first. There are thousands of vulnerable children who are either in care or in need of care. Many of these children are fostered. Many will return to their natural family in due course, albeit sometimes under supervision and protection. Many others—especially older children, disabled children and hard-to-place children—will not find long-term foster families and will not return home. They are the lost children of the modern age. For them, there may be three possibilities: the street, institutionalised care homes or adoption.

Secondly, in the real world, which is the best of the three options if we are to protect children and put their interests first? It must surely be by protecting them from the street, by taking them out of institutionalised residential care, and by placing them whenever possible in long-term loving family environments, with families who are equipped to give them the care, love and support that they need. That must mean adoption on a scale which, at present, we are not achieving; we have to find about 5,000 more adoptive families every year if we are to find homes for those lost children.

Thirdly, we have to ask ourselves whether there is anything that we can and should do as parliamentarians to meet that need by passing legislation or amendments to it. Current legislation restricts the pool of adoptive families; married couples can adopt, as can single people, whether gay or straight, but unmarried couples cannot. It does not matter how long people have been in such a relationship; it does not matter how skilled and loving those people would be, or perhaps already are, as parents; it does not matter how many children are lost and whose lives are wasted in residential institutions, when they need loving homes; and it does not matter how desperate those children are. None of that matters; unmarried couples cannot adopt.

In a time of great need for more adoptive families, it is absurd that, by legislation, we are denying a pool of adoptive families who could clearly make a significant contribution any chance of adoption. No one is arguing for a lowering of the rigorous thresholds by which the suitability of adoptive parents is judged. We are talking only about adoptive parents independently judged by the adoption agencies and the courts as having the capacity and commitment to be safe and effective parents. How can it be right to preserve the legislative status quo, thereby ignoring the opportunity offered by that pool of adoptive families? There is no justification whatever for doing so.

We live in an imperfect world, in which we must do the best that we can to make things a little bit better; we should not strive for perfection or the impossible, as that would mean achieving nothing. Countless marriages end in divorce; indeed, that is one reason why we need more adoption. Many people choose not to marry again and many choose never to marry at all, but numerous people seek loving permanent relationships outside marriage. We may not like it, but it happens; that is the world in which we live. To cut all those people off from the pool of adoptive families—however decent and loving and however secure and stable their relationship may be—is to cut massively and arbitrarily the supply of loving parents who could meet the needs of children.

How can it be right to allow children to remain in care when they could be in loving, caring families instead? If children who need care can be adopted by a loving single parent, how can it be right that they cannot be adopted by a loving couple? After all, if one mum or one dad is better than none, two must surely be as acceptable as one.

It is argued that allowing unmarried couples to adopt would demean the institution of marriage: I disagree, because the needs of the child should come first. Any argument that sacrifices the needs of the child to any other public interest, even protecting the ideal of marriage, is misguided. It subverts one moral value, the protection of children, and sacrifices it to another, the protection of the ideal of marriage, which is less realisable and important.

Protecting that ideal is less realisable than the interests of the child in care, at least from a parliamentary perspective, because while Parliament can vote to enable a child to have a better chance of finding an adoptive family, we can never vote or legislate to make people marry, or keep married couples and families together.

From a legislative perspective, protecting the ideal of marriage is also less important than protecting the interests of the child, because in any modern democracy we must legislative for everyone. As a Christian, I have a personal view of marriage and believe in its sanctity. I believe that it is a sacrament. I believe that it has spiritual and religious importance, but there are others who do not share my faith, and in our democracy, they have rights too.

I know people who genuinely believe in monogamous partnerships and who believe that that is the natural way of things, but they do not believe that marriage itself is natural. They believe that it is a man-made concept, a religious concept, a social construct of no relevance to them. In a democracy, they have rights too.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

rose—

Paul Stinchcombe (Labour, Wellingborough)

There are also those who do share my belief in marriage but who find, no matter how hard they try in their own marriage, that they fail and that their marriage does not last. They have rights too, even if they do not remarry. Those rights surely extend far enough to include the right to offer to help to meet the needs of children in care by offering to be adoptive parents to them.

I do not, however, rest my case on the rights of the parent. I rest my case on the rights of the child. The child has rights too—the right to a family, the right to be loved by a family, and the right to be looked after by a family, even if that family unit does not match our ideal. We, in this House, should not sit in moral judgment over families, nor should we stand in the way of the rights of those children being met, for reasons of political or religious correctness or out of idealism.

We must strike a balance. We have an ideal, not universally shared and not realisable by Parliament. Against that ideal, we can weigh thousands of damaged, lonely, unloved, abandoned children, currently kept in care and kept out of families, when we might be able to find them a loving home. For me, that balance can yield only one result: the children must come first.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I shall speak to the generality of the amendments—

Patrick Cormack (Conservative, South Staffordshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to take the time of the House or of my hon. Friend, but would you please convey to Mr. Speaker that the timetable that the House has been constrained to follow has prevented a proper debate on both sides of the House and on all sides of the argument?

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Speaker has nothing to do with the timetables that are presented to the House.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I have great sympathy with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), but I shall try again to summarise the debate. I shall speak to the generality of the amendments and explain why the official Opposition will not be supporting them and why I shall advise hon. Members to vote against them.

The subject under discussion has dominated the Bill for far too long—a Bill that has 137 clauses and six schedules and is packed full of many other issues. It is those issues to which I shall direct attention.

Although the debate has been curtailed, it has been interesting. We have had some excellent contributions from all speakers—certainly as soon as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) sat down. It was an extraordinary revelation from a political party—the admission that a mother and father figure just happen to be, but are not exclusively, the best bet that children can have. It is astonishing that that is official Liberal Democrat policy.

We heard interesting contributions about the legal implications, moral agendas, legal rights, equality of opportunity and even reverse political correctness. However, I am not interested in any of that as regards creating a better system for adoption and adopted children, and for expanding that system, which is the subject of the Bill. That is what should concern us today, and what has concerned some of us for the past six months, since the Bill started its passage through Parliament. We have strongly supported the Bill throughout, and I have become closely involved with the subject of adoption and scrutinising the Bill.

Two over-riding considerations lie at the heart of our deliberations. The first is set out in clause 1(2), which states:

"The paramount consideration of the court or adoption agency must be the child's welfare, throughout his life".

The second consideration is whether the changes proposed will improve and expand the system of adoption in this country, and thereby heighten the chances of making clause 1 a reality for more children. That is what we are here to discuss today—nothing else. Now is not the time for political agendas, for promoting gay rights agendas, or even for promoting the moral basis for the desirability of marriage. In that I agree with the comment in The Guardian editorial on 14 March when it said:

"Adoption should not be used as a means of promoting marriage; it is children's interests which should be paramount."

By the same token, neither should adoption be used as a means of promoting alternative lifestyles and equal opportunities for adults, as I fear increasingly it has become. In the context of this Bill, the only equal opportunity that I am interested in is the equal opportunity of a child who ends up in care as a result of a broken home, domestic violence or sexual abuse, or because their parents are unable to cope, often after a catalogue of personal tragedies and multiple upheavals.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I will not for the moment.

Our agenda here must be the equal opportunity of those damaged children to have a second chance to repair their lives and to be brought up in as stable, loving and fulfilling a family environment as possible to give them as fair a chance as the rest of us when they go out into the wide world outside.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I apologise, but I want to make progress.

Over recent months, many of us have been heavily lobbied on the Bill by all manner of Christian family organisations and the politically correct social worker brigade. I, like most hon. Members who have spoken today, may have strong views on those subjects on either side, but the Bill is not the means to promote them.

We have already wasted far too much time in delaying the Bill since its Committee stage ended some four months ago. We all know that it is because of the debate that has been raging between No. 10 and the rest of the Government over the issue of extending adoption to unmarried couples, which has, temporarily at least, been resolved by a free vote on the Government side, which is perfectly legitimate. But it should not have taken four months. This is desperately needed legislation that we needed yesterday, not tomorrow.

One interesting point about today's debate is its attendance. When we started the Bill's Report stage on 20 March only a handful of Members were here, mostly those who had served on the Committee. When we spoke about much more important issues earlier today, again few Members were here. Yet those issues have far more serious implications for making adoption work. Media coverage, too, has been purely on the unmarrieds issue. Yet today and on Monday we are debating much bigger issues, such as domestic violence involving children, matters of consent, procedures for overseas adoptions and contact orders.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I said that I wanted to make some progress.

We are now told that the Liberals were not due to be whipped to be here at all on Monday. They are interested only in the gay rights agenda as part of the Bill, which is disgraceful.

It is interesting that the BBC, which has been ringing round the expert adoption agencies asking specifically how many complaints they have received from unmarried couples who find that they are unable to adopt jointly, was rather surprised when it reached about the seventh of those adoption agencies to be told that it had not had any complaints about unmarried adoption, to which the BBC said that, funnily enough, nor had anybody else. That follows the findings in the Government's 2000 White Paper "Adoption: A New Approach" which listed the 10 main problems to overcome to improve adoption, including delays in the system, inconsistencies in the law and insufficient social worker training, but no mention of the marital status or otherwise of prospective adopters.

Despite this interesting debate, we shall urge hon. Members on both sides to vote against the amendments and to maintain the status quo, because this issue is a sideshow compared with the real concerns of promoting and improving adoption. All the research, all the statistics and all the sociological evidence show that a family that contains a married couple offers the best chance of providing a long-term stable environment for children in need of adoption.

Many may argue that long-term stable environments can also be offered by unmarried couples, whether of the opposite sex or the same sex. I am not arguing against that point here. But no one can refute the evidence that shows that married couples offer the best chances, in most cases by a long measure. Of course, it is not exclusively so and many problems still happen within those married families, as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and others have mentioned. But overall the record is much better.

Let me quote something.

"Children in my judgment, and I think it's the judgment of almost everyone including single parents, are best brought up where you have two natural parents in a stable relationship. There's no question about that. What we know from the evidence is that, generally speaking, that stability is more likely to occur where the parents are married than where they're not."

Those were the words of the Foreign Secretary when he was Home Secretary in 1998. I quote:

"Marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority of people in Britain."

That is from the Government's 1998 Green Paper.

I quote:

"The adoption law review, when considering this issue, concluded that joint adoption should remain limited to married couples on the grounds that adoption by a married couple was more likely to provide the stability and security that the child needed because married couples have made a joint, publicly recognised, legal commitment to each other. In addition, marriage provides for mutual legal and financial obligations, and importantly in the event of divorce, the couple must be prepared to have plans for the future of their children scrutinised by the courts. There is no provision in law to protect the child's interests when unmarried couples separate."

Those were the words of the Minister herself. Currently, 95 per cent. of adoptions are by married people. Seventy per cent. of children born within marriage will live their entire childhood with both natural parents, compared with 36 per cent. of children born to non-married couples. According to the Office for National Statistics, children brought up by married couples are statistically far more likely to have better health, to do better at school, to have fewer behavioural problems and to be less likely to commit a criminal offence.

Jonathan R Shaw (Labour, Chatham and Aylesford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I will not.

By contrast, cohabiting couples are six times more likely to split up than married couples, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, more than half of cohabiting couples split up within five years of the birth of a child. They split up most often when they have children. The statistics go on and on. The figures show that gay relationships are more transitory still. Married couples offer by far the best long-term chances of stability, statistically and sociologically, and that is what we should be concentrating on. We must make it much easier and quicker for married couples to adopt, which is what the rest of the Bill is all about.

Marriage is on the increase. In 2000, there were 263,515 marriages. About 22 million marriages currently exist. So if we want to increase the current 3,000 adoptees by at least 50 per cent., as we all do, there is plenty of scope in the existing material, and we need to concentrate on why more such people are not coming forward or being approved as adopters.

All the amendments—apart from amendment No. 24, which is different—miss the point. They would open up adoption to any manner of pick-and-mix couples, including heterosexual cohabitees—even brother and sister—and same-sex couples, who have the worst record statistically.

New clause 2 also has serious technical problems. How do we define whether people are in a stable relationship? The amendments would create a mess. They would also send out the wrong signals to local authorities, which might present the courts with more unmarried couples instead of concentrating on maximising the availability of existing married couples, against whom there has been too much obstruction from the political correctness brigade in the past.

We are spending all this time discussing amendments that tackle the wrong problem. In any case, keeping the status quo means that single parent adoptions, which currently constitute 5 per cent. of all adoptions, can still continue. We are not seeking to change that situation. Unmarried couples wanting to adopt have the solution in their own hands—they can commit to each other in a long-term relationship by getting married. I quote:

"Why would a cohabiting couple not see—not necessarily in church, but under the law—defining their relationship in terms of a more public, legal contract as being a precursor to actually adopting a child?"

Those are the words of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint).

No one has a right to adopt, but every abandoned child or child in care has a right to get a second chance of a stable and loving upbringing. Yet I fear that too many Members here today who are interested in this part of the Bill are in danger of putting the interests of adults ahead of those of children. I fear that this part of the Bill is in danger of being manipulated to serve a different agenda that is all about the wishes of adults. I invite all hon. Members to join us in the Lobby to vote against all the amendments that open up adoption without qualification and to put the interests of children first. I invite the Liberals in particular to put aside their whipped agenda for gay rights and to concentrate on what is best for children by voting with us.

To do so is not to be anti-gay or pro-marriage—for marriage is safe—but to be for the best interests of children. I ask hon. Members to put aside political agendas, moral crusades and issues of equal opportunity, deserving as those may be in a different context. The only equal rights that we should be concerned with in the context of the Bill are those of damaged children to a second chance of a stable and loving upbringing. That is best achieved by keeping the status quo and considering all the other ways of improving and expanding the whole adoption system, which is what the rest of this large Bill is intended to do. We should be getting on with that.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State suggested that there should be a debate on adoption by unmarried couples. A good debate on the subject has taken place today, with hon. Members expressing well thought-out and deeply held views. During the Bill's passage, and especially in the consultative Special Standing Committee, we received many representations. We know that the issue is sensitive and difficult. Given the variety of views, the Government have decided to allow a free vote on extending eligibility to apply to adopt jointly. I am disappointed that other parties have not seen fit to do the same.

I should like to comment on the detail of the amendments. Amendments Nos. 148 to 158 and new clause 13, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) tabled, would, for the first time, allow unmarried couples to apply jointly to adopt children. Hon. Members have understandably concentrated on principles. As a Minister, I am afraid that I have to concentrate not only on principles but on whether the legislation will work.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

Will the Minister give way?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

No.

Amendments Nos. 148 to 158 and new clause 13 would effect what hon. Members want in a way that is legally sensible and confines the definition of a couple to the Bill. The amendment that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) tabled would not achieve that. Clauses 47 and 48 define who is eligible to adopt. Amendments Nos. 148 to 155 would make the necessary changes, and amendment No. 158 would define a couple. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will withdraw the amendment. It would not achieve his intention but create considerable difficulties if hon. Members wanted to accept joint adoption by unmarried couples.

As many hon. Members have said, the amendments would widen the pool of potential adoptive parents so that more vulnerable children have the chance of family life that adoption can bring. Evidence shows that there is a potential supply of couples who are willing to adopt. British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering has evidence showing 41 per cent. of unmarried couples expressing an interest in adopting jointly. However, as other hon. Members have pointed out, only 5 per cent. of adoptions are currently not by married couples. That suggests that there may be a supply of adoptive parents out there.

As hon. Members have made clear, one of the key criteria for our decision must be whether we believe that we can increase opportunities for children to be adopted into stable and secure families. There appears to be evidence that we could widen the pool of potential adopters.

Jon Owen Jones (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff Central)

Will my hon. Friend help me to understand why an unmarried couple would refuse to marry if they genuinely wanted to adopt?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I believe that there are many reasons, as several hon. Members suggested. We do not need to worry about that today. We should consider whether to increase the pool of adopters and how to promote the stability and security that many hon. Members have discussed.

Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)

I very much hope that the hon. Lady, on behalf of the Government, will now provide leadership and advice to the House. That is her duty as a Minister. Will she please confirm that she still believes the statement that she made very firmly in Committee in November 2001? In it, she said:

"joint adoption should remain limited to married couples on the grounds that adoption by a married couple was more likely to provide the stability and security that the child needed because married couples have made a joint, publicly recognised, legal commitment to each other."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 29 November 2001; c. 383.]

Will she repeat that statement today?

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

I will repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said in Committee about the Government believing that there was scope for looking at unmarried couples being able to adopt and taking that forward through the partnership registration work that the Government were undertaking. There is nothing inconsistent in my position today.

We need to be clear about the basis of this argument. A vote for the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield is not a vote to extend the right to adopt to unmarried people or to gay people. They already have that right. The existing legal framework for adoption already provides that single people may adopt regardless of their sex or sexual orientation; only married couples can adopt jointly. If a single person is living as part of a couple, the couple will be assessed jointly. One person will then adopt the child, and the other may acquire parental responsibility for the child by means of a residence order. This is not, therefore, about extending the right to adopt to gay people or unmarried people. Furthermore, if any hon. Members really opposed those ideas, they should, at some point during the passage of the Bill, have made their position clear. Nobody has done so.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) in his very considered speech, argued the case for stability for the child and the importance of the legal relationship that that child has with each of his parents. In the current legal framework, the child is missing having two parents, each with a legal relationship with him. We know from correspondence that we have received that adopted children worry about the difference it would make to them if, for example, their legal parent were to die leaving no one legally responsible for them. That does not provide security or stability for those children who are already living with unmarried couples and with gay people. Residence orders are not permanent. They come to an end when the child reaches the age of 16. Adoption, however, is for life.

The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made much of the concept of marriage, as did other hon. Members. This Government have supported marriage, and supported assistance for married people. As we have heard, the number of married people has gone up under the Labour Government. I am happily married, or so my husband tells me. This is not an attack on marriage. It is right that we should seek stability for children, and that can be—and often is—provided by married couples. It can also be provided, however, by other families and by other couples. Nothing in these proposals will water down the crucial assessment process that has to be undertaken to determine whether a relationship is stable—whether the couple is married or not.

Under the amendments, particularly new clause 13, any couple—married or unmarried—wanting to become adoptive parents will need to prove not only that they can provide a loving family environment but that they form a stable and long-term partnership. The provisions in new clause 13 are important. All adoptive applicants must be assessed and approved by an adoption agency before they have children placed with them. That assessment will include a rigorous scrutiny of the stability of their relationship. That is right, because we are talking about stability and security; but I believe that we can deliver stability and security by means of the changes that the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield would make.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made clear in answer to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), it is ultimately right for the court to decide whether to make an adoption order. It is right that what we look for in the assessment process is a stable and permanent relationship, but when we find that, it may well be possible to address the need for a larger adoption pool.

Our concern should relate to the circumstances of individual children, not statistical bantering about particular kinds of relationship. Some of the children we are considering are very troubled, and potentially difficult to place with adopters. Their relationship with specific people, including couples, who might have the skills, the stable homes and the love and care enabling them to offer something more should be at the centre of our debate.

For many adoption agencies, the choice will be not about placing children with stable married couples or with unmarried couples, but about giving a child the chance to live in a stable loving family rather than being left in care, with all the instability and poor life chances that we know that can bring.

This has been a wide-ranging debate, in which many Members have expressed the views on all sides of the argument. If the House decides to accept the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, the Government will undertake to table whatever consequential amendments are necessary—a considerable number—to ensure that this works in legislation. Amendments Nos. 148 to 158 and new clause 13 provide a legally workable basis on which to extend the right to adopt to unmarried couples.

Ultimately, however, the debate is not about a right to adopt. It is not about political correctness. It is not about gay rights. It is not even about parents. It is about a child's chance of being in a family, and I hope that Members will vote on that basis.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

As has been said, this was a good debate, but it was curtailed by the timetable and the speech of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), which was an over-long rant, with no interventions. In that respect, he outdid all his senior Back-Bench colleagues in intolerance.

As the hon. Gentleman said, this should be about the promotion of neither marriage nor alternative lifestyles but about putting the child first. However, I think that he will come to regret labelling adoption agencies, the NSPCC, Barnardo's, the National Children's Bureau, the Children's Society and the Law Society as the politically correct social worker brigade—just as the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) will come to regret his reference to the use of children in social engineering. I disagreed with his speech and he should have the courage to say that he simply disagrees with me.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

rose—

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I commend the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe). He put very well—

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

The hon. Gentleman mentioned me. Will he give way?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. It is obvious that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is not going to give way.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House for a Member who mentions another to give way if the Member who has been mentioned seeks to correct the record?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

I believe a number of criticisms have been made across the Floor during the debate.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was asking about a convention of the House.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

That may well be the general convention, but because of time constraints it cannot apply to this particular debate.

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

I urge hon. Members to support amendments Nos. 148 to 158.

Peter Lilley (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)

rose—

Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West and Abingdon)

Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I gave way about 10 times in my speech. I also urge hon. Members to put pressure on the Government to push the measure through the Lords, because we need it. In asking hon. Members to support amendment No. 148, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

It being Six o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker pursuant to Order [this day] to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 47 — Applications for adoption

Clause 48 — Adoption by married couple

Clause 49 — Adoption by one person

Andrew Lansley (Conservative, South Cambridgeshire)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that further consequential amendments—amendment No. 158, new clause 13 and amendment No. 158(a), which is in the name of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and would remove from this group of amendments the possibility for same-sex couples to adopt as a couple—will not be debated today but, according to the order of proceedings, on Monday evening?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Those amendments will not be debated on Monday but they will be voted on then.

Clause 41 — Child to live with adopters before application

Clause 43 — Notice of intention to adopt

Clause 44 — Adoption orders

Clause 45 — Conditions for making adoption orders

Clause 49 — Adoption by one person

Clause 50 — Parental etc. consent

Clause 51 — Modification of 1989 Act in relation to adoption

Clause 52 — Disclosing information during adoption process

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 31, line 26, leave out "may" and insert "must".

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 254.

Amendment No. 19, in clause 54, page 31, line 42, after "adoption", insert—

'which shall include all information necessary to fulfil the duty imposed by virtue of section [Disclosure of information regarding a person's adoption] (2),'.

Government amendments Nos. 49 to 52.

Amendment No. 147, in clause 59, page 33, line 37, at end insert—

'(7) The provisions in this section relating to access to protected information shall be applicable to any adopted person, regardless of whether the date of that person's adoption was before or after the coming into force of this Act.'.

Amendment No. 25, in page 33, line 37, at end insert—

'(7) This section shall apply to all adopted persons, whether adopted before or after the coming into force of this Act.'.

Government amendments Nos. 53 to 58.

New clause 1—Right to obtain information: adult siblings—

'(1) Adult siblings by birth of adopted adults who have been adopted at any time from the enactment of the Adoption Act 1926 shall have the right to make an application to an adoption agency, as specified in regulations, to obtain the information under section 77 relating to his relative who was adopted.

(2) The agency shall make enquiries as necessary to establish the views of the adopted person concerning the disclosure of information to the relative.

(3) The information applied for shall be supplied by the agency to the applicant unless either—

(a) the adopted person has refused consent to the disclosure , or

(b) the agency obtains an order from the High Court which authorises the agency not to disclose the information requested.

(4) The High Court may make an order on an application by the appropriate adoption agency, if satisfied that the circumstances are except61ional.'.

New clause 4—Disclosure of information regarding a person's adoption—

'(1) This section shall apply only to an adopted person who has attained the age of 18 years.

(2) The appropriate adoption agency shall have a duty to inform an adopted person that he was adopted, subject to the regulations referred to in subsection (3).

(3) Regulations may prescribe—

(a) the method by which adoption agencies shall discharge the duty described in subsection (2), and

(b) any categories of adopted persons to whom the duty subscribed in subsection (2) shall not apply.'.

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

We now have all of 44 minutes in which to debate three important amendments and two new clauses tabled by myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends, together with a handful of Government amendments.

The amendments and new clauses in our name are on important subjects. They would provide full information to prospective adopters, giving rights of information to those involved—[Interruption.]

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. Would Members leaving the Chamber please do so quickly, and would others be a little quieter so that the hon. Gentleman can make his speech?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I was saying, the amendments are intended to give rights of information to those involved in adoption before the Bill comes into force. They would give rights to siblings of adopted people to make approaches to an adoption agency with a view to establishing contact with a long-since adopted brother or sister, and would provide a fundamental right for people to know by the age of 18 that they were adopted if they had not already been told. These subjects were all discussed in Committee, but I think that the Minister may have further comments to make.

Amendment No. 8 would change a single word in clause 52 from "may" to "must". That may seem like a little amendment, but we spent much time in Committee discussing when a "may" should be a "must". That does not make this "may" any less important, although some of the debates in Committee were extremely exasperating.

We have made the case that it is essential for a successful adoption that the provision of as much information as possible is made upfront to prospective adopters to make sure that they are going into the adoption process with both eyes wide open, that they make a fully informed decision that the prospective adoptee is the right choice and that they stand a good chance of being able to provide a stable and successful home environment. That is especially important if the child to be adopted has complex needs—learning or behavioural difficulties, educational problems, challenging psychological experiences from a past home environment or physical disabilities. It is no good finding out about those things after the adoption has been formalised and the court processes have taken place—by that time it is too late.

It is also necessary to be able to cope with the special needs of those children after the adoption has taken place. During the witness stages of the Special Standing Committee, Professor Triseliotis told us of children who showed extremely strange behaviour at bath time. It turned out that in their previous family existence sexual abuse had taken place at bath time, so it was engrained on their psyche. There were many other examples that showed the importance of knowing all the information.

The original clause 57 referred to the provision of appropriate information as soon as practicable after the making of an adoption order. To give the Government and Ministers credit, after pressure from the Opposition they rewrote the clause but I still cannot understand why the matter has been left for regulations that would, in effect, make optional the type and nature of the disclosure of relevant information by adoption agencies to prospective adopters. No proper explanation was given in Committee, so we are revisiting that provision. That is why we want to change the word "may" to "must".

The adoption agencies have given us many examples that show the necessity for that change. For example, Barnardo's was effectively challenged in the courts for not providing enough information before an adoption. In other cases, a family's medical history has serious implications for an adopted person later in life—as regards genetic disclosures and so on. It is essential that a full medical history is available at the outset to adoptive parents so that suitable precautionary medical treatment or checks can be undertaken if there is a problem later.

There must be a clear commitment that agencies must provide all the necessary information at the time of adoption. That is a legitimate reason for our amendment. We are still not satisfied with the provisions in respect of information for prospective adopters.

Amendment No. 19 makes an addition to clause 54, which needs to be beefed up to ensure that adoption agencies keep records that are detailed enough to fulfil all their obligations under the Bill.

I want to move on to a much meatier and more important subject—a matter that touched me and many other members of the Committee when we heard representations on it. Amendment No. 25 would add to clause 59 the words:

"This section shall apply to all adopted persons, whether adopted before or after the coming into force of this Act."

The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) has tabled a similar amendment so I am sure that ours will receive his support.

The clause deals with the disclosure of protected information about adults and was much amended in Committee—thank goodness. For some extraordinary reason, which we have still not fathomed, the Government actually proposed a retrogressive step: to deny people the right of access to information to which they have been entitled since 1976 under the Adoption Act 1976. No one could understand the reason for that. None of the witnesses who appeared before the Special Standing Committee could understand it. None of the representations that we received could explain it. The proposal caused great distress, but I am glad that again—albeit at the 11th hour—the Government had a change of heart and we achieved some improvements in the Bill.

The lives of an enormous number of people were irreversibly touched by adoption—as far back as the 1940s, in many cases—but the Bill will have little or no effect on them.

It is right that we are putting in place new structures for the future. We need to overhaul the whole process to improve the adoption system and the chances of children in care now and in the future to get a proper start in life, but we must also have some regard to the fall-out from some of the past mistakes and problems in the adoption system. That is what the amendment addresses.

In my involvement with the Bill and the subject of adoption, I have been particularly touched by the approaches from older women especially, including those in my constituency who gave up their children for adoption in very difficult circumstances—often with a high degree of pressure, verging on coercion—to people such as those with whom we are dealing in the Bill.

In effect, we are talking about a past generation who lived under very different social standards. Many people were worried about the original Bill, which would have prevented the contact between adopted children and their birth parents in the future. As I have said, the Government did a U-turn on that, but we need to apply the Bill to the forgotten generation of birth mothers from the post-war years especially.

Many mothers were forced to give up their children for adoption because of social stigma, and adoptive parents were encouraged to pass off the child as their own genetic son or daughter. In many cases, the Bill represents the very last chance for those people, in their twilight years, to establish contact with sons and daughters who were given away for adoption, often reluctantly. However, we contend that contact should be established sensitively, and only with all the proper controls and balances through an intermediary third party and only if the adopted adult agrees. Those must be the absolute minimum requirements, but the demand is there.

We have only to consider the fact that, since section 26 of the Children Act 1975 came into force, 70,000-plus adopted adults in England and Wales have received their birth records, enabling them to establish links with their birth parents if they so wish. Some 90 per cent. of non-searching adopted people agree to have some form of contact with the birth parent who initiates an inquiry.

I fully appreciate that, in practice, all this will be fraught with problems, not least the deficiencies in past record keeping. We will obviously need to prescribe limitations on the level of search undertaken, but such searches are becoming easier all the time, with far greater access to computerised information, electoral registers going online and so on. I contend that, whatever the mechanical problems, the principle is right. I hope that the Government will accept the principle. I should be happy to withdraw the amendment if the Government want to go away and introduce something that may be more workable in practice.

So long as we have a proper balance of rights in favour of those adoptees who do not wish to be found, I cannot understand the objections to the amendment. What we are seeking to do, after all, is to give those women the same rights as those enjoyed by women in Canada, New Zealand and, now, Australia—all of which allowed access to birth records in the 1980s and 1990s. I hope that we can use some of the good practice guidance and continue to apply it to future adoptions.

That is the crux of amendment No. 25, but if the Government are not prepared to adopt that suggestion, we have provided an alternative: new clause 1, which deals with siblings. We suggest that siblings should be given rather greater powers to be able to approach adoption agencies with a view to establishing contact with their brothers and sisters from whom they were parted at an early age. Siblings are often forgotten in the adoption process.

Many people argue about whether birth parents were right to give up children for adoption, or whether they had any choice and how much they may have been coerced. Siblings, in all cases, have played no part in the decision-making process, but they have just as much right to make contact with a lost brother or sister, whether they were taken away for adoption while they remained in the family context, or whether children collectively were placed in care and later broken up and adopted individually.

Siblings in care tend to have more complex families than other children. Research reveals a particular lack of contact with paternal siblings. There are placement problems for sibling groups especially—taking on a whole group of brothers and sisters is a much taller order, and they tended to be split up or to stay in care or in separate foster placements. Research shows that, according to self-reports, the loss of a sibling can involve the loss of a lifetime's close and loving relationship, the loss of support in adversity, the loss of a shared history, the loss of a sense of kinship and the loss of a resource for the individual's development of identity.

This is a poorly researched area of adoption. We lack detailed information about the extent of sibling separations involved in adoptions, and sibling group placement patterns are, typically, not monitored. Surely, however, there is even more justification to give them greater legal standing to try to establish contact with other adopted siblings on an equal basis. That is our case behind new clause 1. This is an important area, and there are many hundreds and thousands of people who have been affected by adoptions in the past for whom the Bill will have no beneficial effect whatever, as it is not retrospective.

New clause 4 deals with an issue for which there was sympathy on both sides of the Committee. It is an issue of great principle, and the new clause is simple and self-explanatory. It is a fundamental right of individuals to be told that they are adopted if they have not been given that information by the time they become adults at 18. Usually, adopted children should have been told that information before they reach the age of 18, sensitively and at an appropriate time, by their adopted parents.

The new clause deals only with a very small percentage of adoptions as, increasingly, the Bill will be dealing with older children who obviously know that their adopted families are not their birth parents as they were not babies when they were taken away. Most of the Bill targets such children. Many hundreds of babies will still be adopted each year, however, and will have no knowledge of their origins unless they are told when they are old enough to understand. We want to protect them from all the angst and complications of such a bombshell coming later in life when they eventually find out that they are adopted, having had no clue, inkling or suggestion for many years.

We have heard of cases, through our research for this Bill, of people who found out that they were adopted only at a very advanced age—in their 60s and 70s—and, in many cases, only after their birth parents had died. Often, that is the trigger to their finding out the information, by which time, of course, they have lost any chance of making contact with their birth parents. It is a fundamental human right for everyone to be told of his or her origins. If that information is not provided by the adoptive parents, the state has a duty to make it available to the adopted person on reaching maturity, through placing a requirement on the appropriate adoption agency. The state, after all, gives legal legitimacy to the status of adoption—a status that is manufactured, for want of a better word—and it therefore has a duty.

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

In Committee I described the new clause as ghastly, but not because of the intention behind it, which I acknowledge is good. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the issue of informing adopted young people about their origins should play a large part in social work training and in the assessment of potential adoptive applicants. I am sure he intends the proposal to lie at the back of everything to ensure good practice from authorities. Is not it too crude to say that the state will tell people this information at the age of 18? Should there not be better ways of approaching this issue than the one he suggests?

Tim Loughton (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham)

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I recall the word "ghastly" being flung around the Committee Room when we discussed a similar subject. This is a last resort provision. As I think I have said—and as I want to finish by saying—it is a revelation that needs to be handled with the utmost sensitivity. People do not want to receive—I think this was the analogy that I used—on their 18th birthday, along with a tax return and a congratulations card from their MP, a letter in an anonymous brown envelope saying, "Dear Mr. Smith, by the way, you're adopted. Congratulations." Obviously, that is not the way we want to proceed. The best way must be for the adoptive parent to give that information when he or she deems it most appropriate.

When that does not happen, as a last resort the 18-year-old is entitled to be told that information. The state has a duty of care to ensure that the manufactured relationship of adoption is maintained in everyone's best interest. It is not a question of the state sticking its nose in. We are talking about the state monitoring something that it has created through the legal resources of the adoption process.

The Minister and other Government Members raised practical problems about the keeping of records. The measure is not retrospective and it is not intended to be. Given all the other requirements that are being placed on adoption agencies in the Bill—keeping proper records, providing proper information for potential reunions, the adoption contact register and the need for ongoing monitoring of adoption to gauge the need for adoption support services—if an agency cannot go to the trouble of keeping track of an adoptee's 18th birthday, it is not discharging its many other responsibilities effectively.

The issue has other serious implications. For example, adopted 18-year-olds need the information to avoid incestuous contact with siblings who may be brought up in the same area unbeknown to them. I fully appreciate the argument of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). Much better mechanisms could be used and the issue must be handled sensitively. It is up to the agencies to devise appropriate ways to impart the information. Hopefully, the knowledge that the revelation about adoption will take place at some stage around the adopted person's 18th birthday should encourage adoptive parents to give information to their adopted son or daughter in the fulness of time, at an appropriate moment of their choosing.

In Committee, the Minister said that she was sympathetic and promised to consider the matter in more detail. Indeed, on 21 March she wrote us a useful and detailed letter, saying that she had taken the point on board and was minded to change regulations as a point of best practice to encourage prospective adoptive parents to sign a form of contract saying that they would impart the information to their children at the most appropriate time. I am encouraged by that and welcome it.

New clause 4 is still necessary, however, because the Minister's letter and explanation gave no indication of how that process would be monitored. Also, as the letter says, no provision has been made for any legal enforcement process. That is why we are revisiting the matter in the new clause today. It is too important to leave aside. We cannot take the risk that certain adoptive parents, for whatever strange reason, will choose not to give that information to their adopted son or daughter. I am not convinced that the monitoring processes are in place. Certainly, the new recommendations lack teeth as they cannot be legally enforced.

I am talking about a fundamental human right. If the adopted person is not informed and they find out at an inappropriate time later in life, it could have the most damaging consequences. That is what the new clause attempts to avoid.

In this group, the Opposition have tabled three amendments and two new clauses, which are well intentioned, and which build on some of the responses that the Minister rightly made to many of the issues that we raised in Committee—I am glad that she has made some positive moves. We want to crystallise those moves and put them more clearly on the face of the Bill to send out the message that that information is an important part of the adoption process.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

I will keep my remarks brief, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) having taken up 23 of the 44 minutes available.

I remind the House that amendment No. 147, which I tabled, relates to something that I raised on Second Reading—and I note the conversion of the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen who have taken up the issue and tabled amendments to the same effect. I welcome that. I hope to persuade the Government to undergo a similar conversion, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I will also comment on Government amendments Nos. 50 and 52.

In addition to raising the matter on Second Reading, I moved a new clause in Committee on 18 December 2001 and spoke on the Government new clause introduced in Committee on 10 January, which is now clause 59. I met the Minister in February, along with representatives of agencies, and subsequently corresponded with her on the issue. The Government's position has shifted, which I welcome, because the Bill now contains clause 59, which allows for a mechanism whereby information on adoption can be disclosed to a birth relative when someone reaches adulthood. However, that will affect only adoptions that take place after the Bill comes into effect. So the day that it comes into law, it will apply to and benefit precisely no one, and will not benefit anyone directly for many years.

If it is right to allow people to have that opportunity in the future, why is it not right to give it to people who have been adopted before the Bill comes into effect, and their relatives? The Government have conceded that legislation can be retrospective. Indeed, that was the case in the 1970s when the original right was given to adopted persons to seek out their birth records. The Government have also conceded that contact is usually welcomed when it has occurred under current provisions.

My amendment would mean only that people would be asked whether they wanted contact rather than having that contact forced on them. The Minister made it clear to me in meetings and discussions that the provision would divert resources and attention away from the Bill's main purpose. Today we debated one part of the Bill that will get a great deal of attention, but the aspect that I am raising—the problem with birth relatives—has not received enough attention.

I remind my hon. Friend about Government guidelines issued by the Department of Health on intermediary services for birth relatives. In the context of Government amendments Nos. 50 and 52, is she minded to introduce regulations that would give statutory force to the good practice guidance? That would be welcome, but the intention is not clear. Although I think that that should be stipulated in the Bill, I am still interested to know whether it is in part the reason for the amendments. We have to consider why we are doing something in clause 59 which, because of the nature of modern adoption, will benefit a tiny number of people in 20 years' time, rather than helping people now. If the Bill works properly, we will not need the clause for future adoptions.

Hon. Members will know that about a year ago the National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents successfully reunited three triplets, Gillian, David and Helena. It had to go to court to do so. Yesterday it issued a press release, which will not be covered by the media because in the glare of perhaps more glamorous events, no one is interested in the issue. However, it is fundamental and serious, and the media should focus attention on it.

The triplets were reunited because they were allowed to gain the information that they needed to find out about their identity. Mr. Justice Sumner, in his judgment on that case, said:

"We are still faced with an urgent need to review the legislation that impedes birth relatives' opportunities for search and reunion."

Hilton Dawson (Labour, Lancaster and Wyre)

I support every word that my hon. Friend has said. Is he aware of the work that is coming from the Registrar-General's office? In a praiseworthy attempt to give people privacy, it would seem to be offering the draconian prospect that in future, people who have been adopted will have a great deal more difficulty in tracing their relatives and birth families over a period of 100 years.

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

Yes, I am aware of that, and I am concerned about it. I hope, with my hon. Friend's help, to draw the matter to the Government's attention over the coming weeks and months. What is proposed would be a retrograde step.

People have written to me from all over the United Kingdom, and all over the world. I have received letters from Australia, for example. The issue matters even if the media will not cover it. It has an impact on people's lives. We have the opportunity to end the culture of secrets and lies that has surrounded adoption over the years. This is about justice, compassion and the most fundamental thing of all—family. I hope that the Minister will be able to make some helpful remarks. I also hope that if the issue is not pressed to a vote this evening, there will be further discussion later in another place.

Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat, Romsey)

I shall greatly curtail my remarks because I do not want to repeat too much of what has already been said. I support most of the amendments, especially those that seek to provide retrospective permission. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) raised the issue in Committee. It seems wrong that someone who is adopted after the Bill is enacted will be able to obtain the information, while someone who was adopted before that will not. However, not everyone thinks in that way.

There is a feeling that if a provision has a retrospective effect, that could be unfair on those who put up a child for adoption before enactment, because they would not have known what the long-term effect would be. Even today, there is a parallel with sperm donation. There was a proposal—I think that it came from Lady Warnock—that in future perhaps it would be beneficial if children born as a result of artificial insemination by donor knew the identity of the sperm donor.

There are other implications, too. I have been struck by the strength of feeling of women—it usually is women, because they live longer—who want to know where they come from. It is important to them to have that information. We are talking about a last chance, and I support the amendments that would provide it.

I am less happy with new clause 4. It is unnecessary and very much a backstop. It is well intentioned, but I would find difficulty in supporting it.

Robert Walter (Conservative, North Dorset)

I support the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). In an ideal world, the provisions would be unnecessary. However, we do not live in such a world. It is a fundamental right of those who have been adopted, when they reach adulthood, to know what their origins are.

The subject came home to me vividly, as I mentioned in Committee, when I served on the Committee that considered the plight of child migrants in Australia. I am pleased that the Australian Government are now providing some assistance. However, the press reports seemed to be wide of the mark in terms of the number of migrants who went to Australia, which was closer to 10,000 than 3,500.

The one thing that all those people wanted to know was where they came from; even in their 50s and 60s, they wanted to know that. Someone who has been adopted, even in the most appalling circumstances of abuse, as those children were, should have a fundamental right to know why they went through that life-shattering experience. I therefore support the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

Jacqui Smith (Labour, Redditch)

This subject has provoked considerable debate, both in Committee and on Report, but until now there has been considerable movement by the Government in response to concerns about the disclosure of information. In the remaining ten minutes, I shall concentrate on the main issues raised this evening: information for prospective adopters, the retrospective aspects of the access to information provisions in the legislation, and people's right to know that they are adopted.

We had a lengthy and probably futile debate in Committee about the distinction between "may" and "must". I reiterate my belief that the amendment is not necessary. I made it clear when we debated the issue that the Government intended to introduce regulations covering the provision of information for prospective adopters, and I accept the contention of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) that it is crucial to provide that information.

I am sure that hon. Members who served on the Committee will remember that we gave a commitment to introduce regulations to ensure that information is made available at three important points. First, there should be a summary about the child at the linking stage; secondly, there should be a full matching report on the child before the matching recommendation by the adoption panel and the decision by the agency; thirdly, after time to consider the full matching report, the prospective adopters, if they wish to proceed to preparations for the placement, should be provided with a written proposal setting out its terms.

I assure hon. Members that those regulations will oblige agencies to disclose information in prescribed circumstances, as I have spelled out. We shall therefore ensure that the current position is improved; I agree with hon. Members that it is unsatisfactory that potential adopters are not provided with the information that they need.

On retrospection, I accept that the intention of amendments Nos. 25 and 147 is to enable someone to apply for information about a protected adult, irrespective of whether they were adopted before or after the commencement of the relevant provisions. I shall explain the Government's difficulties with those proposals, but I shall also outline the positive steps that we can take to create better opportunities for people to access information, regardless of whether the adoption took place before or after the Bill became law.

If the legislation was retrospective there would be massive problems. In many cases, adoption agencies would be required to trace people who were adopted many years ago, and were thus difficult to trace. There would be a huge volume of potential applications; 875,000 people have been adopted since the Adoption of Children Act 1926.

I thoroughly concur with the claim by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) that he has pressed extremely hard on that issue. He was one of the first hon. Members to raise the issue and he has been diligent in pursuing it. However, I disagree with my hon. Friend when he suggests that the Government's concern for balancing priorities for adoption agencies is wrong.

In the context of past adoptions, I have every sympathy for the feelings of those who want to open up contact with a birth relative, but our principal policy aim, as many hon. Members have said, is to help the vulnerable and in some cases damaged children who need adoptive parents now. If the proposals were enacted, I would be concerned about the priorities of adoption agencies being shifted, and the possibility that that might draw resources away from our primary aim.

As I said, I am sympathetic, but I do not share the view of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that changing the legislation would necessarily achieve the heartfelt aim that many people seek. There is the dilemma of raising the hopes and expectations of so many siblings and birth parents, and there would be considerable practical difficulties for agencies to face.

Before 1984, the obligations for adoption agencies to keep and record information were not as comprehensive as they are now. Many records exist only in part and others have been lost. Many adoptions were arranged privately, and in those cases there are often very few records, other than the report about the placement, which the adoption agency may or may not hold. I would not want to hold out to people whose wish I understand, a potentially false hope that legislation will be made retrospective.

I now come to the practical steps that we as a Government can take. Stakeholders have acknowledged that under existing regulations, adoption agencies already have wide discretion to disclose information in their records, where that is consistent with their functions. The problem is that existing practice is inconsistent, and guidance on disclosure of information has been criticised by some stakeholders as being ambiguous. In the light of those views, the Government will issue new guidance to encourage adoption agencies to take a more constructive approach to helping both birth parents and adopted people.

There has been criticism of the adoption contact register, which provides scope to bring together adopted people and their relatives. Since the launch of the register there has been only one further attempt to promote it. I undertake to engage in more proactive and frequent promotion of the register through adoption agencies and key stakeholders, and through the media at times of public interest in adoption. We are considering ways to achieve that, and will consult adoption stakeholders.

Hon. Members have referred to the guidance issued by the Department of Health on the role of intermediary services, which can provide sensitive support and counselling to those seeking to make contact with a relative. In August 2000 we issued guidance on the role of intermediary services, and we are actively considering how further to foster best practice among those services. Under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 we will supply funding from April 2003 for one leading provider to act as a national focal point for intermediary services and to offer a resource for adoption agencies.

I hope that in the light of those comments on the difficulties of making clause 59 apply to past adoptions, and my commitment to help improve the current arrangements, hon. Members will not press their amendments.

Finally, in Committee we discussed the right to know, and I expressed my sympathy then for the intention behind a similar amendment. I have no doubt that the adopted person should be informed of his adoption. The essential questions are who is best placed to inform the adopted person, and how and when that should happen.

Once again, there would be considerable practical difficulties in giving an adoption agency a legal duty to trace, track down, make contact with and make arrangements to talk to all adopted people—if it were a legal duty, it would have to cover all adopted people—at the age of 18. But as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, there are practical things that we can do to help—

It being Seven o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [this day] put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

Madam Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 59 — Disclosing protected information about adults

Clause 55 — Restrictions on disclosure of protected etc. information

Clause 58 — Disclosing information to adopted adult

Clause 59 — Disclosing protected information about adults

Clause 60 — Disclosing protected information about children

Clause 61 — Counselling

Clause 62 — Other provision to be made by regulations

Clause 63 — Interpretation

Clause 77 — Connections between the register and birth records

Schedule 2 — Disclosure of birth records by registrar general

Clause 78 — Adoption Contact Register