HC Deb 19 December 1990 vol 183 cc456-72 3.53 am
Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)

I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak at this hour—just coming up to 4 am. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for bringing him from his bed at such an hour. However, I hope that he feels that the subject of the debate—British consular assistance to Romanian orphans—is worthy of any of us being out of bed at any hour of the night.

The purpose of my debate is threefold. The first purpose is to draw attention to the continued plight of orphans in Romania. It is some 12 months since we first learned of the horrors in Romania and I am disturbed to learn from current reports that the position is even worse than was at first suspected. Sarah Ball of Granada Television, who has just returned to this country after a further visit to Romania, says that she thinks that there could be nearer 400,000 rather than 200,000 orphans in those terrible orphanages. It is a damning indictment that a state of affairs which existed before the revolution continues to exist today.

My second purpose is to encourage further aid for Romania direct from the Government, to some extent from the European Community, and from all the voluntary groups, charities and non-government agencies that have done so much to provide direct humanitarian aid in Romania.

My third purpose is to encourage couples considering adopting Romanian children—not only those who are relatively healthy, but the handicapped children whose plight is the worst of all.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is present for this debate, as he intervened in the Adjournment debate that I introduced on 29 October and he has particular points to make about his own constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) also had an Adjournment debate on 15 November on the subject of handicapped children in one of the orphanages.

It is more difficult than it should be to adopt handicapped children in this country, let alone from countries abroad. I recommend that hon. Members read a book by Katherine Macaskill, "Against the Odds", in which she describes the difficulties experienced by couples in this country who wish to adopt handicapped children. They have more success dealing with voluntary agencies than with social services departments of local athorities.

I hope that we shall refer briefly to the plight of children worldwide. The latest report of the United Nations Children's Fund estimates that more than 15 million children die every year. When I was at Harvard university, I had the good fortune to be taught by Professor Roland Christiansen. I remember his stating that, of all the problems that we face, none is worse than the fact that more than 1,000 million people do not get enough to eat every day. Students of Harvard university produce a ranking of their professors twice a year—a practice which we should follow in this country—and Professor Christiansen came top of the rankings year after year. It was a sign of the quality of his teaching that he felt that that was the foremost problem to which we should address ourselves.

In September, the United Nations produced its convention on the rights of the child, which our then Prime Minister signed on behalf of the United Kingdom. However, there are problems in ratifying the convention—there are plenty of fine words, but I am not sure how much action there is.

I am surprised that the latest report from UNICEF, "The State of the World's Children", makes no mention of Romania. There is a page on the children of eastern and central Europe, but Romania is not mentioned. Given the ghastly situation in Romania, it is extraordinary that the report does not refer to it.

It is one year since the revolution, when we began to discover just how bad things were and found that there was no contraception or abortion available for mothers, who were expected to have five children. I should like to draw the attention of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister to a particularly good article by Judy Dempsey, which appeared in the Financial Times on Thursday 29 November. It states: Mr. Bogdan Marinescu, Romania's health Minister, is a tired and weary man. As he attempts to secure support for a new health system, fresh obstacles stand in his way almost every day. The greatest one is the miserable legacy bequeathed to the ministry from the Ceausescu regime. Under that regime, the health system was systematically run down. Mr. Nicolae Ceausescu's attempts to pay off at breakneck speed the country's hard currency debts during the 1980s led to a corresponding decline in public expenditure and investments in the health service. But the cutback in health spending went beyond a deterioration in services. It undermined the social fabric. In the early 1980s, women were obliged to have children after the regime embarked on a public campaign to raise the birth rate. Abortion and contraception was banned. Despite the campaign to raise the birth rate, there were few incentives to facilitate the programme. Food rationing was introduced in 1981, imports were banned and hospitals were starved of investments. As a result, women were often forced to abandon their children in orphanages, or else resort to illegal abortions and risk infection. Mr. Ceausescu's obsession with increasing the birth rate coincided with a campaign against the medical profession. Doctors and nurses, always under the watchful eye of the hated Securitate, or secret police, were frequently accused of taking bribes, a common practice in eastern Europe because medical staff were so badly paid. And as its public status deteriorated, it failed to attract the younger generation into the profession. Child care in nurseries, orphanages and paediatric hospitals bore the brunt of a decline in trained personnel. Mr. Marinescu says that explains why today there are 128,000 children in 'Child Protection units."'— that is an underestimate according to other reports— Of that number, 14,800 children up to the age of three are in orphanages. Another 84,900 children, aged between four and 18 years, and under the supervision of the Ministry of Health and Science, are living in orphanages and educational institutions. The Ministry of Labour is entrusted with looking after 23,000 orphaned and handicapped teenagers. Recent Western visitors to these institutions have been shocked by the conditions. Children were left unfed, unclothed and uncared for in conditions described by western doctors as medieval. Mr. Marinescu says such neglect was a result of a combination of factors: inexperienced and poorly-paid staff, public indifference, and society's lack of awareness about the true situation. French and British doctors are more critical. Romanians tell us they did not know about the situation" said one British doctor. "If they did, they say they could do nothing to improve conditions. The indifference towards the way orphans and handicapped children were treated, and the public stigma attached to handicapped children, was shocking. It seems to me that Romanians were hostile about knowing the truth, he added. Doctors and health organisations visiting Romania also comment on how medical supplies sometimes find their way into the black market as a result of the continuing shortages; that staff in villages remain suspicious and sometimes obstructive towards outside help. This is hardly surprising. For decades, Romanians were banned from speaking to foreigners. Mr. Marinescu contends every day with these criticisms. 'The problems are enormous. We have to change the mentality among the population. But to do this, we have to find the resources.' Helped by the World Health Organisation, the Ministry has started to improve medical services. Progress has been steady but slow, largely due to the bureaucratic inertia, the lack of computers, an untrained medical profession and few resources. The lack of resources appears to be the most immediate problem. The Health Ministry reckons it requires $1.4 million to repair orphanages; $1.2 million for repairing 10 of the 32 hostels for severely handicapped children (the remainder are not fit for use); another $5.9 million for repairing half of the 49 special education units for deficient children. But a shortage of raw materials delays repairs. Feeding the children is another problem. In a recent report the Ministry concluded that the state's monthly food budget of $4.6 million for all the childrens' institutions is inadequate. 'The improvement of food would require monthly food imports worth $2 million … we do not have the money.' As for medicines, the monthly bill is $900,000, of which $700,000 is spent on imports. Clothing and accommodation for the winter months will cost an additional $2.4 million. The government's long-term programme to improve childrens' institutions will cost $100 million, while "in order to attain the targets for the next six months, we need $27 million." But Mr. Marinescu knows that the government's coffers are empty. A visit to any of the pharmacies in Bucharest confirms this. It is still impossible to buy soap, tampons, penicillin, aspirin, nappies, diapers, sanitary towels, baby food, antiseptics, bandages and condoms. A visit to any hospital confirms the shortages of personnel and medical equipment. In the meantime, Romanians with money, connections and access to the black market continue to by-pass the queues. Hence Mr. Marinescu's plea for concerted international assistance. Without such help, he believes that the health system, or the population's mentality, have little chance of changing for the better. In addition to newspaper reports, we have had several television reports. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the most dreadful of all the programmes that I have seen—Sky Television's programme on 12 October. It was an unforgettably harrowing video. It showed the orphanages for the handicapped at their worse. They had a death rate of 40 per cent. There were naked children, many horribly deformed, in steel cages. The institutions were behind barbed wire. They were as bad as Auschwitz, except that the people inside were kept alive rather than gassed.

My daughter has just gone over to Romania. I do not know whether she will be able to give me any first-hand accounts of the orphanages. The reports that I have had from her suggest that the Romanian public are kept in ignorance of much of what is happening, so to imagine that the problems can be solved within Romania is clearly to expect more than is possible.

Several voluntary groups from Britain and other countries have gone to Romania to help. It is invidious to mention only a few of them, but the Scottish Flanders Alliance, British Red Cross, the Romanian Orphanage Trust, Mencap, Blue Peter, the Romanian Angels and Save the Children are well-known organisations which have gone there. Also, many local voluntary efforts have been made. From Bolton, and from Lancashire in general, many people have gone over to Romania. Heating engineers from Somerset have gone to put heating equipment into some of the orphanages.

Many Members of Parliament have been involved in voluntary efforts. My hon. Friends the Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Torridge and Devon, West have been actively involved. During the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West, the Romanian ambassador was here. When I saw him afterwards, he impressed on me that the country needed help from every possible source. Of course, it has been difficult to provide official aid because the regime is so deficient. I shall be interested to hear what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister has to say about the difficulties of providing aid officially, either directly from the Government or through the European Community, to the official regime in Romania, where there are dangers of corruption, inefficiencies and all the other difficulties of organisation.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was present for his Adjournment debate on the problems of adopting children from foreign countries and the debate of the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). On both occasions, I mentioned that I have constituents who have adopted the only child from Romania from a mental institution who was classified as mentally handicapped. I sent them copies of the debates. Mr. Smith wrote to me and I should like to quote some of the points made, which are relevant to the points that the hon. Gentleman has developed. My constituent said: Harry, please try to understand one of the most important tasks any relief organisation has to do first, and that is to find out who is mentally handicapped and who is just socially deprived, or who has been affected by being in an institution and if they are not mentally handicapped. I am sending you a copy of a letter that the Sheffield Social Services received from the Department of Health with regards to Emese"— the girl whom the Smiths have adopted. The letter from the Department when into considerable detail about the medical and mental difficulties that she faces and the impairment which results. Mr. Smith went on: Emese is now talking a few words of English and putting words together in just 12 weeks. She is bright healthy and very very happy. The point that I am making, Harry, is that the report the Department of Health has written was based on Emese's medical report from Romania by Romanian doctors only six month ago. Miss Nicholson"— the hon. Members for Torridge and Devon, West— also says that the last psychiatrist trained was in 1972. (I can well believe it)". It now looks as though Emese may not be suffering from all the mental difficulties that she was assumed to have at the time of adoption. My constituent makes a valid point about the direction that the relief organisations should take in solving the problem.

Mr. Thurnham

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His constituents' case is relevant and I received a copy of their letter from him. I commend his constituents for what they have done in adopting both a handicapped child here and a handicapped child from Romania. Some people say that British couples are adopting in Romania simply because they want healthy children. Most people recognise, however, that many Romanian children are suffering from AIDS, hepatitis and TB as well as being handicapped from birth. One of the worst things is that in Romania handicapped children are regarded as criminals. They are looked after dreadfully and need every possible help that can be given to them.

Mr. Harry Barnes

The hon. Gentleman referred to a book called "Against the Odds" and to the difficulty of adopting mentally handicapped children. People who adopt such children do so against the odds. I received a parliamentary answer saying that Emese is the only such child to have been adopted. The Smiths' qualifications and determination and the support that they received were exceptional. Given all the publicity on television and elsewhere, it is hard to believe that the Smiths are the only qualified parents who have been able to adopt a child. There must have been many other appropriate couples who started on the road to adoption but could not overcome the problem of officialdom here and in Romania.

Mr. Thurnham

I mentioned that to Baroness Faithfull, the chairman of the all-party group for children, the other day. She believes that she knows of other cases. The problem is that no one really knows what is going on. A number of children are being brought in without the procedures being followed because of the delays experienced by those trying to observe the procedures who are running into all sorts of red tape and delays. Given the dreadful circumstances of children in Romania, it is a natural humanitarian response for people to wish to adopt them. The National Association for the Childless has received more than 5,000 requests for further information.

The United Nations declaration states that the first objective for every child should be to stay with its parents. If that is not possible, it should be possible to make other arrangements within the country of the child's birth. Inter-country adoption should be looked at only as the last possibility, when the other two have been fully explored. Most people would accept that order of priorities. But given the desperate straits of children in Romania and in other countries where children are dying, it is difficult to say that it is in the interests of the child to follow an enormously lengthy procedure. Some parents say that they have been treated like criminals while trying to follow all the procedures. Fourteen parents came to me with a petition, which I took to Downing street in July, concerning problems that they were facing not only with the local authority social services departments, but with the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Department of Health. I helped that group of parents to set up the Campaign for Inter-Country Adoption, led by Barbara Mostyn, formerly of the Association for the Childless.

I have received numerous letters and shall refer to a few of them. I received a letter dated 10 December from Mr. and Mrs. Parsons, who live in Dorset, referring to difficulties in Romania. It says: The point has been made many times, but bears much repeating, that if the British Authorities could have been more helpful, responsive and consistent, all adoptive couples would readily accept 2–4 weeks' delay. It is the indeterminate and uncertain time that causes the distress. The new Vice Consul in Bucharest has arbitrarily and without warning introduced new papers and requirements, which were not in place a few weeks ago. It is both unreasonable to do this without warning, but also demonstrates why there is a well founded perception that the British Authorities are particularly difficult. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be able to reply to points such as those.

My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that a case is being brought against the Government by Mr. and Mrs. Luff, who, although approved by their local social services, were turned down by the Department of Health because of a previous heart condition of Mr. Luff, although he claims that he is now perfectly healthy and able to bring up a child. When one considers that couples here can have a child naturally without having to have Department of Health approval, one wonders whether some of these procedures are so necessary when we are dealing with children who would otherwise be likely to die in Romania. One must acknowledge that there are difficulties.

My hon. Friend may be aware of the case of the Stewarts from Chelmsford in Essex. Mrs. Stewart went to Romania and adopted a child according to Romanian law while her husband, who had remained in this country, unfortunately fell ill and died. She is staying in Romania while she endeavours to get entry clearance to come back with the child. Her sister has gone out to Romania to help her and taken her child out there. The family are therefore in considerable confusion, with half of them in Romania and half of them here trying to get permission for Mrs. Stewart to come back with her child.

I received a long letter from Mrs. Marriott, who, with her husband, has been involved with the Campaign for Inter-Country Adoption, and wrote a three-page letter to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health. I shall refer to that letter because it is based on their experience in Romania and their heartfelt feelings. It states: My husband Ian and I run a help and advice line for people attempting to do what we have done, and we have produced a factsheet which has been sent to in excess of 500 couples. A lot of these people get no further than reading and binning it. You need to be of tough material to actually achieve Romanian adoption. The process is long and complicated and designed to deter. However, at least one hundred people we have had dealings with either have achieved it or are in the process of doing so. I know I also speak for most of these people. There are a number of points I wish to make. I understand that you are initiating, or are in the process of initiating, a fact finding tour of Romanian orphanages. I can only hope that the people who undertake this mission go to the more obscure and out of the way orphanages. The chances are your people will be shown around the showcase ones, or possibly the buildings that the Romanian Orphanage Trust are working in. These places are not a true representation. I believe your attention has been drawn to Sky TV's documentary video of the mentally handicapped orphanages. These children are treated the worst because of what they are, or, I should say, because of what they have been forced to become. There are many, many orphanages just like those shown all over Romania. If you really want to know what it's like, may I suggest you speak to the aid workers and convoy drivers who have spent time there. People like Anne Alcock—Lancashire's "Woman of the Year", who has put her finger right on it when she describes these places as "Auschwitz for Children". People such as Sarah Ball, one of Granada TV's "This Morning" production team, who has more horror film footage than can be described and admits that she is now obsessed with trying to help these children. Both these women would like to help keep the children in their own country, but confess that this is not a feasible proposition. Romania's problems are insurmountable in the near future. They are generations away from getting it right. Romanians' future is at home with their parents. The Orphanages (the Romanians call them "Houses of the Children") contain Romanians' past or their scrapheap— unloved, uncared for, very often tortured children who have no future in their own country. Their only hope is overseas adoption, not all of them of course. The estimate that I have is that 400,000 children are in these places throughout Romania. Very few people would want to have a 16 year old physically or mentally handicapped child with Aids, hepatitis B and TB. The actual numbers available for adoption are unknown but what is very apparent is that the healthy children available should be got out while they are still healthy, and certainly before they are three years old, to allow the aid to go where it is most desperately needed, to those who can never escape. This sounds melodramatic I know, but believe me, I am not over-dramatising. The nurses in these places are, for the most part, uneducated peasant women. Cruelty begets cruelty. They have so little themselves, and are expected to raise large families with virtually no money. The pittance that they get for looking after these children does not inspire them to take any care of them. Potty training usually consists of being beaten with a stick. Children are lifted out of their cots by their arms and legs, that's when they are lifted out at all. Babies are changed once a day, with a rag, not a nappy, if they are lucky. I know from first hand experience that even in the better run orphanages, they are only changed when some prospective adopter wants to hold them. One child I saw had 90 per cent. urine burns from shoulder to ankle because she had not been changed for so long. One 16 month old boy (again from first hand experience) was fed twice a day, four ounces of milk at 10 o'clock, four ounces at five o'clock. I could continue giving you these horror stories but that is not the purpose of this letter. This sort of treatment goes on in every orphanage throughout Romania. All the people who we have helped have kept in touch and told us their experiences. It is not an exaggeration to say that these are concentration camp-like conditions and that it is not just Romania's problem, but humanity's. The orphanage directors themselves estimate that 25 per cent. of the children in hospital will die this winter, and 50 per cent. of the orphanage children. One couple who had waited for months to get entry clearance arrived in Romania last week, with all their completed documents to discover that their child had died of pneumonia three days before. I believe that the Romanian courts will close for Christmas recess from 20 December and will not begin again until mid-January. The Romanian Government have decreed that as from January, the 15 day cooling off period will be extended to 30 days to allow all involved parties even longer to change their minds. In effect that means that unless prospective parents can get to court by 19 December the earliest they can hope to get their child out is mid-February but probably, in reality, the spring. This has led to a number of near hysterical people phoning me asking what on earth they can do as they cannot risk their child's life in this way. My answer has had to be "nothing". I ask you to think seriously about the fact that a number of respectable law abiding people have been quite simply forced into breaking the law to protect their child. Surely this indicates that the law needs looking at? "The law is an ass" may well apply here. You are a parent and you don't need me to tell you how protective you feel toward your children. If it was a matter of breaking the law to save his or her life, would you even think twice about it? A number of families will be split this Christmas. The women are making arrangements to spend the next three months in Romania and getting the guardianship of their children rather than risk their not being there next spring. Their husbands of course have to stay in the United Kingdom to finance it, on occasions doing the nappy and milk run as these commodities are not available in Romania … With very little effort on the Government's part this whole tragic business could end. If Susan Hodgettes in Bucharest could be authorised to give entry certificates to people who have handed over all the necessary documents for clearance, these families could possibly get their court dates before 19 December. One telephone call could result in a number of people getting home before Christmas. These people feel that they are as much hostages as any to be found in Iraq. Moving on to the whole process of entry clearance, and the home studies required for them, I have heard and read on more occasions than I care to remember the phrase "the best interest of the child is paramount". On the basis of this letter so far, are the child's best interests served by being assessed for mental competence at age three? i.e. are they potty trained, can they walk, talk and feed themselves, when they have never been out of a cot (often shared by so many other children that their limbs are deformed) and therefore cannot walk or use a toilet when they have had no stimulation and cannot therefore talk and their food has always been given through a bottle and they cannot therefore feed themselves? Are the children's best interests served by leaving them open to Aids, hepatitis B, TB, pneumonia, malnutrition, hypothermia, etc? This list is endless. People who go through mainly to adopt take with them a home study completed by a qualified and experienced social worker who is possibly a private social worker. Social Services insist and the home office appears to agree that the only competent social workers are employed by Social Service. Many other people disagree. They have police reports and medicals. They have proven themselves perfectly acceptable as adopted parents. Yet because the report has not been done by the Social Services this Government will not allow an entry clearance certificate. Is this really in the best interests of the children. Maybe—and I happen to think that this is remote—there are people who adopt from Romania for all the wrong reasons. In an ideal world, it would be absolutely right that parents are carefully vetted, assessed, and counselled. Romanian children are not living in an ideal world. Better in 30 years for a grown man to say to his adopted parents "You adopted me for all the wrong reasons" but (a) he grew to manhood to be able to say it; and (b) has developed mentally, emotionally and intellectually to be able to articulate it. If there were cases where children from Romania had to be taken into care, (and if I may say here, that the Social Services who continually point out that they should have a say in the adoption process simply because they have to pick up the pieces when things go wrong, are nit-picking. They have to do that for everyone, it is their job. You don't see social workers doing in-depth reports on couples wanting to have natural families, because they have to pick up the pieces when things go wrong!) I do not believe they would be in care very long. There are approximately 250,000 people wanting to adopt very young children and only about 1,500 babies available each year. Logic says, these children would be snapped up. I have had so many letters from people who ask the cost involved in Romanian adoptions, because even though they have very little money, they could offer a secure, loving home to one of these tragic children. I am paraphrasing, but it is practically word for word from dozens of letters I have received. Let's just take the worst case scenario, maybe a half dozen children would never be placed, and will remain in care for the rest of their childhood … Why should the majority of excellent prospective adopters be penalised because of the possibility (and it is only that, there are no proven cases that I have heard of) of some couples proving unsuitable? My last point, and quite an important one I feel, is that we in Britain are imposing our 20th century morals, values and standards on to a population who are at best Dickensian, and in my view more a medieval people. Life is very cheap in Romania. The Guardian a few weeks ago (13 November) ran an article which was quite honestly ludicrous, as anyone who has ever been to Romania recognises. When are we going to see not through our own eyes, but through the eyes of the peoples concerned that they don't want these babies? Very few, if any at all, mothers will be distressed in 30 years time. It is possible she will be hard put to remember that she had a child at all. These children are dragging the women down, and when you are at rock bottom, that is an impossible situation. Of course, this isn't true of all the women in Romania, but the fact that 400,000 children have been abandoned in this way speaks volumes for the majority of motherhood. I have no axe to grind. My two adopted Romanian babies are upstairs asleep in their cots. They are safe, secure, healthy, adored and happy. I am not an hysterical neurotic woman. I am not asking you to relax the immigration regulations for these children, I am begging you. Believe me, the floodgates will not open. There will not be 2 or 3 million people rushing off to bring a child into Britain. That was the letter from Mrs. Marriott dated 4 December 1990. I have already raised with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister some of the points in that letter. I am pleased to see that one of the voluntary agencies in Britain, Childlink, proposes to set up an international resource centre to provide at least a helpline and information service to couples who wish to adopt. I hope that the Government will help to fund that and encourage voluntary donations towards the cost. Childlink has already undertaken to carry out home studies for some local authorities and quoted a cost of £2,500, which is higher than most people had had previously. I hope that most local authorities will feel that they do not always need to pass on those costs, so that couples who are not able to pay such high fees can still consider adopting children from Romania and elsewhere.

My hon. and learned Friend the Minister may be aware of early-day motion 168 on handicapped Romanian orphans. I am pleased to say that there are now 46 signatures to that motion. There was an amendment in he name of the hon. Minister for Eccles (Miss Lestor), in which she states that Romania can care for its future rather than having children adopted abroad Only one hon. Member has signed the amendment and I do not think that it reflects the feelings of the public or of most hon. Members.

I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will consider the Hague conference, which is to be held in 1993, on inter-country adoption. I hope that we shall play a full part, although we are the only leading western country not to have an agency or organisation that will help with inter-country adoption. We need to have much better facilities to help people who, for the best of reasons, wish to provide children who would otherwise die with a secure and loving home, in place of those desperate orphanages where the children are denied any human contact.

I am glad that we have been able to have this debate to draw attention to the plight of children in need all round the world as well as in Romania. The wish of the British people to supply humanitarian aid to Romania and to offer adoption is a good response, but the adoption should be done properly. The baby should come into this country through the front rather than the back door. Half the children who have come from Romania have come through the back door, but all should come through the front door. I hope that the Government and as many other people as possible will give resources so that an international resource centre can be set up through the agency of Childlink, so that things can be done properly and help can be provided in the best possible way.

4.31 am
Mr George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr Thurnham) on obtaining a place in the debate. We know that he is assiduous and sincere in pursuing the issue. I am not so delighted that the debate is taking place at this hour of the morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr Robertson) said earlier, and it applies even more now, that to have debates at such an hour is a primitive, unproductive and uncivilised way to conduct the affairs of Parliament. I hope that eventually we shall grasp the nettle of reform and start having all our debates at a civilised hour.

When I say "a civilised hour", I mean an earlier hour, because it is not always a civilised debate. The Minister and I have often clashed across the Chamber. Little did we know that we might be in greater agreement at this early hour of the morning. We shall see.

I think that we all share the concern and the horror of the situation described by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East. We were all appalled at the revelations of the terror and barbarity of the Ceausescu regime, including the aspect that has created the problem to which the hon. Member referred—the use of women as breeding machines, in some case to produce programmed people for the Securitate. We are also concerned about the plight of those who are described as orphans. Many of them, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, still have live parents. Perhaps more than 80 per cent. of those described as orphans still have parents, although living in poor circumstances. We must take account of that when considering how to deal with the matter.

I know that the plight of these children has touched the hearts of many people, particularly in the United Kingdom, and many have risen to the challenge of trying to help in many ways. The hon. Gentleman mentioned hon. Members on both sides of the House who had taken a particular interest in this, and the media, television and the general public have all taken an interest. I was made aware of the way that "Blue Peter" has got the message across when last Friday I saw five, six and seven-year-olds in Bellsbank primary school in Dolmellington in my constituency. It is one of the poorest areas in what is a relatively poor constituency compared with those of many Conservative Members.

The arrangements had been made by "Blue Peter" and the children had been organised by the school. That shows how far interest in Romanian children has extended. We must all be concerned about the terrible plight of the children—there is no difference between us on that—but we should remember that our first priority must be to help children to be able to remain in their own country. Perhaps that was not stressed strongly by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East. We should not attempt to whisk them away from their country to a strange one.

The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East may have read an article in The Observer last Sunday that described some of the work being done to enable Romanian children to remain in their own country by raising money for projects in Romania. Part of the article read: The idea of flying out to adopt a child and bring it back is not always tempered with the realisation that many of them still have parents who want to keep in touch with their children. That must be taken into account. The article then describes some of the work that is being done. Greater emphasis should be placed on that by the Romanian Orphanage Trust and the many other organisations to enable them to raise money to keep Romanian children in Romania in better circumstances than the appalling ones described by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Thurnham

The hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn attention to the need to do everything possible in Romania. The death rate is high in that country and the risk to the health of the children who do not die immediately is a real one. If a few children are adopted here, it will enable more help to be given to the children who remain. Only relatively few will be adopted here. Obviously the majority will be there. If a few children come to this country, fewer will have to use the limited resources that are available in Romania.

Mr. Foulkes

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says.

The frustration that is felt by the hon. Gentleman and those like him, some of whom he quoted, is understandable. It is the result of impatience and genuine compassion. We appreciate that. It is essential, however, for the long-term good of the children that the proper procedures are followed and accepted. They are designed to protect the interests of the child and that is our top priority.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the rules for adoption should be no less stringent in Romania than in the United Kingdom. We know that the adoption procedures here can be a lengthy process. Bearing in mind the possible dangers and the long-term implications of uprooting a young child from its country and the culture of its birth, there is extra justification for full and thorough examination of each case. Various procedures must be followed.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Home Office has to agree to allow the child in. Before entry clearance is granted, various things have to be checked. It has to be clear, for example, that a complete transfer of parental responsibility from the child's parents to the intending adopters has already taken place or is genuinely intended to take place. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that must be tested, clarified and confirmed. If it is not, difficulties will arise.

Mr. Thurnham

The hon. Gentleman is in danger of slight over-simplification. In this country, so few children are available for adoption that sometimes criteria can be used that I think are not necessary when considering the plight of the children in Romania.

For instance, is it right that the age of 35 should be used as a strict cut-off for couples who wish to adopt? Is it right that if a couple who wish to adopt have a dog, they will not be allowed to adopt? Those criteria are used in this country where few children are available for adoption and many people wish to adopt. The hon. Gentleman is over-simplifying the case by saying that everything should be done according to the procedures.

Mr. Foulkes

I thought that I was over-complicating the case, but I accept that I might have been over-simplifying it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a review of adoption procedures, including inter-country adoption. I presume that he is making those points to the review. I believe that all Departments are involved in it. If it is appropriate to have different criteria—I am not saying more liberal criteria—for inter-country adoption, that point can be made to the review.

There is an argument for scrupulous examination of those who wish to adopt. The children from Romania are bound to face further hurdles as they grow up. We all agree that their interests are paramount and we do not wish to risk harming them with misplaced kindness if we cut corners. What some genuine, well-meaning couples may view as heartless bureaucracy can, in reality, be something put in place to protect the children.

There is a case in my constituency—not related to inter-country adoption, but to adoption within the United Kingdom—of a natural mother who has changed her mind. The adoption procedures have been completed, so it is a fait accompli. People do change their minds, so it is important that the procedures are followed to ensure that there is a genuine desire, acceptance and a concurrence by the natural parents that an adoption should take place. If they change their minds, it is only after they have had many opportunities to consider and reconsider.

The hon. Gentleman, rather than reading from so many letters, might have said more about Foreign Office responsibility. Much of what he said related to other Departments, especially the Department of Health and the Home Office. I shall touch on the Foreign Office aspects as I am an Opposition Foreign Office spokesman, and a Foreign Office Minister is to reply to the debate. I do not want unduly to criticise the Foreign Office. I love to do it when there are good reasons for doing so, but I do not want to do it without reason. The embassy in Bucharest must be facing many problems and be very stretched. We must bear in mind all the other matters for which it has responsibility.

We welcome the appointment of a new vice-consul with particular responsibility for adoption. Although we believe that the correct procedure must be fully adhered to, it is equally important that no unnecessary obstacles are placed in the way of those who seek to adopt. It is the role of British diplomats in Romania to help people who wish to give a home to those children and not deliberately to discourage them without good reason.

We recognise that the Foreign Office is not an adoption agency, as one vice-consul was quoted as saying. The need for comprehensive regulations makes all the greater the need for constructive and helpful guidance for couples to find their way through the complicated but necessary paperwork. Patience is needed on both sides. What can be done is to improve co-operation between our officials and the Romanian authorities. We hope that recent parliamentary and governmental delegations to Romania to examine the problem will result in some constructive suggestions.

To strike a cautionary note, on 8 November The Times said: Whitehall officials are counting the days before a Romanian mother alleges that her child has been stolen by a British couple". That is a real and genuine fear among officials. The media have been active in putting one point of view forcefully and effectively and they might sensationalise things in a rather different way if such a situation arose. The Foreign Office and other officials concerned must take that into account.

Mr. Thurnham

Fears of baby trafficking, which have been the cause of Britain not having an inter-country adoption service, should not stand in the way of those couples who genuinely wish to help. There may be isolated cases of such trafficking, but they should not be used as a reason for not doing anything to help the vast majority of couples who wish to help for the best of reasons.

Mr. Foulkes

The hon. Gentleman has been genuinely helpful to me because I am about to come to that point. Before I do, I should say that there is a balance to be struck between those who believe that adoption should be used to assist childless couples whose only hope of parenthood is a baby from overseas—whose case the hon. Gentleman seemed to be arguing strongly—and those whose rigorous professional vetting of couples is seen as a barrier to adoption.

The last thing that we all want is these poor children treated as some commercial commodity, which is what the hon. Gentleman was just referring to. This is not just a scare; it is a real danger. Stories of children being sold and traded and brought in illegally are most disturbing. This must not be allowed to happen. It is an undesirable and evil trade.

For some time now my colleagues and I have been concerned about the growing illegal trade in babies and small children—the result of parents living in appalling poverty and manipulated by greedy entrepreneurs who have spotted an expanding market. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) has raised that matter particularly.

Only last month two women from a South American country arrived at a European airport with three small babies, one of whom died en route from dehydration and malnutrition. Those babies were on offer to European would-be parents for adoption. I am told that the going rate for the purchase of such a baby averages £10,000.

That is an evil trade which must be stamped out and the hon. Gentleman must remember that, although, as he said, only a small number of people is involved, and they are in no way representative of the vast majority that he described, it is something about which we must be cautious. It makes it more important that Britain at least plays it by the book. A blind eye must not be turned to illegal entries, which must be stopped if huge problems are not to be stored up for the future. Children abandoned because of poverty in Romania should not become teenagers left in care in Britain because they were illegally adopted by unsuitable parents.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that a large majority of the children are not orphans. Many were abandoned simply because of the great poverty that the hon. Gentleman described. That forces us to recognise the root cause of the problem in Romania and to realise that, just as those children are innocent victims, so are their natural parents. That has implications for the adoption procedures. It is necessary to find parents and to explain the situation to them. It also makes long-term adjustment more difficult for the children, knowing that they were reluctantly surrendered by the real parents. That makes it essential that, if they are adopted, they are with the best possible people.

I emphasise that there is sympathy with would-be adopters, most of whom are obviously well-intentioned, compassionate people. Also, there is sympathy among Opposition Members for the hon. Gentlemen's sentiments. The question is not whether to help the children, but what is the best way to do so. Emotional issues must be put to one side in the long-term interests of the child.

Various Government Departments are examining that issue as part of their review of adoption and the kind of hands-on policy now publicly advocated must continue. We must not allow a laissez-faire approach to develop once the children actually arrive. The problem is riot confined to Romania. There is the much broader issue of inter-country adoption, as the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East said. While we sympathise with his position to the extent that adopting children from other countries may be the best solution in individual cases, one must question what sort of countries are prepared to give up the children who are their future. In reality, it is countries experiencing great poverty which are forced to do that. We should help them to develop their economies and eliminate that poverty, and to ensure that they will be able to offer their children a secure and positive future.

4.50 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg)

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) deserves congratulations on bringing to the attention of the House a subject to which so many right hon. and hon. Members and their constituents have devoted some time. It is particularly apt that he should have done so this week, almost exactly one year after the dictator Ceausescu was overthrown by an explosion of outrage from the Romanian people, for Ceausescu was in large part to blame for the plight of Romanian children.

Numbers have been discussed. We believe that between 125,000 and 140,000 children aged up to 18 are in children's homes, residential schools, hospitals and other institutions throughout Romania. They are in most cases the innocent victims of Ceausescu's inhuman policies, the effects of which were described by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall not repeat what has been said, but it is important to remind oneself of the disastrous results of Ceausescu's attempt at wholesale social engineering. Had he not tried to force all married Romanian women of childbearing age to have five children, regardless of their wishes or circumstances, today there would not perhaps be thousands of children abandoned, or at least temporarily lost, by parents who could not afford to look after them.

When conditions in the Romanian institutions were revealed earlier this year, we were all profoundly shocked by what we saw—undernourished and neglected boys and girls living in filthy, overcrowded buildings, lacking even the basic necessities of heating, sanitation, proper food and decent clothing. I shall describe shortly what has been done to help them.

As my hon. Friend takes a particularly close interest in adoption, I shall first outline what we are doing in that respect. It is understandable that many couples in Britain, where the number of babies available for adoption has fallen sharply in recent years, want to adopt a child from overseas. Their wishes can only have been intensified by knowledge of conditions in Romania. I want to make quite clear at the outset that all British Government Departments concerned—notably the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Home Office, and Department of Health—are committed to helping all suitably qualified couples, provided that they follow the essential requirements of both Romania and the United Kingdom, to adopt from Romania without unnecessary bureaucracy and as quickly as possible, consistent with the overriding obligations upon us to make sure that the best interests of the child are always uppermost.

My hon. Friend will appreciate that the procedures that prospective adopters need to follow exist to protect the children's welfare. Children adopted overseas should be afforded no less protection than children adopted in Britain. It would be entirely wrong if a child could be brought here from abroad for adoption without proper inquiries being made both into the child's circumstances abroad and the background of the prospective adopters in this country. Otherwise, there would clearly be scope for serious abuse. I am sure that the House is with me when I say that we must remain vigilant for the sake of the children's welfare.

The checks that I have spoken of take time. With the best will in the world, they cannot be completed in a few days. But we know that conditions can be poor in Romania and we sympathise with couples who wish to adopt. That is why all the Government Departments concerned do their best to operate the process as quickly as possible. Most entry clearance applications in respect of Romanian children have been decided within four to seven weeks—which is far quicker than it usually takes to adopt a child in Britain.

Since last December, the British embassy in Bucharest has been inundated with applications, not just for entry clearance for children for adoption, but for visa work of all sorts. Our staff there have done their best to cope in difficult circumstances. Inevitably, there have been some whose cases have not been dealt with quite as quickly as one would have liked. However, we have sent out more British staff to handle the extra work and we are monitoring progress constantly to check whether more needs to be done.

A team of officials from the Home Office and the Department of Health visited Bucharest in November to discuss with the Romanian authorities how to mesh our two countries' adoption procedures together. The Romanian side confirmed their willingness to approve adoptions by British couples, if it is in the best interests of the children, and where couples are prepared to observe the requirements of both countries. The Ministry of Justice and senior Romanian judges made it clear that they regard our procedures as the best among the countries with which they deal. If a British couple secure entry clearance, the Romanian authorities can be confident that they can be trusted to look after a Romanian child properly, because there will have been a thorough investigation.

As a result of the visit, a revised leaflet will be produced early in the new year setting out up-to-date and comprehensive details of the procedure which needs to be followed. I hope that it will help to clear up some of the difficulties that prospective adopters have had.

We should not confuse adoption with the rather different problem—although they are related—of how conditions for abandoned Romanian children can be improved.

Mr. Thurnham

Before we leave the subject of adoption, I think it right to say that couples who wish to adopt should be given the maximum amount of counselling, advice and help in the early stages, while they are considering whether it is the right course. If time is required, that is when it is most important that the procedures are used as fully as possible. Having got through that stage, the process should move more rapidly, and when the couple have identified a child, delays should be kept to a minimum. It is important that the maximum amount of counselling and advice should be given in the early stages so that the number of people who change their mind—as in the example quoted by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—is kept to a minimum and people know their mind at an early stage. They need as much help as possible at the beginning of the process, so that when they get to Romania, things can go smoothly and they will not be tempted to bypass procedures. We want children to come to this country by following the procedures and we do not want to offer any temptation for people to bypass them.

Mr. Hogg

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but I do not think that it is for the Foreign Office to provide any such counselling—whatever else we may be, we are not an adoption agency.

The other problem is how conditions for abandoned children can be improved. As soon as we became aware of Romania's pressing needs a year ago, the British Government acted quickly to send humanitarian aid. We sent emergency medical supplies at once and contributed to two European Community packages of medical aid and food. We funded a family planning programme, helped British charities to aid children's homes and donated £500,000 to the World Health Organisation, which at our request spent most of it on care for newborn babies and children. We donated contraceptives and HIV diagnostic equipment, and in total sent humanitarian aid worth about £6.5 million. However, the needs of children's homes and other institutions caring for abandoned children are particularly pressing, so we are especially pleased to be associated with the major programme that the European Community now has under way to alleviate conditions in Romania.

This programme has been running for several weeks already. The first moves were to send milk and enriched flour for infants and provide food, blankets, medicines, medical equipment and training for the care of handicapped children. The Community then agreed with the Prime Minister of Romania to help fund a crash programme to repair, run and improve heating equipment in the institutions before the onset of winter. The programme is helping to pay for the work of the Save the Children Fund and several other European charities active in Romania.

In the slightly longer term the institutions will be comprehensively repaired and improved and Romanian staff will be trained in how to look after the children in their care. Apart from the funds raised by the sale of EC food aid to Romania earlier this year, which the Community has agreed may be used for this programme, the Community has already committed over £9 million of new money, with the promise of more to come. We strongly support this excellent programme, which will help greatly to improve the quality of life for the children concerned.

The international effort is not restricted to the EC. I understand, for example, that UNICEF will open an office in Bucharest in January to run a special two-year emergency programme for institutionalised children. There will be wide range of activities, starting with essentials such as the supply of vaccines and the meeting of other needs.

The Romanian Government themselves have pledged to do what they can with the limited resources available to them. The Prime Minister, Mr. Roman, has ordered the Romanian army to help with the urgent task of repairing and improving heating equipment. A state secretariat has been set up—headed by the equivalent of a Minister—to work with the Community, UNICEF and others to look after abandoned children, orphans, the mentally handicapped and others who, for one reason or another, cannot look after themselves.

I must also pay tribute to the host of unofficial efforts to respond to Romania's needs. The response of the British public alone has been magnificent. Scores of charities, large and small, have been created to help Romania or have turned existing efforts in that direction—the Romanian Orphanage Trust and Bristol Mencap are just two of such charities. Scores of British men and women are now in Romania, giving freely of their time and energy to improve conditions there. Thousands of people in Britain are involved in raising money for food, medical care, clothing and other essentials. The Romania information centre at the university of Southampton is playing a valuable role in co-ordinating the activities of aid groups all over Britain.

A development at last week's European Council in Rome, while not aimed exclusively at helping children in Romania, will certainly be of great benefit to them. The council decided on emergency food and medical aid for Romania and Bulgaria totalling about £70 million, and some of that will undoubtedly make its way to institutionalised children.

I am under no illusion that the measures that I have outlined will suffice to solve the problems that Romania has inherited in their entirety. In the long term—as the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said—Romania needs to create, through economic reform and reconstruction, the wealth to improve the quality of life for her children, and indeed all her citizens. The Romanian Government, under Mr. Roman, have made encouraging progress in that direction, although there is a long way to go.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject. I have set out briefly some of the ways in which Britain arid the international community are moving to respond to the humanitarian crisis in Romania; I have also explained what the Government are doing to assist British couples seeking to adopt children from Romania. I hope that, in so doing, I have gone some way towards answering my hon. Friend's concerns.