HC Deb 29 October 1990 vol 178 cc842-50

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

11.31 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East)

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important subject of inter-country adoption on the Adjournment. I am especially grateful that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is giving her time to reply to the debate. More than one Department is involved, but I am especially grateful that she is here this evening, and should like to record my appreciation of her long experience with these matters, and her awareness of the sensitivity of issues that concern both the needs of the children who require adoption and the parents who are interested in adopting.

My hon. Friend will be aware of my personal interest in the matters, as an adoptive parent, and of my support for her during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which should do so much to help childless couples. My interest in inter-country adoption is not quite so close although Stephen, our child, comes from Wales and I suppose that one could call that inter-country adoption.

My first real experience of the subject came when I visited Hong Kong three years ago. I do not know whether my hon. Friend will have this opportunity, but if she is in Hong Kong, I recommend her to go to the Home for Loving Faithfulness because it is the most extraordinary establishment, which takes in severely handicapped Chinese orphans and cares for them. It has been most successful in finding adoptive homes all over the world for those Chinese children. If my hon. Friend ever has the opportunity, I recommend that she sees that establishment, which is a particularly fine example of inter-country adoption finding the right homes for the right children. It would be a great mistake and naive to imagine that the right homes for those Chinese children could be found in Hong Kong because the Chinese culture does not accept adoption, let alone the adoption of severely handicapped children. The needs of those children in Hong Kong will no doubt become even greater when Hong Kong becomes part of the Chinese mainland.

My other interest in this subject comes through one of my constituents who is a Colombian lady who, for medical reasons, found it difficult to have a second child herself. She was interested in adopting a Colombian child, but found the procedural difficulties so great that she felt that she might be better to try to have a child herself although her doctor advised against it. I quote that as an example of where the procedural difficulties of inter-country adoption should not be used as an obstruction when it leads to a lady trying to have a child when her doctor has advised against it.

The history of inter-country adoption includes the great interest in it at the time of the crisis in Columbia in the early 1980s when orphans were tipped on to the streets at an age of seven or eight. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will remember the considerable amount of work done by Lady Glover, Baroness Faithful and many others in an attempt to set up an agency to help with inter-country adoptions. The British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering attempted to find out more of the difficulties at the time. I have looked at some of the old files on meetings with Ministers and many of the people involved with setting up such an agency at that time. Everyone agreed that an agency was needed. I am sorry that it did not come about a few years ago. Obviously, it was close to happening. It was probably fears of baby-trafficking and so on that led to the idea being dropped. But I am sure that the need was fully recognised by all involved. I am sorry that the difficulties prevented an agency from being set up.

At Christmas last year we all suddenly became aware of the dreadful crisis in Romania when the horrors of the Ceausescu regime were made apparent after the revolution. The situation was appalling. Mothers were forced to have five children. No contraceptives were available. No abortion was allowed. The result was the most appalling orphanages, with in excess of 100,000 orphans. Some people have estimated that there could be 200,000 children in orphanages in the most disgraceful and awful conditions. There are no trained nurses. The nurses training schools have been closed down. The children's health is exposed to terrible hazards. AIDS and hepatitis are rampant.

The common humanitarian instinct to help led so many people to offer to adopt or foster at that time. I understand that there were 4,000 'phone calls in the first week of the new year to the Flanders and Scottish Alliance, and 50 'phone calls a day to the National Association for the Childless from couples who were offering to adopt.

Obviously, one would want to help the Romanian authorities in every way possible. I was disappointed to hear in a debate just last week on aid from the European Community to eastern Europe that there is to be no aid to the Romanian Government from the EC because of dissatisfaction with the new Government and the poor state of the democracy in that country. The level of official aid from the United Kingdom to Romania was quoted in the debate as only £900,000 so far. That is no more than £5 or £10 for each orphan. So much more needs to be done. However, the children do not need only aid. They need love and care. As Claire Rayner said in the very good TV-AM series, the children need TLC—tender loving care. That is what I should like to impress on my hon. Friend the Minister most of all.

British couples who have been over to Romania say that couples from other countries such as France, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, the United States of America and Canada receive much more help than British couples. Those countries have waived restrictions because of the humanitarian problems, which have reached such crisis proportions in Romania.

In Britain it seems that we have been perhaps a little over-obsessed with the difficulties of which we were aware in the past such as scares about trafficking and illegal immigration and the breakdown of adoptions. Perhaps we have allowed those fears to stand in the way of helping would-be adoptive couples who want to do all that they can to help in the crisis. We seem to have too many bureaucratic barriers. Local authorities seem to be among the worst at creating such barriers. As a result of that, I took a petition to the Prime Minister last July from 14 couples who wanted help to overcome the obstacles.

One accepts fully the United Nations declaration that, of course, the child must come first and should be helped to stay in the country of its birth if at all possible. But where it is clear that at least for some orphans adoption is the best solution, any delays are not to the advantage of the child.

I should like to quote to my hon. Friend some of the problems that would-be parents are now experiencing. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) has passed on to me two letters that he has received in the past few days. One letter dated 14 October said that current delays on the part of local authorities were running at three months. Those delays concerned an 18-month-old girl who had been discovered in Romania abandoned without even a name. The other letter dated 23 September said that people feel under pressure to break the law in order to safeguard their babies The Minister will be aware of the work undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who has also drawn attention to certain cases with which he is concerned. A couple in his constituency have written to me to say that the Romanian lawyer with whom they dealt said that he would not deal with any other English couple because you are treated as though you are criminals for wanting to give a home to these babies. It is clear that people are experiencing severe bureaucratic delays and that there is an urgent need for a helpline service and an inter-country adoption agency to help such couples. At the very least a helpline should be established—it could either be a free-standing agency or the service could be provided by one of the existing voluntary agencies. Parents feel that their patience has been exhausted and that they should not be left alone to battle against large monopolistic bureaucracies. Those parents' needs were recognised many years ago and, if we do not do something to regularise the procedures, we shall continue to risk the danger of children coming into the country through the back door. The authorities would then be presented with those babies as a fait accompli.

The helpline and the inter-country adoption agency could supply information to couples and counsel them. To adopt a child from abroad is not simple and all couples considering such an adoption should be counselled in the best possible manner. Those who go ahead with such an adoption should be assisted with the paperwork and the other forms of bureaucracy that they will encounter. Local authorities should be pressed to act promptly when there is a danger of delay. Those authorities should not hesitate to use outside social workers if that would help to speed up the process.

The agency could also help and support parents once they have gone through the process of adoption. It is riot easy to bring up one's own children and obviously parents would require further help to bring up a child adopted from abroad. I have no evidence, however, that such adoptions have led to an excessive number of breakdowns and we should not reject inter-country adoption of those grounds.

I hope that the Government will encourage an existing agency to take on an inter-country adoption service. Ideally that should be undertaken by an organisation such as the BAAF, but there are others that could consider that task. If that does not happen, the parents are resolved to set up their own agency under the suggested name, the British Overseas Adoption Agency, which would be supported by groups such as Stork—the parent support operation already operating—the National Association for the Childless, the Inter-Country Adoption Social Workers Group, and family groups in different parts of the country. For the sake of the children and their prospective families, we should act. It is not good enough to leave things as they are.

The most recent and comprehensive published statement of local authority opinion on the matter appeared in the information complied by the children's legal centre at the end of 1988. Of the 59 authorities that replied to the questionnaire, 36 had no specific policy, four said that they were discussing one and some authorities, for example, Wiltshire, Hampshire and Lewisham, stated unequivocally that they would not be prepared to undertake any assessments at the request of applicants or agencies from abroad. Somerset authority stated: This authority does not assist in making arrangements for inter-country adoption, but would meet its responsibilities under the 1986 Adoption Act sections 1 and 2 by giving advice to inquirers on the legal processes to be followed and try to ensure that they have properly addressed and thought through the issues involved. If departments are obstructive and couples are a a loss to know where else to seek information, they may be desperate enough to bring overseas children into this country without entry clearance, as has occurred.

Unless we establish a co-ordinated service in which proper regulation can be assured, future participation and co-operation on an international level might be restricted. Britain is one of the few countries not to have a specialised overseas adoption agency and we must avoid any danger of isolation from continuing international initiatives. The Hague convention is in the process of drafting new directives on inter-country adoption and will be meeting at the international convention on private law in 1993, where receiving and sending countries will agree on criteria, and establish standards, to protect children.

Clearly there is a will to adopt, and clearly there are many Romanian children for whom adoption, far from depriving them of a secure future in the country of their origin, would be saving them from years of institutionalised misery at best and death at worst.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East)

A parliamentary answer on 22 October showed that only one mentally handicapped child has been adopted from Romania. She is Emese Gabor, who was adopted by Bev and Ruth Smith of Killamarsh in Derbyshire. Bev Smith had to visit Romania four times, and there were considerable difficulties with the authorities there, including, initially, the British embassy. There was a host of dedicated activity because Bev and Ruth Smith were committed to adopting a mentally handicapped child. It was the third such child whom they had adopted, in addition to having a mentally handicapped child of their own. That experience illustrates that something special is needed if mentally handicapped children are to be adopted from Romania.

Mr. Thurnham

That is a commendable example of how inter-country adoption can be especially helpful in finding the right home for mentally handicapped children.

I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister took on board the strong message from parents that something must be done. I hope that the Government will encourage the establishment of a suitable service either through the aegis of an existing voluntary organisation or by setting up a new organisation with official recognition.

11.47 pm
The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley)

I appreciate the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton,. North-East (Mr. Thurnham) in once again bringing before the House a subject of great concern and interest to many hon. Members. He referred to my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) and for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) contributed to the debate and I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) is in the Chamber. He has also raised this issue on behalf of a number of his constituents.

The whole issue of inter-county adoption must be viewed not only in terms of the poignant and troublesome circumstances in Romania, but against the position in this country, where the number of babies available for adoption has declined sharply in recent years. Often there is the poignant combination of parents who cannot have children alongside pictures in the newspapers and on television of children who are neglected and deprived of even the basic necessities of life.

Some parents have to wait an inordinate length of time before documentation is cleared. They become frustrated and exasperated and, on too many occasions, take the law into their own hands and go out to find a child. I say clearly and strongly that the decision to adopt a child is an enormously serious one. It is essential that the necessary safeguards are taken. There can be no question of having a lower standard of proof or satisfaction as to the suitability of parents for children from overseas than there would be for children at home. We have made great efforts to work with local authorities and have issued guidance to make it quite clear what the procedure should be in an attempt to ensure that needless delays can be circumvented. An example is that traditionally it has been the case that adoptive parents would have to be approved for a particular named child, so it would be impossible to do the home study until after the child had been identified. In the most recent guidance from Bill Utting of the social services inspectorate, we make it clear to local authorities that those are circumstances in which it is appropriate to make a home study report in advance.

We appreciate that many local authorities believe that they have more pressing needs for their skills and demands on their services and wish to find homes for the children who are already their statutory responsibility. There is the development of adoption of handicapped children who, in times gone by, could not have hoped to have a normal upbringing with a family. To accommodate the understandable concerns of local authorities we have made it clear that it is quite appropriate for a charge to be made for parents seeking a home study report for an inter-country adoption.

I hope that I have made it clear to the House that the safeguards are an essential part of protecting children. Children's needs should be paramount in these considerations. Children need families, but no parent has a right to a child. I hope that the House would agree that this must be the way in which we approach inter-country adoption.

My hon. Friend mentioned the United Nations convention on foster placement and adoption, nationally and internationally. It provides that inter-country adoption may be considered as an alternative means of providing a family for a child who cannot be cared for in a suitable manner in his or her own country. In all matters relating to the placement of a child outside the care of a child's own parents, the child's best interests should be the paramount consideration.

Safeguards and standards equivalent to those which apply to national adoption are to be applied to inter-country adoption to protect the welfare of the child involved. The more recent 1989 United Nations declaration on the rights of the child, to which the Government are already signatories and which we hope to ratify soon, will contain strict safeguards on inter-country adoption.

I join my hon. Friend and others in congratulating those who have responded to the tragic situation in Romania by the provision of international aid in a number of ways. There is no embargo on humanitarian aid. The aid in Romania has come from both governmental and voluntary sources. The United Kingdom has already contributed £6.6 million of humanitarian aid, including medical supplies that are so greatly needed. The EC Commission recently set up a programme of aid specifically for children in Romania, to which we are contributing generously. Some £3.8 million has already been promised for supplies and heating in orphanages, and more is promised. There have also been the numerous voluntary efforts which we all applaud. The Romanian Orphanage Trust is a notable example. It intends to ensure that the children of Romania are able to stay in their own country.

The theme of my hon. Friend's debate was inter-country adoption, and he said that there was no inter-country adoption agency in this country. We have a long tradition of adoption and can rightly take pride in the effectiveness and thoroughness with which it is undertaken. In some countries there is adoption only from overseas, so clearly the inter-country adoption agency is the route that has been chosen. Adoption provision is undertaken either by the country's 108 local authorities or by approved voluntary adoption agencies. Within that context, we must seek to develop better services and advice for parents—some of whom encounter a great deal of cumbersome negotiations in endeavouring to establish the facts and what requirements they must meet to undertake an inter-country adoption.

It is neither right nor proper if those to whom those people turn for advice are those who buck the system, and whose action is not something that any right hon. or hon. Member would endorse or support. The Government would welcome, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East, the involvement of one of the adoption agencies if it were prepared to take on a particular role in respect of inter-country adoption. That would provide a safe, reliable and sympathetic source of preliminary advice for parents wanting to embark on that course.

It is important that prospective parents should arrive at the moment when they remove the rose-tinted spectacles and discard the surge of emotion that may prompt them first to consider inter-country adoption, and should consider in the cold light of day the long-term implications of adopting a child from a different country and culture who may not be healthy. They must be sure that they have the commitment identified by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, in describing his constituents. Prospective parents must also be confident of being able to offer the skills that the House recognises in my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East. No one could speak with greater authority and from more experience of inter-country adoption than him.

Mr. Ian Bruce (Dorset, South)

My wife and I volunteered to be short-term foster parents when my wife was pregnant with our first child. We were amazed at the bureaucracy involved and the time that it took, and even more amazed at being told how careful the authorities were, because between the time that they undertook their investigations and decided that we would make suitable parents, I had lost my job and all our circumstances had changed—and the authorities know nothing of that. I am very concerned, from experience of two cases in my constituency, that the bureaucracy is not working. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will stress to all social services departments not that their investigations need be anything less than thorough, but that they should be completed quickly.

Mrs. Bottomley

My hon. Friend identifies precisely the dilemma. When a couple known to him or to others of us, who are laudable, responsible, public-spirited and free from criminal convictions, apply to be foster or adoptive parents and it takes an inordinate length of time, that is described as bureaucracy. But if a child is placed with far from satisfactory adoptive or foster parents, that is described as negligence on the part of the local authority in fulfulling its duties. Difficult judgments must be made, together with checks on criminal and health records, but they are essential in safeguarding a child's welfare. A child from overseas is all the more entitled to a home that we can be satisfied meets the local authority's safeguards.

A local authority or approved adoption society must undertake that work because if, in unforeseen circumstances, anything goes wrong with a placement, that agency must take responsibility for the child. That is why it is not possible for some well-meaning, international agency with no long-term responsibility to step in. It would be unable to provide the long-term support, guidance and advice that may be required.

It is important that we have more up-to-date information about what the precise situation in Romania is. In some cases, it seems that prospective parents are quarrelling over the same child, and entry certificates are claimed on the same child. Stories about the circumstances in orphanages make parents reluctant to leave the child there while they satisfy all the necessary steps and safeguards.

For those reasons I have asked officials from the Department of Health, and the Home Office to visit Romania in the near future to satisfy themselves of the position there and to ensure that the Romanians understand the procedures which we need to satisfy ourselves that the child's welfare will be properly safeguarded.

The aim of the visit will be to learn more at first hand about the situation there and about the children who are in need of adoptive families, so that we shall be better placed to advise agencies and adopters, and to discuss and explore with the Romanian authorities how co-operation between that country and the United Kingdom can be developed and improved to ensure that the safeguards and the essential legal requirements of both countries are strictly observed in inter-country adoption.

Frankly, the House is agreed that the circumstances in Romania have brought the whole question of inter-country adoption to the fore. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East mentioned Colombia. The problem goes back several years.

At the same time we are reviewing adoption law here and will be addressing the problem of inter-country adoption in a working paper to be produced in the new year.

The lessons that my hon. Friend has identified, the improved guidelines produced by the Department of Health, and the experience of the visit to Romania, together with any plans for establishing an agency in the way that my hon. Friend identified—which might be able to advise, encourage or offer a word of caution to parents where appropriate—will all ensure that our response to these tragic circumstances safeguards the welfare of the children, and enables public-spirited parents, who are properly equipped, to offer a long-term home to children who would otherwise have a distinctly bleak future.

The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute past Twelve midnight.