Adoption and Children Bill (Hansard, 25 July 2002)

HL Deb 25 July 2002 vol 638 cc536-43 536

§ 3.31 p.m.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway rose to move, That the Adoption and Children Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 4, 44, 46, 48 to 51 and 139(4) to (7).

§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the wake of yesterday's tidal wave of criticism of the Procedure Committee, it has to be said at the outset that there is no criticism of the decision of the usual channels, on the information before them before Second Reading, to favour committal of the Bill to Grand Committee.

§ Proposal 17 in the 5th Report of the Procedure Committee—that such a decision should be made by the usual channels and considered by the House after Second Reading—has yet to be embodied in Standing Order 47. If it had been so embodied, no doubt a split committal would or should have been made as is sought by this Motion for recommittal. Paragraph 20 of the Procedure Committee report affirms that split committal is an extant procedure. Indeed, Amendment No. 14 to the report, moved yesterday by my noble friend Lord Elton, extended that concept of split committal.

§ It would have been apparent after Second Reading that the amendments moved in Grand Committee to the clauses referred to in this Motion raise contentious matters of principle of general public importance concerning the adoption of children which, as such, ought to be debated on the Floor of the House in Committee, before Report. Why is this a matter of 537 general public importance? There are now 14,000 children who have been in care over five years seeking adoption. A letter dated 23rd July which has been placed in the Library by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, confirms that there is a very substantial dearth of approved adopters.

§ Not only is there no criticism of the decision of the usual channels; there is no criticism of the work of the Grand Committee in which some debate ensued on the amendments to these clauses. The Official Report of the debate on a multitude of probing amendments on seven Marshalled Lists shows that, under the benevolent aegis of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, there was the type of debate customarily associated with Grand Committee. It served an invaluable purpose. It was an opportunity for a constructive exchange of views on detailed aspects of government policy; to redefine issues; to rethink one's own thoughts; but not to retable many of those amendments or substantially to revise others. Within the traditional remit of non-contentious affairs—the clauses discussed, but not these clauses—the Grand Committee was an unqualified success and served its purpose.

§ However, on these contentious clauses on matters of principle, such was not and could never have been the case. What are these matters of principle? Amendments to Clauses 48 to 50 and Clause 139 sought to exclude unmarried heterosexual couples and joint and single homosexuals from the proposed adoption regime. Amendments to Clauses 46 and 51 sought to slight the practice established by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House as to dispensation with parental consent. Clauses 4 to 44 sought to qualify on the face of the Bill the exercise of discretion on implementing regulations that are not to be available until some two years after Royal Assent.

§ Surely on such matters of general public importance, the Back Benches, Cross Benches and Spiritual Benches—of whatever opinion on the merits, which is immaterial—may well wish to reassert the entitlement of unrestricted debate in Committee on the Floor of the House, which is not available at any other stage of a Bill. In this context, reference could be made to the paper of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth which was sent to the Procedure Committee, but not considered by it, as appears from col. 451 of the Official Report.

§ If this Motion were to commend itself, Royal Assent could still be granted before the end of this Session, and statute which could not be implemented for two years after Royal Assent would not be delayed from taking effect. There has been no lobby. This is not an assault upon the citadel, either to be seen as such or to be repelled as such. I beg to move.

§ Moved, That the Adoption and Children Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clauses 4, 44, 46, 48 to 51 and 139(4) to (7).—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)

538

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, many of us recognise my noble friend's altruism in bringing this Motion before the House. I understand that the relevant provisions of the Bill are substantially in the form in which he would wish to see them. Nevertheless he raises an important point.
For myself I believe that recommittal—a rerunning of part of the Committee stage—is appropriate when a material change has taken place to the relevant provisions of a Bill as a result of something that has happened since the first Committee stage took place. But that is not so in this case. By definition, at the end of Grand Committee, the Bill remains in the same condition—it has not been amended—as it was at Second Reading. The decision to send the Bill to a Grand Committee, whether one agrees with it or not—obviously, different views can be held on that—was taken by the House. I believe that the House, having taken the decision, should stick to it in the absence of material changes which might cause us to recommit.
My noble friend's Motion also raises the question of whether we should have split Committee stages. That matter belongs to the debate we had yesterday rather than to today's debate and, obviously, it is possible for two views to be held on it. However, that is not what my noble friend is suggesting at the moment. He is suggesting that we should recommit a section of the Bill. If we had intended to split the Bill, we should have done so at the time we took the original decision on how it should be dealt with in Committee.
For those reasons, although my noble friend has done us a service in bringing the Motion—

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for giving way. With respect, my noble friend has made a mistake. In paragraph 20 of the 5th Report split committal is accepted as an extant procedure by the Procedure Committee.

§ Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, I do not commend or otherwise the principle of split Committees. As I say, that matter belongs to the debate we had yesterday or to a future debate. However, that is not what my noble friend's Motion proposes. It proposes the recommittal of certain clauses which have been considered in Grand Committee; that is, a second Committee stage for the relevant clauses. That is slightly different from saying that we should discuss certain clauses in a Grand Committee and others in a Committee of the Whole House although we may be able to do that with other Bills. However, as I say, that is not the decision that is before us. For those reasons I remain extremely cautious about my noble friend's Motion.

§ Baroness Gould of Potternewton
My Lords, I understand and appreciate the concern which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, attaches to this whole area of our Committee debate. However, in many ways we were able to have a much more constructive debate in Grand Committee than we might have had on the Floor of the House, partly because we did not have "set pieces" to contend with 539 as so often happens during debate on controversial subjects on the Floor of the House as we all know from past experience. We were able to have a proper dialogue and discussion. No one was debarred from speaking. I read Hansard to check the number of speakers in the relevant debate. Some 16 people participated, many more than once. It certainly was not a short debate; it lasted over two hours. I do not think that there is a case for recommittal. I refer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in that regard.
However, there is a much more important point here; namely, that this is an extremely important Bill as a whole. To pick out one area would discredit the rest of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, the Bill concerns disadvantaged children and the number who need to be adopted and cared for. The whole of the Bill has to be seen in that context; it would be a shame to consider one part in isolation. It is almost impossible to debate the relevant clauses if one has not listened to or taken part in some of the other debates. For example, on a previous day's discussion on the Bill in Grand Committee we had a long debate on the criteria under which people should be able to adopt. That discussion was fundamental to debating the measure in respect of unmarried couples. As I say, I do not think that one can isolate certain parts of the Bill. That would do a disservice to the Bill as a whole. I hope that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will not be accepted.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, having taken part in the debate in the Grand Committee to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, refers, I wish to say that I agree with everything she said about the quality, the standard and the general good manners of that debate. However, I do not think that it was heard by a number of those who will cast votes which will ultimately resolve this matter.
I do not think that the case of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, rests simply on the importance of the matter. Many important matters have been resolved in the House on Report and will continue to be so. I do not think that there is any noble Lord I am aware of in this Chamber who would wish to have two major debates in the Chamber on this one issue. I think that we all agree it should be debated once and resolved in the Lobbies. But the question is: which procedure is likely to ensure a debate which is more honourable, more peaceful, more orderly and more to the honour of this House? To me it is that rather than any argument of importance that would support the case for having the matter resolved by the Committee procedure.
It is a debate which will be hard fought in the best spirit of this House. There will be, for example, a number of statistics put forward whose base people will wish to question and whose significance they will wish to argue about. All those matters are much better resolved in a Committee procedure where noble Lords can come back on each others' speeches, raise points and perhaps narrow the issues of disagreement than they would be in the Report procedure with its 540 potential for a large number of possibly disorderly interventions. For that reason I believe that to accept the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, would serve the honour and the convenience of the House.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, before we leave the question of a split procedure, I acknowledge that last night the House convincingly decided that it did not wish to recommit individual clauses from Bills brought from another place into Grand Committee when those clauses had not been discussed at all in another place. I still think—and I think that on reflection noble Lords will agree—that such clauses—there are no fewer than 27 in the Bill on asylum which is before this House at the moment—need to be treated in a different way from other clauses. Therefore, when a Bill comes to a Grand Committee in that form, I suggest that those clauses which come to us green from the draftsman's hand should be diverted into a Committee of the Whole House. I can find no other forum in which to advance that to your Lordships and therefore I say it now.

§ Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, having heard the procedural points which have been made this afternoon, I wish to make a point about the Adoption and Children Bill as a whole. In the context of that Bill it would be difficult to discuss the future of children only in part. I defer to the great knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but the particular clauses he identifies are extraordinarily contentious. However, they cannot be viewed as being separate from those which concern the assessment of children and are linked to guidance and regulation. Therefore, the debate should concern the Bill as a whole and not certain clauses, I should be extremely unhappy if those clauses—which I personally do not regard as more important than assessing families, acknowledging some of the very complex situations in which children find themselves and ensuring that those children have safe passage through those situations—were separated out.

§ Lord Roper
My Lords, I promised the noble Lord. Lord Campbell of Alloway, and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Russell that I would listen to their arguments on what is obviously an important procedural point. Both have made interesting cases. I have to say to my noble friend Lord Russell that colleagues in this House can read Hansard and can therefore get an indication of the range of discussions which took place in Grand Committee. His argument concerning the distinction between Committee and Report is, if it is an argument, one that should be put forward when the Bill is sent to Grand Committee rather than, as is the case now, when we are discussing recommittal.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that recommittal is a procedure which should be used sparingly and only if a particularly good case has been made. On this occasion, I do not believe that such a 541 case has been made. If the noble Lord intends to press his Motion to a vote, I shall have to recommend to my noble friends not to support him.

§ Viscount Bledisloe
My Lords, I confess to being extremely puzzled by two things that have been said. First, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, twice cited paragraph 20 of the report of the Procedure Committee as being in favour of the split committal of Bills. I do not have the report in front of me, but my clear recollection is that the Procedure Committee came out very strongly against the split committal of Bills, despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, suggested and advised that such a procedure be adopted.
Secondly, I am amazed to hear the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggest that the right way to deal with the matter is to have a vote in Committee. Time after time we are subjected to a policy from his Front Bench that votes will never take place during Committee stage, even when we have been through a matter at great length. Whether or not one agrees with that policy, it is somewhat surprising to hear that somewhat contradictory suggestion coming from immediately behind the noble Earl's Chief Whip.

§ Earl Russell
My Lords, I have no argument with my party's policy. But a vote on recommittal is not identical to a vote on first committal.

§ Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I very much welcome the interest taken by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in the Bill's proceedings. There is no question that his knowledge and expertise were of enormous help in allowing us to debate at Second Reading and in Grand Committee these very important issues with a great deal of care and clarity.
However, I believe, in the light of experience, that the Grand Committee process has been both appropriate and extremely valuable as a means of scrutinising this important Bill. Although items in the Bill are no doubt controversial, it is worth making the point that the broad intent to improve adoption processes and procedures in this country has received considerable support from all parts of the House. The Grand Committee process has allowed us to debate those items with a great deal of scrutiny and care. We have had the benefit of more than 26 hours of detailed and thorough debate over seven sessions. In total, more than 160 amendments have been considered.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, focused our attention, in particular, on the clauses concerning joint adoption by unmarried couples. I say to the noble Lord that that matter was debated very carefully at Second Reading, and the House decided that the Bill should be referred to a Grand Committee—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. The issue was debated thoroughly in Grand Committee. It spanned three Committee sessions and a total of four-and-a-half hours of debate—longer 542 than any other issue raised in the Bill. Twenty-two Members of your Lordships' House spoke in debate during those discussions.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that there should be only one major debate on these issues, and he suggested that the Committee procedure would be more appropriate than Report. However, I do not believe, given the usual tolerance and good manners which prevail in your Lordships' House, that we cannot deal on Report with the issues that he raised. I am sure that we shall be able to do so.
Finally, I reiterate a point made by my noble friend Lady Gould and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. The issues of unmarried couples and of a local authority's duty to provide adoption support services are important. But many other debates took place on other matters, such as placement orders and consent orders, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has not suggested that they should come before your Lordships' House in a recommittal. From my own viewpoint, I do not see that the issue of unmarried couples is more significant than the other issues that we debated significantly in Grand Committee.
It is up to each noble Lord to make up his mind on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has made a significant contribution to our debates thus far. But I believe that the Grand Committee scrutiny has been very thorough.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, from the speech of my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley, who is a member of the usual channels, it was plain that, if this matter had been put to the usual channels now or at any time, they would have questioned the recommittal. They would have been against it without having heard what has been argued today and without the benefit of having read the opinion of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. This is not a question of whether my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley or I are right. It is not a question of right and wrong; it is a question of the sense of the House.
In answer to the noble Baroness, I take the view that these clauses are the cornerstone of the Bill. But the argument has been heard. These unusual and wholly exceptional circumstances would not create any precedent. In that context, when the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, looks at the report, he will see the words, there is no procedural reason why a motion to commit a bill should not do as Lord Jenkin has proposed". As I read it, the committee is expressly accepting split committals as an excellent procedure. The noble Viscount may read it otherwise. However, that is not the point.

§ Lord Carter
My Lords, this is not a split Committee; it is a recommittal, and there is a very big difference. At the outset, a split Committee takes part of a Bill in Grand Committee and the rest of it on the Floor of the House. We did that in relation to the Transport Bill in the previous Parliament. We spent one day in Grand Committee putting all the 543 government amendments into the Bill, and the Bill was then reprinted and dealt with by a Committee of the Whole House in the Chamber. The noble Lord is confusing a split Committee and a recommittal.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord does not seem to appreciate that the decision was made before Second Reading. It was a perfectly proper decision because there was no reason to suppose that these matters of principle, which should be discussed on the Floor of the House, would arise. There was only a proposal to amend the procedure so that after Second Reading the decision as to recommittal could be taken. But the House could not recommit. No such suggestion could have been made because, on the information available, there was no reason why that should happen. Then it was too late to do anything. I took advice. The only way of dealing with the matter, if the House wished to exercise its entitlement, was to do as I have done. That was to seek a recommittal, which is exactly the same as what would have been a split committal. There is no other way to deal with it. However, if the sense of the House is against me, it would be quite wrong to divide the House. This is a matter for the sense of the House. So, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.