Restriction on the Preparation of Adoption Reports Regulations 2005 and Suitability of Adopters Regulations 2005

My Lords, before I turn to the regulations, perhaps I may use the opportunity as her opposite number on these Benches to pay a brief tribute to the late Lady Blatch. Emily Blatch was a fighter. She fought for the good of children all her life and she showed that fighting spirit in the courage with which she faced her final illness. I had many disagreements with her from these Benches, but I always admired her tenacity and the conscientious way in which she addressed all the legislation that came before her. Her knowledge and experience were par excellence. She had an eye for detail which we all envied and we will miss her very much in your Lordships' House. We on these Benches also welcome these regulations. In looking first at the Restriction on the Preparation of Adoption Reports Regulations, I have one concern. That relates to reports written about a child. It is right, as the regulations provide, that the person compiling the report should be a social worker with at least three years' post-qualification experience in social work with children or should be supervised by such a person. However, like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I believe that these reports should always be done by a social worker who knows the child, and I regret that that is not in the regulations. It may well be in the guidance. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. It would be counterproductive if the task of writing the report were passed over to a social worker within the family placement team in order to comply with the regulations, even though the worker concerned did not know the child well. That also applies to reports of visits to a child placed for adoption. I might also say in passing that other reports written in connection with care planning for children also need to be completed by experienced social workers who know the child or supervised by such people. For example, a decision about a long-term fostering placement or the return of a child to his family is a very significant decision in the life of that child and may be subject to less scrutiny than an adoption report. It is all the more important that this is carried out by somebody who knows the child. Perhaps the noble Lord could keep that in mind. I turn to the Suitability of Adopters Regulations. Again we welcome the clarity that the regulations bring but we deplore the fact that it has taken two and a half years to bring them forward since the Royal Assent for the Adoption and Children Act. There may be reasons for that, such as the transfer to the DfES and the incoming Children Act 2004, but the knock-on effect on training—a point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—for all concerned must be considerable. Perhaps the Minister could say whether the time has been used constructively on these matters. Having said that, we welcome the regulations which we believe do what is necessary. We welcome paragraph 5 which gives a right to those not considered suitable to be adopters to go before a panel and thereby gain the right to an independent review of their application. The system has to be seen to be fair to all prospective adopters. Currently the guidance is only in draft but I wonder whether I could take this opportunity to flag up three omissions from it at this point in the hope that they will be taken into account in the final version. The first is that there is virtually no reference in the guidance to the issues that arise when adoption is being considered for a child who is the subject of care proceedings. We know that the sooner a child can be properly placed in a permanent placement the better because a child's emotional development is very much affected by their ability to make a bond with a caring adult at an early stage. That is why speed is of the essence, albeit with due care, to get it right. However, this parallel tracking can only be done if everyone concerned—the adoption agency, the local authority and the courts—act together in a co-ordinated way towards the same objectives. That might require further training for some members of the judiciary. A way forward proposed by a joint committee of five of the leading agencies with an interest in adoption is for joint guidance to be issued by the DfES, the President of the Family Division or the new family justice council when that is established. This should also clarify that reports to courts should be available to the panel. The second point is about the disclosure of confidential information. The guidance leaves it to each individual agency to work out its own procedures. That is really not good enough. Examples abound of conflicting, confusing and even misleading advice from different agencies and a lead from the Government, with input from the relevant professional bodies is urgently needed. The third point is that there are several places in the regulations and the guidance where the rights and needs of birth parents and other relatives are not sufficiently acknowledged. Several points need to be addressed. They are, first, the availability of pre-birth counselling for parents considering adoption with information and advice about the implications of the various options with therapeutic counselling where necessary; secondly, the need for more guidance about the role of the independent support worker for parents—as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned—emphasising the value of support to birth parents through contact with other couples who have been through the same experience; and, thirdly, ensuring that parents have an opportunity to express their views directly—if necessary, in writing—and to comment on information about them given to the panel. That should be, but is not always, done now; it should not be optional. Fourthly, there should be a contribution by the birth parents to the matching considerations and the drawing up of the placement plan. It is hard to see how a panel can fulfil its duty without that. Finally, there should be a role for parents in the reviews under regulation 31. It is not sufficient to include them under, "any other persons the agency considers relevant". That should be rephrased to indicate that their views should be sought unless it is inappropriate in the particular case. If birth parents are treated with consideration, provided with full information and support throughout the whole process and their views given due weight, their former opposition to a placement plan may be reduced, or changes of heart from those parents considering placing a child for adoption will be avoided. I think that we would all like to avoid the heartache and waste of professionals' time that such last-minute withdrawals entail, so I hope that the Minister will take those constructive comments into consideration when preparing the final draft of the guidance.