Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 5:"Page 17, line 18, at end insert—" ““(   )   In section 85 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (restriction on taking children out), in subsection (2) after paragraph (a) insert— ““(aa)   the High Court has given leave for the child to leave the United Kingdom to be placed with the prospective adopters pending the issue of an application under section 84,”””” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall take just a little time to deal with some issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, when we discussed the matter at Report. He raised some important questions that I would like to address before the Bill finally leaves this House. The restrictions in adoption legislation on taking children abroad for the purposes of adoption are there to protect and provide safeguards. The point of trying to amend those provisions is not to reduce those safeguards but to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility so that a placement that is deemed to be in the best interest of the child is possible. Previously, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked what would happen if the placement did not work out—how would we in the United Kingdom know that things were not working well? There are two possible responses to that. The first is that if the country in which the adoption was being completed was a convention country, a country that is party to the 1993 Hague Convention, there would be a central authority and that central authority would be in contact with the central authority here. That central authority could arrange another placement in that country, if that were appropriate, or return the child to this country, or its country of origin. The convention also provides that the views of the child must be taken into account and his or her consent be obtained before any new placement where that is appropriate. If the country were not a convention country, it would be more problematic.  Under the provisions of the Adoption and Children Act, if they are unamended, the child will be subject to an order under Section 84, giving the prospective adopters parental responsibility. Under English law, no one else would have parental responsibility. If the adoption had been arranged by an adoption agency—most probably, a local authority—and the adopters requested it, the local authority concerned would probably be willing to receive a child back. It may be possible to consider enabling the child to leave the country with the prospective adopters while subject to a placement order. That would mean that the local authority would share parental responsibility with the adopters and would have a continuing responsibility for the child. There may be some difficulties in that, but it is possible that that system could work to the child’s advantage. I think that I am right in saying that, since 1991, the courts have sanctioned children leaving the country under care orders. Those are two possible ways of ensuring that, when a child is in another country, oversight of the arrangements continues. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, talked about relatives. We noted that since the passage of the 2002 Act the position of relatives had changed and that it might be possible to make changes here. It depends on what definition of ““relative”” the Government come up with. It would have to be sufficiently wide to allow people who have adopted one of a sibling group and who are the prospective adopters of another one of that group to be considered parents. I am not sure whether they would be under the current definition. It is incumbent on me to say why the provision is important and worth banging on about at this late hour. There are two reasons. First, anyone who has read about the history of inter-country adoption will know that what happened in the last century to children who went abroad from this country was perhaps one of the most shameful acts of social policy in which the country has ever been involved. Nobody on these Benches has any wish to replicate any of that or to set up legal loopholes. But, at times, people become, quite rightly, extremely emotional and perhaps sometimes unreasonable about inter-country adoption, whether to or from this country. If the law does not work in the best interests of children, people will be tempted to try to circumvent it. That is why it is important that we consider allowing flexibility, even in cases that have been to court and have been assessed. When we last discussed the issue, the Minister asked me how prevalent such cases are. Only a few children are affected; the number is still very small but I have reason to believe that it is growing. It is therefore worth taking time to see whether the law can be made to work in their best interests. I beg to move.