Children and Adoption Bill [Lords]

We are back here discussing these matters after a three-month gap. That is a long time and I am not sure why we had such a long break from our deliberations on the Bill. We discussed new clause 3 briefly in Committee in a clause stand part debate. The new clause was not actually tabled, and I wanted to revisit it to ensure that all the issues were covered. In Committee, we learned that only about 300 international adoptions a year involved the United Kingdom. The new clause refers to something even more unusual: foreign adoptions of United Kingdom children. It is supported by both the British Association for Adoption and Fostering and the Intercountry Adoption Centre. In Committee, I said that I firmly believed that the child’s interests should be paramount. In her response, the Minister said"““we have come to the settled position that the 10-week provision is right, striking the balance between safeguarding children and having a requirement for adopters””.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 March 2006; c. 38.]" I respect that as a general position, but feel that there should be discretion to take into account special circumstances that, in some cases, might lead to a different judgment in relation to the child’s best interests. As some of us will argue later this afternoon, the child’s best interests must be served by examination of each individual case. That is what the new clause attempts to secure. Section 84 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides for the High Court to be able to make an order granting parental responsibility to applicants who are not domiciled or habitually resident in the United Kingdom when they wish to take a child out of the country for the purpose of adoption. Section 84(4) imposes a requirement for the child to have lived with the applicants for at least 10 weeks before an application may be made under the section. A similar provision in section 46 prescribes various minimum periods for which the child must have lived with the applicants before an application may be made for an adoption order, but the section also allows for the court to give leave for some applications to be made before the usual period has expired. The requirement for the 10-week minimum period is of course designed to safeguard the child, and to ensure that the child and adopters have time to become acquainted with each other before the jurisdiction. However, as the applicants will by definition be habitually resident in another country, it will often be not merely difficult but impossible for them to live in this country for a minimum period of 10 weeks with the child before making an application, possibly having to remain here for still longer pending the outcome of the application. It is most likely that, when someone wants to adopt overseas a child from this country, there will already be some connection; probably, but not necessarily, a blood relationship. In some circumstances, the child may already be well acquainted with the proposed adopters—for example, having spent holidays with them—but the existing provision in the Adoption and Children Act does not allow any flexibility or exercise of discretion. The new clause and amendments would allow flexibility, but permit rules of court to provide further safeguards if that were thought necessary. It is important to bear it in mind that section 84 applications can in any event only be made in the High Court. It is not suggested that a final order under section 84 should be made before the child has lived with the applicants for at least the 10 weeks required, nor that it would always be appropriate or helpful for the child to be permitted to leave the country with the prospective adopters without a period of living with them. But if the court is to be able to achieve the outcome that best meets the child’s needs, it is essential that it can consider all the circumstances and form a view on whether sufficient other safeguards are in place to permit the child to leave the jurisdiction. Without that, some children may be deprived of the possibility of secure family life with members of their extended family, or with adopters who share aspects of their heritage and culture, given that the 10 weeks may constitute an impossible barrier in some cases. I do not believe that it should be waived solely on the ground that it is an insurmountable barrier, but we need flexibility in such situations to make sure that the child’s interests are best served. In most cases, a child would be placed overseas with someone related by blood, but in others the child would be placed with a person living abroad who was not a close relative. For example, the restriction on removing a child under section 85 of the 2002 Act applies to any child who is a Commonwealth citizen or habitually resident in the UK. The legislation that applied before the 2002 Act was introduced imposed a similar restriction in respect of children who were British or Irish citizens. Some children may be habitually resident in this country who not only are nationals of another country but have strong links with that country. For them, it would be most appropriate to be adopted in that other country. In other cases, according to the BAAF, a local authority has tried to place a child with a family who have already adopted his or her older sibling but who have moved abroad. In extremely rare cases, the risks posed by a birth parent may be so great that one reason for seeking a placement outside UK jurisdiction is to ensure the safety of the child and of the proposed adopters. In proposing new clause 3, I am asking not for anything absolute but for flexibility, so that judgments made in the High Court are in the child’s best interests. I am sure that the Conservative spokesman will present the arguments for the remaining amendments in the group in great detail, but I want to place it on record that my party is broadly supportive of all of them. As I said in Committee, I am sure that every politician and member of the general public is concerned about trafficking in children and other unethical practices, but we must also consider the plight of children in some countries in the developing world. We must focus on the welfare of the child and have regard to the UN convention on the rights of the child, so that the best interests of the child can be served. That may be achieved by allowing the child to live with a family in this country. It is easy to understand and support the action that the Government have taken on Cambodia, but the remaining amendments in the group would help to provide a more balanced approach. In no way do they run counter to the best interests of the child, and their arguments for an appeals process, a review and recourse to The Hague convention seem compelling. Today, I read again the Hansard report of our Committee proceedings, and I note that the Minister made various pledges to provide more information on the very high cost of overseas adoption. I hope that the House can be updated on when that information might be available, if is not so already.