My Lords, like many others, I see many good intentions in the Bill and, along with others, I welcome the aim of speeding up the rate at which adoptions take place and are
completed. But I also very strongly support my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss in this amendment.
When we talk about a person’s identity—this will come up a number of times in other amendments that we are due to consider, and some noble Lords have raised this issue already—it is a multifaceted affair. It has many constituent parts. It seems like an anomaly to try to say that “characteristics” or “background” could encapsulate all the things that we might mean by identity and which might influence the way in which we feel we are being brought up or looked after by people who are standing in for our biological parents.
I do not understand the argument that there is somehow an excessive emphasis if you mention it. That does not make sense to me, given that we live in a society where there is still racism and discrimination based on religion, cultural background and language. How can it be excessive when we are having to deal with all those different forms of discrimination? We do not have a society where we have the luxury of saying that we do not need to talk about this because it does not matter and it is not something that people consider or talk about.
Last year, I hosted a round-table discussion that had been organised by the NSPCC. It took place while the Select Committee on adoption was still gathering evidence so we were not influenced by what the committee was saying. Present at that meeting were adoptive parents, adults who had been adopted as children, academics, researchers and representatives from major charities and local authorities—everyone working in the field of adoption. We focused on racial origins, transracial adoptions and ethnicity. We referred to case studies and experiences in the UK and overseas, and some DfE officials were also present. By and large, that group of about 20 people also came to the view that it was both important and necessary to consider ethnicity, racial origins and culture when seeking to place for adoption. That is not to say that anyone present thought that transracial adoption should never be undertaken. However, it was considered that in our society cultural identities are key factors that ought properly to be taken into account when a child is to be adopted.
5.15 pm
I struggle to see precisely what problem the Government think they are going to address by omitting the terms that have been put forward in the amendment. If the adoption of children from ethnic minority backgrounds is being delayed because social workers are waiting for an exact cultural or ethnic match, perhaps we could see some evidence to support that. All the evidence that I have seen has been anecdotal. Even though many of the people who sat around that table in October were researchers and renowned academics working in the field, none could point to any evidence that could support that contention.
The matter of delayed adoptions for children from black and mixed-heritage backgrounds is very complex and has its roots in a whole number of factors. Perhaps the Government’s desire to effect a better outcome for
those children lies in a number of strategies, such as actively recruiting more families from similar backgrounds to adopt or commit to long-term fostering. If the Government want to improve long-term stability for looked-after minority ethnic children, they should also consider how to boost permanent solutions for them outside of adoption—in particular, through guardianship and kinship care.
Where accounts of children being adopted by parents from a differing racial or ethnic, religious, linguistic or cultural background are written by the children or adults themselves, many of them state that they had a loving and caring upbringing on a par with, and perhaps better than, others brought up by both their parents. None the less, many of them will also point to a feeling of a lack, a void or an emptiness where a sense of their heritage and identity should be. No matter that these might be constructed by society; they are very real to the people who experience them. Those kinds of experiences are very much heightened if the child is raised in an area where they are highly visible and marked as different at school and in their social life. More support should be offered to adoptive parents and social workers to help their understanding of the needs of minority ethnic children. Practice is very variable around the UK, and improved training and guidance are needed for social workers to ensure that their decision-making in adoption cases is based on clear evidence aimed at meeting the best interests of the child.
I emphasise that the agencies that support this amendment are not seeking some idealised version of a perfect ethnic, racial or cultural match. However, they recognise that it is essential for a child with that background to be placed in a family with knowledge, understanding and networks that will enable the child to feel that they have a place in the world and where their inevitable curiosity about their cultural heritage will be recognised and engaged with. Unfortunately, I am afraid that love on its own is not enough in these circumstances.