Strong Local Voice, Strong Local Champion

Voluntary Adoption Sector

It is important for children to live in a loving, accepting environment - Brooke

I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on bringing this timely debate to the Chamber. I think we would all agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who said that there has been insufficient scrutiny of this subject. I might disagree with his conclusions, but it is right that the issues should be fully debated.

I shall take a stance that is slightly different from that of previous speakers, because I want to concentrate on the interests of the child and adoption in the broadest sense. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury on the immense contribution that he has made to the all-party group on adoption and fostering. He will know that although I may differ with him on some things, we broadly agree on most of them.

I start from the premise that every child should be entitled to live in a stable, loving family relationship. It is a tragedy in many ways that 60,000 children are fostered at present, and I welcome the Government's Green Paper on how we can improve the outcome of looked-after children.

Perhaps one of the worst aspects of the current situation is that many children experience multiple placements, which are so damaging. Several of us have become very interested in attachment theory, which focuses on the importance of vulnerable children-all children-having a strong attachment with one adult figure as early in life as possible. With multiple placements, there is never a chance to unravel the problems of a damaged and vulnerable child.

I also want to think about children's views on adoption. The November 2006 document on adoption, "Your Rights, Your Say", included a report on children's views. Children-of an appropriate age, of course-were asked what was the best thing about being adopted and said that it was joining a new or a real family. They said that the worst thing about being adopted was leaving their old family, that it took too long and that there was too much waiting. Children's top views on how things could be improved included making the process quicker, involving and supporting them more, and keeping them in touch with what was happening. We certainly should listen to their views.

In 2005, adoption agencies placed 3,100 children for adoption. As we know, the number of adoptions fell last year, so we have to ask some serious questions about the process. I praise the voluntary adoption agencies, which placed a total of 708 children-about 40 per cent.-in 2004-05. That is significant; what is also significant is the quality of those placements. That came out clearly in the Commission for Social Care

Inspection report that was published in November 2006, after all 150 local councils and the then 33 voluntary agencies in England were inspected. It stated:

"Overall the quality of adoption practice is still very variable across and within local councils...Voluntary adoption agencies that have a more specific remit generally meet or exceed the required standards."

In fact, the detailed statistics show that the minimum standards were met by about 54 per cent. of local authorities but by nearly 90 per cent. of voluntary adoption agencies when it came to the all-important post-adoption support. Many lessons could be learned if the two sectors worked closely together.

The report also stated:

"Seven out of ten local councils and nine out of ten voluntary adoption agencies have developed strategies to recruit adoptive parents to meet the needs of children who are waiting."

Again, a better statistical performance. It went on to say:

"Most councils offered support to birth families but many found it difficult to get it right. It usually works best when it is independent and there is a choice".

That, of course, is the great contribution of the voluntary sector: independence and choice.

The hon. Member for Canterbury mentioned finances, and I want to touch on that because it is serious. There is a suggestion that local authorities are using the voluntary agencies less because they are too expensive. If we are putting children first, I do not understand how we can use such terms. Barnardo's was used to place only 50 children last year, compared with 70 in 2005, and that situation seems to cross a number of agencies. I understand that the fees are about £12,000 for a local authority and £19,000 for a voluntary agency such as Barnardo's, but, if we are concerned about the best interests of the child, there is no comparison to be made if the child remains in foster care for a longer period and there are multiple placements.

On economic grounds, the figures just do not add up because of the cost of foster care. I should add that long-term foster care is the best solution for some children, and it is important to do the right thing for each individual child, but I do not think that cost should be a reason for not placing children through the agencies.

It is also important to consider how costs are calculated. Local authorities may not include all their overhead costs. There needs to be a much more accurate assessment of the cost of adoption placements, and local authorities should be encouraged to work with voluntary agencies to plan the services required. There are also issues around the quality of the local authorities' commissioning processes.

I have a question for the Minister. He usually says that I ask him lots but, as this is a repeat question, we should definitely get an answer today. The Department for Education and Skills commissioned a review of adoption services-the Deloitte report. Will he give us a date for publication? The leaks that we are getting now cannot be helpful to the overall debate. It would be better to have things out in the open. As this is such an important area, the report should be published and put before us.

21 Feb 2007 : Column 126WH

Do we want voluntary adoption agencies to become a last resort? That is how things are beginning to look. It is important to secure their financial viability. The issue is much bigger than the sexual orientation question. That is my main point.

I would also like to praise the voluntary agencies for the wide range of services that they provide, which, of course, pull in extra money. Barnardo's, for example, offers more support to adopters than is usually available from local authorities because it is able to visit the family more often and each of its social workers has a manageable case load. The voluntary sector generally brings a stable staff group. We need to tackle many of those problems in the public sector.

I have asked many parliamentary questions about the situation in the courts but have not had an answer. I am concerned about differentials up and down the country in the time it takes to get a placement order, but the figures are not available. The Minister should undertake an inquiry into how the court process is working following implementation of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Annette Brooke: I apologise, but I will not. I am very short of time.

On the sexual orientation aspect, the National Children's Homes stated:

"Currently, we have successful placements with people from all walks of life, including single people, gay couples and many families on low incomes. We believe that what matters most is that children are placed in a loving, caring, secure environment and that all potential adoptive parents are fully prepared and supported through the whole process and this support continues as they settle into family life."

As far as I am concerned, those are the important ingredients. I cannot believe that it is helpful to bring discrimination into our consideration of the best interests of the child.

The British Association of Social Workers says that the Government would not be right to consider exemptions. It states:

"Every social worker in the UK must be registered with one of the 4 regulatory councils and every council's code of practice states that registrants must not discriminate unlawfully or unjustifiably against service users, carers or colleagues."

All children need loving and accepting parents who, incidentally, do not display prejudice against other people. I do not question the Catholic agencies' professionalism, commitment and outstanding record of finding stable and loving homes for some of the most disadvantaged children in society, but we must put things in context, consider the overall situation and look at adoption on a case-by-case basis. I cannot understand how an organisation that is, in effect, operating on behalf of the state can operate a policy that is possibly in conflict with the state's policy. Overall, we need to think about social workers and the managers of the schemes. We need to recruit sufficient skilled and experienced social workers and to retain them. We need an effective work force across the board.

This is a timely debate. There are challenges to the Government to give leadership to ensure that every child matters by getting the right relationship-the best

relationship-between the state and voluntary sector and by working with the Catholic agencies in the months ahead.

Link to full debate: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070221/halltext/70221h0006.htm