Children and Adoption Bill [HL]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord   Adonis, for his clear introduction to the Bill. In broad terms I welcome the Bill, which takes into account much of what came out of the report on the draft Bill earlier this year. Clearly, it is important to see the Bill in context as only part of the wider provisions aimed at helping separating parents while also addressing some of the issues of inter-country adoption. It is good that the Bill affirms a commitment to the principle that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance in determining any questions related to its upbringing, as outlined in core primary legislation. There are, however, some questions about the degree to which the provisions in the Bill are based on legal and court procedures rather than making more use of processes that are less legal in nature. I know that the Bill is aimed at dealing with the court procedures, but there is a question about whether other measures would enable some cases not to have to go through the courts. During the passage of the Family Law Act 1996 and since, there have been constant reminders, not least from these Benches, that it is vitally important that there is proper support for all aspects of supporting adult relationships. Most of that is delivered by the voluntary sector, which has to compete for resources against legitimate demands from other aspects of work with families. Picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I remind the House that it is vitally important that we see the significance of work that helps to reduce the number of separating families who have to resort to legal and court procedures and the importance of proper resources for that work. The good news is that the vast majority of separating parents sort out their own situation, and only about 10 per cent resort to using the legal processes. But there is a fundamental underlying question of the extent to which processes that are largely legal in nature are best able to serve couples. Clearly, there are situations in which the stage is reached at which a legal solution is the only way through. However, research commissioned by the Department for Constitutional Affairs that was published earlier this year gave an insight into the reasons why parents go to court, what their expectations are, and whether those expectations are met. It shows that issues of child welfare were not necessarily the driving force behind the conflict. Parents are often angry about other things—financial support, mistreatment or abandonment. Because the courts could not listen to such complaints, parents channelled their anger and hostility into the one issue that the courts could listen to—namely parenting. In March, the Constitutional Affairs Committee issued a report that concluded that there must be a clear and unequivocal commitment to removing as many child contact and residence cases as possible from the family courts system, with more disputes being dealt with through mediation. Picking up what the noble Lord said in his introduction, I hope very much that the low take-up of the mediation scheme that was recently piloted by the three family courts in London, Brighton and Sunderland will not deter the Government from looking further at the questions of mediation and compulsory mediation. I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady   Sharp, said about compulsion. It feels as though there is a question about the point at which compulsion is used. No doubt there is experience in other places, not least America and Norway, on that. It would be interesting to hear more in the winding-up. The second part of the Bill acknowledges the principle of inter-country adoption and outlines the procedures to help to safeguard the welfare of the child. However, drawing on the experience of PACT—Parents and Children Together, the Oxford diocesan adoption scheme which handles 60 out of the total of 360 cases annually in this country—I understand that it is a costly and lengthy business, and is not easily available to people on limited incomes. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said about that. Concern has been expressed, not least by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, about the introduction in the Bill at this stage of a power to impose a charge for work done in connection with inter-country adoption cases. As has been said, that was not a matter for consultation when the draft Bill was published. Until now, there has been a duty on the local authority to ensure a child’s welfare by carrying out welfare supervision once a child has been brought into this country from a non-designated country. The Bill would introduce a change which would enable local authorities to pass on the cost of the processing of the welfare supervision to the applicants. I understand that that could be in the region of £2,500. The question is how enforceable that would be, and whether it could leave the child more vulnerable. A telling point made by the Inter-country Adoption Centre is that the cost may mean that people have the   funds to adopt only once. That could mean that the child they adopt is destined to be an only child or   the only child adopted. Where the inter-country adoption is a transracial adoption, it would generally be felt to be in the child’s best interests to have a peer with whom to share a common background. The Bill builds on the outcome of evidence given earlier this year and brings forward a number of good provisions. However, it raises questions about the extent to which processes in this sphere should be focused so closely on legal procedures. It also raises some underlying questions about whether proper and sufficient resources can and will be made available.