Work and Families Bill

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, for introducing the amendment and to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for speaking to it. I think it will be one of those amendments, as is the case with many today, where there is full agreement on the thrust of what is trying to be achieved; it is just that there are so many issues and practicalities surrounding it. I think we all agree that the role played by adopters is vital. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, spoke with some passion on that when she moved the amendment. It was in recognition of the role played by adopters that the Government introduced the entitlement to statutory adoption pay and adoption leave in 2003. This was an historic milestone and one of which we are proud. We estimate that currently around 4,000 adoptive parents per year are entitled to statutory adoption pay and leave. Since the introduction of what is still a relatively recent right, we are aware that some stakeholders have called for these entitlements to be extended to those parents who take on the care of a child through what is termed concurrent planning. In concurrent planning, as has been explained, the child is placed with approved foster carers who, as well as providing temporary care for the child, act as support to the birth parents in helping them meet the objectives of any rehabilitation plan. The carers are also approved as adopters, so that if the rehabilitation plan is not successful, the child does not need to move and can remain in the same placement while the adoption plan is developed and implemented. As I said on Second Reading of the Work and Families Bill and as we have been reminded today, the Government are currently considering the question of how statutory entitlements to pay and leave fit with concurrent planning. We need to consider the rationale for adoption leave and pay. This is to support adopters in taking time off work when a child is placed with them. This helps the adopter and the child adjust to their new relationships. The Government’s position is that this will help to reduce the number of disrupted placements and improve the life chances of looked-after children. In the case of concurrent planning, of course, the point at which the placement becomes a placement for adoption, will be some time after the child first joins the new parents, as the child will have spent some time being fostered. A further consideration will be the fostering allowance already paid to the parents in respect of each child placed. We will, of course, also need to consider the position of the employer. In the case of adoptions where there has been no concurrent planning, the adopter will usually be in a position to notify his or her employer of the expected date of placement of the child. The purpose of this period of notice, clearly, is to enable the employer to plan ahead for the absence and arrange cover as necessary. With the extension of the adoption pay period to 39 weeks as a result of the work and families legislation, the likelihood is that adopters will choose to take more time away from work. In the case of concurrent planning the situation will often be different: the child will already be placed with the adoptive parents to be, and when the placement switches to one of formal adoption we need to consider whether the employer is given sufficient notice of their entitlement to leave and pay. Further consultation on the matter with employers’ representatives will be necessary. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not wish to see employers placed in a position where they had very little notice of an employee’s entitlement to take up to 52 weeks away from work. Concurrent planning is still not widespread; I acknowledge that it is still fairly embryonic. Only four adoption agencies currently operate the concurrent planning model, and figures from one of those suggest that, between 1998 and 2004, only 57 children were placed in this way. None the less, we appreciate that, where it operates, concurrent planning can provide a number of advantages. It can reduce the number of placements for children, engage the birth parents in planning for the child, identify potential permanent families early on, and cut the time needed to reach adoption where this becomes necessary. In conclusion, the Government recognise the important role that concurrent planning can play, and wish to consider in more detail how statutory pay and leave entitlements apply, and what further legislation and guidance might be required. Given the relatively recent interest in the issue, we should make sure we do this properly. Officials and lawyers from the DTI and the DfES—the department with lead responsibility for adoption—are working jointly on the matter. Even if the Government concluded that eligible parents adopting children through such arrangements should have an automatic entitlement to statutory adoption pay and leave, we do not accept that the amendments would necessarily be the most sensible way of achieving this. It is worth noting that they would not introduce an entitlement to adoption leave for concurrent planning, which would be necessary in order to enable the adopters to take time away from work and to receive statutory adoption pay; nor would they introduce an entitlement for the two-week ordinary statutory paternity pay for adoption or paternity leave. However, I appreciate that these are probing amendments. Given that the Government agree with the noble Baroness that the matter merits careful consideration, and given our clear commitment that we are already looking at this issue, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. I also note the request from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that when we come back to these matters on Report he would like something more specific regarding the impact on the PSA target and whether we can move forward with that.