The Adoption Bill

The law on the adoption of children was last updated in the 1976. A decade ago the Conservative Government started the long process of debate and consultation, which has led to the Adoption Act 2002. At the very end of this process the House of Lords sought to amend the Bill to prevent unmarried couples from adopting children in any circumstances. I believe they were wrong.

Sue and I have been married for 34 years, we have three grown-up children and we are Christians. So you will not be surprised to hear that my instincts are that children thrive best within a stable, married family.

Back in 1990 I was a member of the House of Commons legislative committee that considered the Children Bill - a real milestone in child protection. Parliament made it clear that in all childcare issues, the child must come first. That is true of adoption, too. We do not live in a perfect world. That is a good reason why the adoption process is so long, difficult and some would say intrusive, before the childcare professionals, adoption agencies and of course a judge, decide which are the right adults to adopt particular children.

Since the 1970's society has moved on, whether we like it or not. Almost all adoptions are into married families. But there are some very complex cases indeed - and these children should not be deprived of a stable, happy home just because you and I don't favour - maybe don't even understand - the lifestyle of the adults involved.

The Adoption Bill was never about undermining marriage. Nor is there some sinister agenda to use the adoption of children in need, to promote gay rights. Such fanciful fears are in the eyes of the beholders.

Existing legislation already permits people who are homosexual and who are in stable unmarried relationships, to adopt. So there is no new principle here. At present, if a same-sex couple in a stable relationship (and bearing in mind that one third of marriages break down) are willing to adopt a child, only one of them may be the legal parent. The same is true of an unmarried couple. The Court will normally issue a Residence Order to the other partner who is not the legal parent. This gives shared parental responsibility up to the age of 16. So if the legal parent dies or the relationship breaks up, the child may stay in the family home - but at 16 will either have to return to Council care or the remaining partner will have to go through the whole stressful process of obtaining adoption rights as the legal parent. That, in my view, is not putting the interests of the child first.

Recently Barnardos, the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, and the placement specialists in Wiltshire County Council's Children and Families branch have briefed me. They have enormous experience of adoption, both in theory and in practice. I have also discussed the issue with Judy Seager, the County Councillor who has been responsible for adoption and fostering for over four years. She has written, 'what we need desperately are people who are willing to adopt children over the age of three who have problems of all kinds, often due to neglect or abuse. It does not make sense to limit the sort of people who can be considered as prospective adoptive parents. There is a very rigid procedure in place to screen anyone who applies and anyone unsuitable for any reason is rejected.'

I am sure she is right. The Lords were wrong in seeking to amend the Adoption Bill to exclude people who can offer a child a permanent home. The effect of their amendment would be to punish the child in order to satisfy the understandable and well-motivated aspirations of other adults. That is not putting the child first and in my judgment it is neither compassionate, nor is it helping the vulnerable.

How many children are we talking about in our own community? In Wiltshire there are about 280 children in care, 80% of them in foster homes. Last year just 13 were adopted - all to married couples. There are still more children with physical and learning difficulties, with severe emotional problems and scarred by abuse or neglect, waiting to be placed with adoptive families. I cannot believe it is right to leave them in care and deny them the chance of a home they can call their own and the trusting love of very special adults on the grounds that they do not conform to an ideal of marriage.

I could not support the Lords Amendment in the Commons because I have as much responsibility to consider the future of those less-favoured children as the future of my own children. It seems to me that those who support the Lords Amendment are saying to those children that if you can't have the best (marriage) you can't have anything at all. Thus, the best is to be the enemy of the good. But that is hypocritical as well as heartless - and children deserve better.

ROBERT KEY MP