I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the triumphs of and, I am afraid, the threats to the voluntary adoption sector. Children in the so-called care of the state, despite the efforts of many fine foster carers, have a miserable and insecure existence, all too often shuttled between carers. That is reflected in appalling outcomes, and I provide just two examples of that: one quarter of girls who go through the care system become pregnant in the process and more than half the inmates of young offenders institutions have been through the care system.

Having children in care adopted by loving families is a noble objective. That is why a small number of MPs established an all-party group in the late 1990s. We welcomed Government announcements that gave priority to improving the miserably low levels of adoption that prevailed then. They have introduced the national register, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and targets to encourage local authorities to adopt. All those measures have been blessed with some success, and adoption numbers rose from about 2,000 a year to a peak of 3,800 in 2005.

However, when we realise that more than 50,000 children have been in care for six months or more, and when we consider the best performance of a few really good local authorities, we see that the figure should at least double again. Thousands more children could and should be placed in loving homes. In fact, last year the number of adoptions fell, and the rumour going around is that last year’s number will be 2,600. That is the context for the role and the plight of the voluntary adoption sector.

In 2004-05, the last year for which detailed figures are available, voluntary adoption agencies placed almost 500 children, one eighth of the total sector. Most were hard-to-place children: older children, disabled children, children from ethnic minorities and severely damaged children; and more than half of them were in sibling groups. The latest report from the Commission for Social Care Inspection pointed out that 82 per cent. of voluntary adoption agencies reached the required standard on matching, against only 52 per cent. of local authorities. Some 92 per cent. of voluntary adoption agencies reached the standard for adoptive parents, which is so important. Only 55 per cent. of local authorities did so.

The report goes on to say:

“Overall the quality of adoption practice is still very variable across and within local councils, with some aspects of practice falling below the required standard in most places. Voluntary adoption agencies…generally meet or exceed the required standards.”

Only 5.5 per cent. of planned placements break down for voluntary agencies in the period up to the adoption order. The Prime Minister’s report mentioned a figure of about 20 per cent. for local authorities. At a time when an independent report has estimated that of the most recent cohort of children selected for adoption, 40 per cent. are awaiting adoption, such agencies are a precious resource.

However, the agencies are under attack from two separate angles: first, the problems of financial squeeze, exacerbated by delays in the courts, and, secondly, the sexual orientation regulations. Voluntary adoption agencies are reimbursed for each parental group they find, typically at a rate of £19,000, and rather higher in London. Barbara Hutchinson, deputy chief executive of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering commented:

“We have examples where social workers don’t place a child with a family approved by a voluntary adoption agency because they don’t have the money. Fees for using a voluntary adoption agency can be about £6,000 more than using a local authority.”

In fact, some local authorities have free inter-relationships.

The use of the voluntary adoption agencies is sharply declining because of costs. Barnardo’s has written to me to say:

“There are reports that there has been a reduction in placements to voluntary adoption agencies of up to 33 per cent. Barnardo’s has placed 50 children for adoption in the last year, compared to 70 children in each of the previous two years—a 29 per cent drop in placements. We are concerned that if this decline continues the future of the voluntary adoption sector will be unsustainable.”

However, the fees that voluntary agencies charge are often heavily subsidised from fundraising. Delay—let us remember that that means already damaged children waiting months and years for placements—is demoralising for the children and it can sometimes lead to eventual failure in adoption. Stinting on placement fees with voluntary agencies, when children are waiting because a local authority cannot place them, is the economics of the madhouse anyway. Fostering a child costs anything from £12,000 to £25,000 a year, so an up-front fee, even at the upper end of that range, represents in the long run a massive saving to the authority.

That problem is exacerbated by problems in local authorities and the courts concerning the implementation of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which only recently came into force. There has been a massively disappointing downturn in the numbers of children adopted, from the peak of 3,800 to—the Minister may be able to confirm this figure—2,600 last year. That is the figure doing the rounds, but it has not been published yet. Much of the downturn has been driven by horrendous delays.

The Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies has sent me a string of cases in which the legal process from beginning to end, which is not the whole delay that a child faces, has taken 18 months or longer under the new system. It is extremely damaging for the children, who can no longer be placed temporarily with a couple, and for the agencies because of the delay to their cash flow caused by the delay in payments. Many are on the financial edge.

I call on the Department to publish the report that it commissioned from Deloitte. Perhaps the Minister could explain the delay—I understand that it was finished last autumn—and provide us with a date for publication. More importantly, the Department should impress on local authorities that at a time when they have been provided with extra money for the purpose, the use of voluntary authorities to cut waiting lists of unhappy children is vital to those children. It makes excellent economic sense, even though it means social services departments having to bite their lips and pay out of stretched budgets for out-of-house activity. Equally, local authorities must sharpen up their court work in some parts of the country.

The other main problem is the sexual orientation regulations, the publication of which has been delayed until April. They threaten a number of agencies, especially the 13 branches of the Catholic Children’s Society, which accounts for one third of the voluntary adoption sector. Like the rest of the sector, it takes a very difficult mix of children: almost one quarter of its clients have severe medical problems and well over half are in sibling groups. However, it has the lowest breakdown rate of any agency in the country, with an average of 3.6 per cent. in the latest year’s figures. It is heavily subsidised by the Catholic Church—in fact, the annual collection for the society took place at my church last Sunday. Like all voluntary sector agencies, it provides a full range of activities, from information through to excellent post-adoption care.

It may bring matters alive to provide an actual case. I am grateful to the Salford branch of the society for sending me details of three children with suspected autism. Time allows me to quote the details of just one:

“Jake was three when he was placed for adoption... Jake had waited a long time for a family. He had been placed with a very experienced foster carer who managed his extreme behaviour with difficulty. Jake had insecure attachments and screamed for long periods if he did not have the undivided attention of the foster carer. He had some obsessional behaviour in that he had to have doors closed, he did not like getting wet— even a few drops of rain on his trousers were enough to send him into a panic. His speech was and still is much delayed. The Local Authority…did feel a diagnosis of autism was likely. The LA social workers were so concerned about a family coping with his challenging behaviour that they asked his foster carer to provide a video of him”—

I stress: a video of him—

“to show to prospective adopters. Jake’s adoptive parents accepted him from the start. They were given the option to say no but felt that this little boy needed them.”

Happily all three children have now been adopted, and they are progressing well within their own limitations. However, all that is being put at risk. Nobody is missing out on the opportunity to adopt under the current arrangements. Gay couples form only 4 per cent. of the pool and, as far as the records show, only one gay couple has ever applied to the Catholic Children’s Society. They were courteously and immediately referred to another agency.

The society has for many years accepted single people, provided that they are not engaged in sexual activity, whether heterosexual or homosexual. However, the regulations require that every adoption organisation should have a charter explicitly declaring gay partnerships to be on a par with marriage. Jim Richards, who is, incidentally, a former Labour councillor, is the long-serving director of the largest branch of the Catholic Children’s Society, which is in Westminster. He has commented:

“If we bow to the Government’s Regulations we would, in recruiting adopters, have to state that we accept gay couples, as well as those we accept at present. This would need to be clear in all our published literature and in making public appeals at say, a church. We would not be able to state within the context of adoption, that it is our belief that a married couple is better for children than a gay couple. One needs to imagine the position committed Catholics would face in speaking to a group of sixth formers and extolling the virtues of marriage, with them rightly accusing the speaker of being a hypocrite.”

The problem is not confined to the Catholic Children’s Society. I have received an e-mail from Cornerstone North East Adoption and Fostering Services, a small but highly successful evangelical-based organisation which makes very similar points. Anyway, the strong statement by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York brings a wider dimension to the whole business.

We should surely not be discussing the rights of a small number of prospective adoptive parents, who can approach a range of agencies anyway under the current arrangements. We should be thinking about the welfare of desperately disadvantaged children, who are currently handled by some of the best practitioners in the field working for the Catholic Children’s Society. It is a field where good practitioners are in very short supply.

As a strong supporter of the early and undiluted implementation of the sexual orientation regulations, I put it to my hon. Friend, in all courtesy and sincerity, that people are entitled to their religious views, but they are not, and should not be, entitled to elevate their views above other people’s right to equal treatment. I commend to him the statement of the chief executive of Barnardo’s, Martin Narey, who says that the objective is to find suitable parents to help children:

“Their race, gender, age or sexual orientation does not matter. Their ability to give a child a loving upbringing does.”

Barnardo’s is entitled to that view, and it does an excellent job. The people who work for the Catholic Children’s Society and the bishops who are its trustees take a different view. However, the issue is whether we put the rights of parents or the welfare of individual children first. If the regulations go through in the form suggested—we have not seen their published form yet—the Catholic Children’s Society will have to close when they come into force in two years’ time. The regulations will not provide a single extra place for any child in the country, but they will mean that hundreds of children who are currently being placed will no longer get that opportunity.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when legislation went through the Scottish Parliament allowing gay adoption, a guarantee was given by a Minister that it would not affect the work of Catholic adoption agencies? That will now be overridden by the operation of the sexual orientation regulations made in this place.

I was not aware that that was the exact position in Scotland. I had heard conflicting reports from there. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right, and it is shameful that that exemption has been abandoned.

There are some wider issues. In future, are we going to say that Christian doctors and nurses must participate in abortions? They have a principled objection to it, so must they participate in it?

I speak as a member of the British Medical Association medical committee. In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s point on doctors, the correct comparison is whether doctors should have the right to conscientiously object to treating gay people. They do not have that right, and they would not be able to maintain their job and their position on the register if they did. The right comparison is whether people are treated without discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation, not whether they participate in a certain activity, such as abortion, because, as he said, it is up to Catholics whether to choose to engage in placing children for adoption.

The essential issue with regard to a refusal to treat gay people is whether an individual gets treatment. Ministers themselves have said that the most important issue in this case is the welfare of children. Stopping the activity of the Catholic Children’s Society will not allow a single extra placement, but it will mean losing the hundreds of placements that are handled at the moment by the most successful group of social workers in the country, according to published statistics.

rose—

rose—

I have nearly finished and other people want to speak. However, I shall give way twice more, but these will be the last two occasions.

In strong support of the marvellous work that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has done and the speech he has given, and somewhat in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), I want to say that it is not entirely a question of entitling one group of people to have a view that is placed above the views of others. The problem originates from the human rights contained in the European convention on human rights and the universal declaration of the United Nations, in which there are competing principles of equal value. They are the rights of the family and the rights of conscience and religion, and also the question of not discriminating against people on the grounds of gender or race.

It is impossible to say that the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury is placing one above the other. He is arguing, quite rightly, for a proper and fair degree of consideration to be given to conscience and religion, and to family.

I was about to cover some of the ground that my hon. Friend mentions, but I shall take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham first.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for very generously giving way. In one respect, at least, I would like to endorse the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash): my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has an exemplary track record in the cause of adopting children, particularly those who are hardest to adopt. I respect that, but it is this particular point on which I strongly disagree with him. I put it to him that there is no question of forcing any agency to close. Agencies will simply be expected to comply with the law. We cannot have a blackmailer’s charter in respect of any piece of legislation.

It is not a question of blackmail; the issue is straightforward. The Catholic Church will not place children with gay couples and has a conscientious objection to doing so, and it cannot continue to do so within the scope of the new law.

A number of wider issues are raised. I mentioned that of abortion, but one that is more immediately topical is that of governors’ appointments of teachers to faith schools. The Catholic Church has a policy, as do the governors of other religious schools, that people who are living in unmarried relationships, whether heterosexual or homosexual, will not be appointed to teaching posts in its schools. Schools have been given an exemption from the legislation by the Government. It seems strange that schools that affect tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of what I might call ordinary children have been exempted, but no such way forward has so far been found for a very specific arrangement that affects only relatively small numbers of desperately disadvantaged children.

Why should the Government say that Catholic and evangelical social workers cannot continue to carry out a highly professional job unless they agree—bearing it in mind that there has been only one case in all the years that the process has been going on—publicly to proclaim opposition to their deeply held beliefs? The Government have allowed a two-year transition and Ministers have promised that no child already adopted will suffer. That is an ambitious pledge indeed, given the lack of after-care in a high proportion of authorities—45 per cent. have failed the inspectorate’s tests.

David Holmes, the new director of BAAF, has said:

“BAAF campaigned to widen the pool of prospective adopters to ensure as many children as possible have the opportunity to be placed in loving families.”

In other words, BAAF strongly supported the move on gay adoption. However, he continued:

“But we have also been concerned to ensure the expertise of Catholic agencies isn’t lost.

We…believe this package should lead to a sensible solution. We look forward to hearing the detail and offering any assistance that we can.”

I am not quite as optimistic as him, but there is a possibility.

To return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone made, I have seen a great deal of testimony on the clash of rights between competing groups—Christian rights and gay rights, for instance—but I wonder whether endless arguments about rights are the best way to resolve such increasingly common clashes, in what is becoming a more and more divided, fractured and unhappy country. No child will benefit from the application of the regulations to close successful organisations that help the most damaged children. The Government have allowed themselves two years to find a way of enabling some of the best agencies in a thin field to continue, within their consciences, to serve the most vulnerable members of our community—damaged and disabled children in care.

rose—

Order. I intend the winding-up speeches to start at 3.30 pm, giving the three Front Benchers 10 minutes each. Four hon. Members have asked to speak. If they are relatively brief, I shall hope to call them all.

First, I have urgent business in my constituency this evening, so I apologise for the fact that I shall not hear the summation speeches.

I am a Catholic and I am a liberal, and I have agonised over clashing rights. There are issues on both sides. As a Catholic, I have helped my wife, who was formerly chair of a joint Catholic-Anglican adoption agency for six years. As a liberal, I sat with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on the Committee that considered the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and he knows that I fought for those rights for recognition. I have also stood up for gay rights since I first became involved in politics many years ago. When two sets of rights appear to clash with each other, how do we resolve the matter? With the sexual orientation regulations, it appears that the legislation will ride one set of rights over another, but it does not have to do so. If I thought that there were a prima facie case for that and that some rights had to be subservient, I would accept that argument. However, I do not accept that argument.

Let us consider faith-based rights. Catholics have their views about homosexuality. Not all Christians or even Catholics necessarily share the Church’s view, but let us put that on one side for the moment. People have a right to their faith. We have recognised and extended that right in this country, so that people can give education, and so that other rights, concerning who they allow into their schools, are set to one side. In the past, people have traditionally also done that in the family context of adoption agencies, but we are in danger of cutting off something that is fundamental to adoption agencies—to work within a family context of adopted families. I would argue that that is not necessary to preserve the other set of rights, which are equally important.

I shall come back to the other set of rights at the end of my speech. We have talked about the rights of the parents and the child—they have been well aired—but so far we have not discussed the adoption process and how it works. Given the details and pitfalls of the process, we do not need to impose the SOR across the board, as is proposed, to preserve both sets of rights effectively. Anyone who has gone through the adoption process or worked in a charity will know that potential parents are given the third degree. Some find the process extremely distressing, while others withdraw from it because of the intrusion into their lives by social workers trying to ensure that they are proper and fit people to bring up children.

By and large, social workers get it right. However, there are difficulties in how they relate to different families. It is quite common for adoption agencies working with different ethnic groups to try to employ people from that ethnic background to work with those families, in order to have a better understanding of who those people are. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has said, there is only one case on record of a gay couple coming to the Catholic adoption agency for approval, and they were referred on. Why would they do so? Would a gay couple really want a local priest to try to judge them and their lifestyle as appropriate to bringing up children?

There are circumstances in which it might be entirely right for a gay couple to bring up a child. An example of that would be a child—particularly a girl, but also a boy—who had been severely abused by men. An entirely female setting might be the best setting for that child. The question is whether we would ask a Roman Catholic, a Muslim or someone else with strong religious views to judge whether that was the right setting, and whether that person would have the right values to judge whether such potential parents were suitable. Could that person ask the pertinent, searching questions without being offensive and in a way that came to the right solution? I suggest that the answer is probably not.

The adoption process as it currently exists is multi-faceted and needs to be so. The danger of the SOR is that it will homogenise the process and that we will return to the bad old days of a politically correct form of adoption that rules certain people out because they do not fit within a narrow definition. We only have to think back to the 1970s, when we had that sort of process. People were compartmentalised according to who could adopt whom, rather than considering individual families on a proper basis.

I am listening respectfully to the hon. Gentleman, because I recognise that he knows something about the subject and that he feels as passionately about his position as I do about mine. May I nevertheless suggest to him that he is developing a most extraordinary argument? It is, namely, that people need to be protected from possibly prejudiced attitudes against their chances of adopting a child, which means, if we follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s position, that those with the prejudices are given a uniquely privileged position. That seems to me to be wrong. All we are asking is that Catholic adoption agencies should consider each case on its merits and not be influenced by a doctrinal view about homosexual practice.

The argument that I am trying to develop is not one of prejudice, nor am I saying that we should enshrine prejudice, because I would not wish to do that. I am trying to take forward the idea that we should look at the best way of judging potential adoptive parents. The best way is not to have a one-social-worker-fits-all model, otherwise we will be asking social workers to develop a set of skills that is very broad.

At the moment, we have Catholic adoption agencies—or the evangelicals, the Methodists or whoever—that work within a certain field. To overcome the fears of prejudice, would it not be better to have a model that is close to what we have now, which says that local authorities are the adoption agencies? Local authorities would therefore be responsible for diversity and equality and would be able to contract people within those fields. Although the numbers are small, there is even an argument for saying that a specialist agency might be required to work within the gay community. If we adopted the SOR as proposed, we could not do that, even though it might be beneficial in those cases.

Finally, having worked with and considered Catholic adoption agencies, I can say that they offer “care-plus”—their work goes beyond when the child leaves the adoptive family. If a 40-year-old has problems that relate back to their adoption, those social workers and charities will still be there to help them. That is well beyond anything that local government can do. We are at real risk of undermining some of those very good things to no effect whatever.

As you will be well aware, Mr. Marshall, in Scotland adoption is a devolved matter. I should also like to address the sexual orientation regulations, because there is a particular issue to do with Catholic adoption agencies that affects Scotland.

I stress that I personally support the regulations. I note in passing that although there has been much comment on rights, no couple—gay or heterosexual—has a right to adopt. We should be considering the rights of the child, which seem to be lost in much of the smoke and fury around the issue.

As I have said, I personally do not agree with the stance of the Roman Catholic Church on gay adoption. I see absolutely no reason why gay couples cannot provide a loving and caring environment in which to bring up a child. However, the fact remains that Catholic adoption agencies, of which two operate in Scotland, provide a valuable service. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has mentioned, they are particularly good at placing children who are otherwise difficult to place. It would be an utter tragedy if such agencies were unable to continue their valuable work because of this dispute.

A specific Scottish dimension applies, because when the Scottish Parliament debated the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Bill, which allowed gay couples to adopt in Scotland, the matter of Catholic adoption agencies was canvassed. Indeed, amendments were introduced to try to ensure that Catholic adoption agencies would be able to continue their work. In his comments on those amendments, Robert Brown, the Liberal Democrat Deputy Minister for Education and Young People, made it clear that the equality law was the responsibility of the UK Parliament in respect of the sexual orientation regulations. He also stated that agencies would be required to comply with it and regulations made under it.

It is also important to set out what Robert Brown said in the debate about the position of Catholic adoption agencies. He said that Peter Peacock, the then Minister for Education and Young People,

“and I made it clear to the Education Committee and the Parliament that the Scottish ministers want faith-based adoption agencies to continue their work, which is a valuable additional service to the services that local authorities and others offer. Indeed, I want faith-based adoption agencies to find more adoptive parents, to provide services to a range of adults and children, and to appeal to their faith-based communities to secure more adoptive parents who can meet all the stringent requirements of the adoption process and can give good homes to children who need them. That is the central point that we should bear in mind. Ministers have consistently made it clear that nothing in the bill will alter the position or practices of Roman Catholic adoption agencies. In practice, if an adoption agency thinks that it is unable to assist a child or prospective adopter, it should refer them to another adoption agency that could provide the necessary service and support. That is the current practice of adoption agencies…Standard 20 of the national care standards for adoption agencies includes a power to refer people who cannot be assessed to another agency, so the amendment”—

which was to protect faith-based agencies—

“will make no difference to what happens in practice. I hope that the Roman Catholic adoption agencies will be reassured by the reassurances that have been given at stage 2 and today on that matter.”

In the light of that, the Scottish Parliament took the view that nothing in the legislation would have impacted on how Catholic adoption agencies were operating and the Bill was enacted. That was right, because the Bill was dealing only with adoption and the right to adopt, not with the question of equality, which is a matter reserved to Westminster.

However, the equality question was canvassed during the passage of the Bill. The Minister—Robert Brown again—specifically said:

“Equalities legislation is UK legislation, and agencies will be required to comply with it and regulations that are made under it. Peter Peacock and officials have engaged with the UK Government on how agencies will be affected. However, I say again that we do not intend to affect the practices of the Roman Catholic adoption agencies; rather, we want them to continue to do their good work.”

Clearly, Ministers at the Scottish Executive were in touch with UK Ministers to try to deal with the situation, because the Scottish Parliament recognised the need for the good work of the Catholic adoption agencies to be protected. It was understood that they would be allowed to continue to pass on people to other agencies. It was a practical compromise, to avoid the situation into which we now seem to have got ourselves. Will the Minister say what approaches were made by the Scottish Executive on the matter and what became of them?

The issue is important in Scotland. As I have said, the understanding was that if a gay couple approached the Catholic agency, they would be passed on to another agency. It is a great shame that that now appears effectively to have been undermined by the actions of the UK Government in refusing to allow the exemption under the sexual orientation regulations. At least we assume that they will refuse to do so, although we have not yet seen the regulations, but given those that have been introduced in Northern Ireland, one presumes that they will.

The reasonable compromise that I have mentioned would not undermine the regulations. Despite some of the more outlandish allegations made in the letters that we receive about the sexual orientation regulations, the regulations already contain exceptions for religious reasons. For example, if I read it correctly, regulation 16—again, I refer to the Northern Ireland regulations—allows religious groups to refuse to rent out their premises to gay groups and others of which they disapprove. The problem is that that applies only when they are operating as a religious organisations. It does not apply to Catholic adoption agencies, which operate outwith the Church and fall under regulation 6, which applies to goods and services.

It is right that we should legislate to prevent discrimination against gay people. However, in legislating, we sometimes need to heed the beliefs of others. Perhaps in this case a small compromise could avoid a serious problem with the adoption agencies.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate; I am also grateful, as we all are, to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) for raising this matter.

One of the rules of the House is that one gets on personally very well with those with whom one often finds oneself in disagreement, because they are pleasant people. That rule certainly applies to the hon. Gentleman, but I disagree with him on the sexual orientation regulations. I shall concentrate on those regulations, although I recognise that he raised other extremely important issues, some of which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) will address from the Liberal Democrats’ point of view.

It is right to pay tribute to the record of the hon. Member for Canterbury for his work on adoption across the piece. I am aware of the excellent work of the organisation Parents and Children Together in the Oxfordshire diocese; it has no rule excluding gay couples from adopting, and rightly so. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and shall say a word or two about how the European convention on human rights plays on this issue—something that has been raised, not least by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

Several rights are at stake on this issue. The rights of the child, which are paramount in adoption law, although I do not think that they are in competition with the rights of gay people, for reasons that I shall explain. Parents also have rights to be considered fairly and without unreasonable discrimination as prospective adopters by the public authority or the people acting for it in carrying out the public function of the placement of vulnerable children.

There is no contest between the rights of the child and the rights of parents to be considered fairly without unreasonable discrimination. Of course some parents will not qualify for adoption and will be discriminated against. However, the grounds on which that can happen have to result from a professional assessment process and be legitimate. There must be assessments of risk and harm.

Let us be clear: all other things being equal and all the other boxes having been ticked, the House has extensively debated whether gay people should be able to adopt—either individually, as they have for a long time, or as a couple. Although not everyone voted for the provisions, the House overwhelmingly agreed that it was right and proper that gay people should be able to adopt as a couple, just as they could when they were single, and that it was wrong to have unequal parents. Obviously, not everyone accepts that view, but that is the view to which the House came by a large majority.

Yes, but that is not what we are debating now. The hon. Gentleman touched on what we are debating a moment ago: whether the interests of the child—I prefer the word “interests” to the word “rights”, because the rights dialogue gets us further into a muddle—conflict with those of the prospective parents. The practical fact is that only one gay couple has ever approached the Catholic Adoption Society, while hundreds of children have been through its hands. If the regulations go through, thousands of children will be unable to have that opportunity in future. There is therefore a direct conflict between the interests of the children and those of a small group of prospective adopters.

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but that is not the only “if”. This is a question not only of whether the sexual orientation regulations go through, but of whether, as a result of the regulations, certain adoption agencies, such as those that he mentioned, choose not to do the valuable work that I accept that they do. That is their decision. It is a question not of whether the law is the law, but of whether people decide—I do not want to use a pejorative term—to take their toys home in response to the House having voted for the regulations. I would urge people not to do that.

I also hope that we can find a way through this problem that does not breach the fundamental principle of non-discrimination in the delivery of public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation. We already accept that principle for other innate human characteristics, such as race and gender, and I shall carefully draw analogies between those forms of discrimination in a moment.

I have mentioned the rights of the child and the rights of parents to be considered fairly and without unreasonable discrimination, but I recognise that people also have the right to hold and express a religious view. That is clearly a right, or an interest, to use the hon. Gentleman’s language. There is, therefore, a balance to be struck between how far people can and cannot express their profound religious beliefs—of course, they might have other, political beliefs—through actions that affect others.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has not yet produced a report on the issue, but it is in the process of doing so, although I have not seen the legal advice or the draft report, so I can give hon. Members only my view. I believe that the Committee will find that the right, under article 14 of the European convention on human rights, not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of one’s rights, including the right to privacy and family life, will, on balance, carry more weight, not in respect of people’s right to hold a belief or believe what they believe, but in respect of their right to express that belief outside the strictly religious area in the public sphere and in the delivery of public functions.

No one is arguing for religious people to be forced to do blessings or something else of a religious nature in respect of gay civil partnerships, which is why the Northern Ireland regulations contain exemptions, and we would expect to see such exemptions in the Great Britain regulations. People will not be forced to do such things by law, because such functions are recognised to be directly religious matters and, therefore, direct expressions of people’s beliefs. However, as soon as one becomes a doctor, and is therefore not acting in a religious way, one is not allowed to discriminate against gay people, even if one’s religious views lead one to think that such people are not deserving of the treatment that one might otherwise give. Nor do the regulations allow one, thank goodness, to discriminate against pupils—at least when they are in school—on the basis of their being gay. That is right and proper.

The hon. Gentleman is trying to find a gap where there is none. The bulk of the funding for the Catholic Children’s Society—I said earlier how underfunded voluntary organisations are—comes from collections such as those held at last Sunday’s mass and from leaflets distributed in churches. Under the regulations, there would be a requirement to include a commitment to treat homosexual couples on a par with heterosexual couples, and that intrudes directly and specifically into the religious sphere.

The hon. Gentleman, like a number of other people, may choose to go down the route of saying that there are simply conflicting sets of rights, but there is a direct clash. That is why it would be better to go back to the original point about the interests of the child and to say that the practical fact is that the present arrangement is good for children, while the future arrangement will not be.

I have conceded that there is a balance to be found between the two interests or rights, but I think that case law will show and that it is right in principle that the right not to be unfairly discriminated against in the enjoyment of public functions, whether in the health care system or the adoption service, carries more weight, not in respect of people’s right to hold their belief and to practise it in a religious setting, but in respect of their public function.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about whether such public authorities and agencies perform a public function, and there is a lot of case law on that in relation to Leonard Cheshire. However, carrying out a public function does not require bodies to be 100 per cent. publicly funded, and they may carry out such a function without being funded by the state. If that were not the case, bodies could exempt themselves from the race discrimination provisions in the Human Rights Act 1998 by buying their way into being a service provider and not being paid to provide a service.

One cannot base one’s view on how bodies are funded. My view is that adoption is clearly a public function, because it is a welfare function and we are dealing with vulnerable people. That would also apply to voluntary agencies—whether or not they were publicly funded—that provided social services or welfare services co-ordinated by local authorities or the Government. One can therefore draw a line around such provision. Catholic adoption agencies clearly carry out a public function and are therefore constrained by the provisions.

The other good point that has been raised is that Church schools and other faith schools are allowed to discriminate. I do not think that they should be allowed to do that, so I am being 100 per cent. consistent. It is for the Government to tell us why, under section 60 of the Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998, against which my party voted on two occasions, Church schools are, astonishingly, allowed not to employ teachers or to sack them on the basis of their sexual orientation. That has not been tested under Human Rights Act law, although I think that it will be at some point.

The Government gave a concession that, if a teacher does not go to the right church or building on a Sunday or happens to live with someone of the wrong gender, their employer—even if a state school—is allowed not to promote or appoint them. That is disgusting, and it is for the Government to tell us how they can tolerate that, while arguing against the discrimination that we are discussing. That point has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) and others, and it is fair, but only in so far as the Government are inconsistent on this matter.

Other hon. Members have argued in the debate that deeply held beliefs are at stake, and I do not doubt that. However, there cannot be any more deeply held belief than that people have the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, because that is humiliating. If the deeply held beliefs to which hon. Members have referred were misogynist or racist, we would not tolerate such discrimination, although we cannot stop people holding their beliefs. The same should apply here.

It is said that not many gay people might approach Catholic agencies, but there is a principle at stake. I served on the Committee that considered the Equality Bill, and part 2 made it clear that gay people would not be allowed to discriminate against Catholics. Religious organisations grabbed that right to non-discrimination, cherished it and said “hurray”, and rightly so. We are just saying that things should be the other way round.

As the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) brilliantly pointed out, saying that people are allowed to discriminate as long as they are allowed to refer someone to another provider is like telling Rosa Parks, when she tried to get on a whites-only bus in the deep south, “You can’t get on this bus, because it’s for whites only. But a mixed bus is coming along, and you’ll be able to get on that.” The humiliation still exists, and it is wrong. We should not turn down anyone on the basis that they are gay.

I am conscious of the time, and I just want to make one more general point. The Labour party has done a good job at keeping the Government on the straight and narrow, and I congratulate those in the Labour party who have lobbied so strongly, but the Government need to sort this out. They could easily say, for the avoidance of doubt, that voluntary agencies, whose work is valuable and valued, are entitled to carry out public functions as long as they do not discriminate against their employees or service users on the basis of sexual orientation or the other strands of discrimination and, indeed, as long as they do not proselytise in the process. On that basis, let them come and help; let them get public funding to do it; but they will do it on the basis of non-discrimination.

I strongly support the arguments that have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), as well as the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor and Archbishop Nichols, who is the archbishop of the Birmingham diocese—my diocese, as a Roman Catholic. I am not entirely convinced that we can avoid the question of rights, because the matter is one of law, and is driven by the universal application by the courts of the rights in question. Therefore, first, the question is raised of incompatibility with the European convention, about which a declaration will have to be made on the introduction of any legislation; secondly, the courts will adjudicate.

I suppose I could say, because I happened to be speaking in the human rights debate on Monday, and raised the question then, that we should legislate at Westminster on our own terms, without regard to the European convention or, indeed, the Human Rights Act 1998, identifying in our own Parliament exactly what we as elected representatives want. That is a more general question. By the way, it is open to us to accept, following the adjudication of Lord Hoffmann in the case of Simms and O’Brien, that when legislation that has been passed is express and unambiguous, even if it is inconsistent with the Human Rights Act, it is good law and there is no disputing it; Lord Steyn and many other law lords would agree. However, I am profoundly concerned about the question, which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) rather glossed over, of the inconsistency that arises when principles compete and a legal presumption is established, on the tipping point, in favour of one of them.

The way in which the measures were introduced under the Equality Act 2006 gives severe grounds for believing that something not far short of legal or legislative sharp practice by the Government went on. The issue that we are considering now was not raised until a letter was received—there may have been discussions of which I am unaware—from Stonewall. That came shortly before Third Reading in the House of Lords. It was in response to that that the Government, without a Division, or any amendment, put forward the proposals in their own name. When the matter came to the House of Commons—and anyone can read this—although there had been discussion in both the Lords and the Commons, there was no Division and, as far as I am aware, no amendment either. Thus for practical purposes the question has not been tested in the way I should have thought its importance warranted. The problem, as I see it, is that it will not be possible to amend the regulations when they are brought in. Furthermore, section 81 of the Equality Act specifically provides for exceptions without any limitation, so that it would have been entirely possible to make exceptions, although none, as far as we know, is anticipated.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point from his much more detailed understanding of the legal background, but it seems to me that his point about parliamentary process is at the heart of the matter. As he said, in relation to European law we had the option to go another way, as some of our European partners chose to do. The powerful point that he made was that the matter was not debated in either House of Parliament. It was introduced at the very end of proceedings in the House of Lords and then bounced back here. There has been virtually no discussion.

That worries me enormously, as does the fact that the nature of the regulations means that we shall not effectively be able to amend them. As I mentioned in the debate on the Human Rights Act on Monday there are specific requirements imposed on parliamentary draftsmen, including through the review of human rights by the Government, that, in a nutshell, all our legislation must be drafted to be compatible with the European convention on human rights. I do not believe that it is possible in this context to come up with a declaration as to compatibility when there are competing rights as in this case.

In addition, adoption agencies were not mentioned at all in any discussion of the measure that I know of, except when my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) raised it—I invite him to respond, but I presume that he did not just invent the point, and that someone may have suggested to him that it was an important question that needed to be raised. He specified the cases of general practitioners and adoption agencies. I have travailed and trawled through the debates, and I think that last November was the first time the matter was ever raised. In effect, the Government have created a legal presumption in favour of a particular principle, which, by virtue of the Equality Act itself, should be condemned, because there is no such thing as complete equality between any one of the principles concerned. However, the Government have chosen to go down that route—I think against the advice of the Prime Minister and one or two others, including the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

It is true, indeed, although I do not remember the precise date, that I raised the matter with the Minister for Women and Equality during questions in the House at the back end of last year—on my own initiative, as my hon. Friend will understand. Although my hon. Friend is right that there was no Division on the Second Reading of the Equality Bill, it was open to him or any other Member to force a Division. I simply worked on the basis that an Equality Bill should mean equality—not equality on the whole, except in so far as we provided for inequality.

My hon. Friend has raised an important point, because it was not a matter that could have arisen under the Equality Act unless someone had what I should describe as a pretty galactic view of the universality of possibilities. The question of goods and services would not necessarily include adoption agencies. Because of the nature of goods and services and the matters that were encompassed by the Bill as it then was, it was almost impossible to work out what might come out of the woodwork. However, when it came to the specific question that could have been put after Third Reading I was disappointed, on studying the discussion that took place in the House of Commons, that the matters were not given the kind of consideration, by way of amendments, that they could have been given.

That is in the nature of things, but the Government have now specifically, following a Cabinet revolt, decided to create a legal presumption in favour of one principle as compared with another. That is not consistent with the principles of the Equality Bill. That is where I find the internal contradiction; and it is unanswerable. It will raise questions of incompatibility, and it would be far better if we legislated on our own terms to decide such matters. In a pragmatic and practical way we would have arrived at a solution, if we were not bound hand and foot by the application of universal principles that sound very good, like motherhood and apple pie, but which, as I said on Monday, when they are resolved by reference to specific circumstances, give rise to impossible situations. That is pretty well where the Government are now. I shall take all steps necessary to oppose the regulations when they appear, but we have not even seen them yet.

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.

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.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

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.

I warmly congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing the debate. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said earlier: it is surprising to learn yet again that the regulations that form the core of the two challenges raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury will be pushed back by another month and will not be published until April, whereas we had the benefit of the Prime Minister’s view in his statement. The matter was not discussed when the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 were published and adopted, although I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members received correspondence, because adoption did not form part of the Northern Irish remit.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone has pointed out—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has been greatly exercised by this, too—we did not have the chance to discuss the subject during the passage of the Equality Act 2006 through both Houses until an amendment was tabled at the latest possible stage on Third Reading in the House of Lords. That cannot be democratic, and it cannot be in the Government’s interests not to allow debate. Perhaps the Minister will confirm my understanding on reading the Library note that the consultation document that formed the basis of the regulations, which we will discuss at a later stage, did not put the question of adoption services provided by either local authorities or voluntary agencies out to consultation. If that was the case, it is regrettable. That is why I warmly welcome the opportunity to debate the matter.

Like so many who have spoken this afternoon, I put the interests of the children at the starting point of every stage of the debate. I want to nail my personal colours to my moral mast: I place particular emphasis on marriage as a special relationship and was delighted to see the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York recognise that so warmly. That is not to say that I do not recognise that there are other relationships and other partnerships, but I believe that children brought up in a traditional marriage have the best of all possible starts in life. We recognise that not every child is fortunate enough to be the heart of that traditional family, and we have all noticed, up and down the country, the disappearance of the extended family. That leaves some 60,000 children in care, some for short periods before they are returned to their natural parents and others for longer periods. There are 61,000 children in care each year.

I recognise and celebrate the work of all adoption agencies, including those which work for local authorities, and especially that of the voluntary adoptive sector. We know that adoption is a challenging and lengthy process, but it brings tremendous happiness and stability to a child, where they are successfully placed. In 2004-05, the voluntary adoption organisations in England and Wales placed 708 children, of whom 227 were placed by the Catholic adoption agencies. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), I believe that the figures for the two Catholic adoption agencies in Scotland, where we share a common interest, show that 47 children were placed by them in 2006, of whom only two were disrupted. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has given us a tremendous opportunity to debate the issues.

The Minister faces a difficult situation. Perhaps he has had sight of the regulations that cover the main subject of the debate. In passing, however, I shall refer to the financial squeeze and the problems of delays up and down the country that have been caused by the courts. I want to pause for a moment to refer to an article in The Sunday Telegraph. One of the problems that we face in placing children for adoption is the shortage of adopters. I have been left in no doubt that one of the reasons for that is that parents who put themselves forward, initially as foster parents and ultimately as adoptive parents, often feel that they are on their own. They would certainly welcome more mentoring and training opportunities, and I hope that we can reach a cross-party consensus on that. Another problem is the huge fees faced by local authorities, which The Sunday Telegraph put at up to £26,000 per child. Clearly, if that situation is affecting the number of children who are placed in families for adoption, I hope that we all—and most importantly the Minister—will have regard to it.

There is some good news. I want to pay tribute to the recent work of Kent county council—obviously, North Yorkshire county council is doing good work in this regard, too, but I do not have time to mention every county council. Kent county council has set out a wonderful example of best practice, and last year alone it placed 95 children with adoptive parents, which was a record for that council and for any other county council in the country. The methods that it has used have included family group conferencing and the staying together project. I hope that we can all learn from that and that the Minister will look favourably on those practices.

I wish to focus only on a couple of questions given the time available and the importance of the debate. I believe that when the House comes to consider the sexual orientation regulations, it should not be asked to choose which form of discrimination is higher or lower. We should not be asked to choose whether we are in favour or not; we all oppose any form of discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion or any discrimination that came under the human rights umbrella. To force the House to decide in favour of one type of discrimination might create a new form of discrimination on the grounds of religious belief by forcing the former on other agencies, which are predominantly Catholic although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has pointed out, other religious voluntary adoption agencies—such as Cornerstone, which operates in the very north-east of England—also do some excellent work.

Why are the Government forcing the House to make that choice? It was never made clear through the passage of the Equality Act 2006 that the matter would have to be faced in such a way. It was not made clear during the passage of the Adoption and Children (Scotland) Act 2007 in Scotland that there would be a threat to the Scottish Catholic adoption agencies, and it was certainly never made clear that it was an issue in the discussions on the Northern Irish sexual orientation regulations.

I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that the regulations that his party proposes to put before the House in April will work. Have the Prime Minister and the Department for Education and Skills closed the door on any eventual compromise? Such a compromise would match the mood of those of us in this Chamber and of the House. We would all like to see a compromise, but my fear is that that will not be possible. There is not an umbrella organisation or a gateway process that would work. Who has been tasked with forming such an umbrella organisation to make the regulations work?

Why were the Government reluctant to debate the issues earlier? Why did the consultation document not cover the point that we have discussed? Why have the regulations not been published? How can we have reached a situation where the Minister’s party is considering not allowing a free vote, when such a vote should, by any stretch of democratic values, be allowed on moral judgment?

It has genuinely been an interesting and well-attended debate. It is good to start with areas of common agreement.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing the debate. Over the past few months, ever since I took my present role in the Government, which is my first, I have had the pleasure of visiting many parts of the country to take part in events to do with the “Looked after Children” Green Paper, and I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the positive effects of the stability of placement. He was right in what he said about outcomes for children in the care system; not only do they not attain as well in their GCSEs and other qualifications, but 25 per cent. of those in our adult prisons have come through the care system.

I congratulate the hon. Members for Canterbury and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on their work with the all-party group on adoption and fostering. I was pleased to attend that group before Christmas, when we had a fruitful discussion.

I shall try to answer as many questions as I can in the eight and a half minutes that remain. There were many good contributions to the debate. I am happy to liaise in writing if necessary, but I shall try to cover as much ground as I can.

The adoption target focused attention on the need to increase the number of adoptions of looked after children. According to the latest figures, about 1,000 more looked after children are now being adopted each year than in 1999. That is excellent news for vulnerable children in need of adoption. For each child, it means being part of the loving, caring environment about which so many Members have spoken. Much of the credit for that must go to prospective adopters, social workers and adoption agencies.

The 30 voluntary adoption agencies in England are an integral part of our adoption provision. They provide a range of services, including finding adoptive families for children, providing adoption support and working with birth parents. As has been mentioned, many VAAs specialise in finding families for children who are disabled or from black and ethnic minority groups, and those who need to live together with their siblings.

According to figures provided by Caritas social action, the Catholic Church's voice on social justice and care, adoptive placements supported by VAAs tend to break down less often than those supported by local authorities. I accept that entirely. In 2004-05, VAAs in the UK approved a total of 543 families, and 708 children were placed as a result of the services provided by those agencies. However, we need to consider how we might sustain and increase the overall capacity of the adoption market and improve the geographical spread of the voluntary adoption agency. Some areas have few, if any, such agencies. We need to ensure that children in need of adoptive placements benefit from improvements in local authority commissioning from VAAs.

We are aware that voluntary adoption agencies consider that the £12,000 fee that local authorities pay other local authorities for finding suitable adoptive families does not represent the full cost. The VAAs consider that the £19,000 fee that local authorities pay the agencies can deter local authority purchasers of VAA-approved prospective adopters. The difference in inter-agency fees is seen by the agencies as a major obstacle to realising their full potential. I accept that, too. They believe that they currently operate at a distinct disadvantage when compared with local authorities.

The hon. Member for Canterbury will know from what I said to the all-party group on adoption and fostering last November that we are considering the issue as part of a scoping study, looking at local authorities’ commissioning of services from voluntary adoption agencies. The report of that study is being finalised. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked one question on the subject, so I can tell her and the hon. Gentleman that we expect it to be published in early March. I hope that that is helpful.

I also want to put on record the fact that as a result of our ongoing dialogue with voluntary adoption agencies, we are providing £13,000 to fund independent support in order to help them strengthen their business management and marketing skills. That support will be led by Red Ochre, a social enterprise with expertise in helping organisations to obtain funding and to survive and grow.

A key issue that has recently been under consideration, and which I suspect may in part have prompted today’s debate, is whether faith-based VAAs, when providing publicly funded services, should be exempt from the sexual orientation regulations. That, unsurprisingly, has played a big part in the debate. I was asked a number of questions about the regulations. We are still working on them, but we plan to bring them into force in April.

As hon. Members will know, the issue is not whether civil partners and unmarried couples, whether of the same or the opposite sex, should be eligible to adopt. Such groups have been eligible to do so since the Adoption and Children Act 2002 came into force on 30 December 2005. The problem is the impact that the regulations may have on Catholic and other faith-based VAAs that, for doctrinal reasons, are unwilling to assess unmarried couples of the same or the opposite sex as prospective adopters.

There has been an interesting debate within parties as well. The hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) has strong views on the matter. I sympathise with and relate to many of them, as does the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), but the latter would disagree with his colleague the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) on many such matters.

Ministers have considered the matter carefully, and on 29 January the Prime Minister announced that there will be no exemption from the regulations for faith-based VAAs that provide publicly funded services. However, he made clear that there would be a transition period before the regulations come fully into force at the end of 2008. That will give those VAAs time to consider whether they wish to continue to operate when the new regulations come into force.

Leaving aside the merits of the argument—it is already being dealt with and will be dealt with in the big debate in the House—will there be a free vote on the Labour side?

As the hon. Gentleman knows—he has far more experience in such matters than me, as he has been around a lot longer—that is for the Whips to determine. I am not privy to those discussions, but if he wants to know my opinion, I am happy to give it to him.

What is it?

I will not be supporting an exemption, because I believe that the Government have made the right decision. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that.

I turn to the questions that I have been asked. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) asked where Scotland stands in all this. I understand that negotiations are taking place between the Executive and the powers that be at Westminster on the question of exemption. I cannot give him any more details at present. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon made it clear that Catholic adoption agencies can continue to do their work; he also said that he hopes that they will not take the ball away. I agree. I accept that the Catholic agencies do great work, and I hope that they will continue to do so.