Historical Forced Adoption

Debate between Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Baroness Cash

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I sincerely thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating this Statement and taking the time to read it out today, as the Prime Minister did in the House of Commons. We on these Benches associate ourselves fully and without reservation with the apology that the Statement contains.

The scale and pain of the harm are impossible to comprehend. Some 185,000 children were taken between 1949 and 1976—perhaps more; the Prime Minister fears that the records understate the number—from mothers who were coerced, bullied or misled into giving them up. Imagine the brutality of mothers being stitched without anaesthetic as a punishment and being told that they deserved it. Think of the nearly 200,000 children across our nation who grew up believing that they were unwanted. Some who have given evidence, such as Debbie Iromlou, were raised with racist attitudes towards their own family of origin. Grief has followed all of them through a lifetime of everyday cruelties. The Prime Minister spoke of mothers who still dread the simplest question: “Do you have children?”

The damage is irreparable. That there has been an apology at all is down to the mothers and the adopted children who have campaigned tirelessly over decades to raise awareness of the scandal. I pay tribute to their courage, particularly that of the founder of the Movement for an Adoption Apology, Veronica Smith. Sadly, she died before she could hear the words that she fought 16 years for. I also pay tribute to those who repeatedly had to give evidence and relive their trauma before the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee. Their testimony was among the most harrowing that this Parliament has ever heard.

The Prime Minister was candid that an apology is not enough, and I agree. The measures that he announced, however, are genuinely welcomed—the records platform, the consultation on retaining records for 100 years and the undertaking to help locate the graves of babies who died in the homes. It is so awful to say—and it is so little, so late. As the surviving mothers are now in their 70s, 80s and 90s, time is of the essence. We need to know that these steps will happen promptly.

The Lord Privy Seal will understand that I have some questions about these matters. On the records platform, the Prime Minister said in answer to questions that it would happen as quickly as possible. Can the Lord Privy Seal give the House a meaningful timeline? Data helps nobody who does not know that it exists. Some of those affected have never yet spoken, from shame, about what happened to them. Can the Lord Privy Seal help the House with how the Government will communicate that this information may be available to them? Many babies were sent to homes across our internal borders between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. How will information be tracked between the devolved nations and where many records sit at the moment—and how will they be communicated?

On support for victims, there is to be funding of £4 million over three years, which we welcome. But the need will be lifelong. The Education Committee recommended a dedicated mental health support pathway, while the package offers guidance for clinicians instead. Why was that recommendation adopted instead of the mental health support pathway? What will survivors be offered in its place? On redress, the Prime Minister told the other place that the Government are looking at redress schemes. These too we would welcome. Can the Lord Privy Seal expand on what is meant by that, what is being considered and when any appraisal will be published?

We are, yet again, shamed as a nation. Giving evidence to the Education Committee in March, Ann Lloyd Keen, already quoted by the Prime Minister, asked a question of her own:

“Do you know why we have to keep repeating our evidence?”


The Prime Minister, when answering questions on his Statement, identified the reason. He said:

“We got this wrong as a state. So often we circle the wagons and protect the decision makers and wrongdoers instead of asking ourselves the question, ‘Where is the injustice here, and how do we put it right?’ That has to change, because it has happened in this case and others”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/7/26; col. 1052.]


All those words are the Prime Minister’s, and I agree with them wholeheartedly.

The Prime Minister is right. This House knows only too well the scandals: infected blood, where the risks were known from the 1940s; the Post Office, which prosecuted 1,000 innocent people; the grooming gangs, where 16 years of recommendations were unactioned; and Nottingham, where a statutory duty of candour has bound every NHS trust since 2014, yet here we are again with the Ockenden review finding 10 days ago that 520 mothers and babies suffered potentially avoidable harm, 162 died and nearly half the trust’s senior directors simply refused to engage. It seems, as with this terrible scandal, that codes, duties and even laws are not enough to stop this institutional rot. Even with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I fear that deeper cultural change is needed.

I ask the Lord Privy Seal, in a collaborative and supportive spirit: what are the Government going to do to change the culture, attitudes and behaviours of our public sector employees so that they start by asking the Prime Minister’s question, “How do we put this right?”, instead of, “How do we protect the decision-makers or the wrongdoers?” Nothing that the state does now can ever right the profound wrongs done to these mothers, their children and their families. But we can and we must deliver the support that they still need. I look forward to Lord Privy Seal’s response.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. It was particularly moving to hear the examples of the parents and the mothers. It was a difficult thing to hear, particularly those young mums who were basically stitched back together again without any help or support—it is really moving. It is a dark period in our nation’s history that we have to acknowledge.

We on these Benches warmly welcome the Government’s apology. It is long overdue. For decades, thousands of mothers, children and families have lived with the pain of what happened. Women were made to feel ashamed simply because they had children outside of marriage. Many were put under enormous pressure, as we heard earlier, to give up the babies they loved and wanted to keep. At a time when they needed compassion and support the most, too many instead faced judgment, coercion and silence. The state actually helped create the conditions in which this happened, and it is right that this has finally now been recognised.

I also want to pay tribute to the mothers, adoptees and campaigners who never gave up and fought for years to have their voices heard and their experiences acknowledged. They have shown remarkable courage in speaking up about events that caused them lifelong grief and trauma. Sadly, some of them are no longer with us. However, they have long campaigned for this, and it is a reminder of how long justice can sometimes take, and that an apology matters. It is an important step, and it will mean a great deal for many people, but it cannot be the end of the story.

It must be followed by practical actions that help those still living with the consequences of those historical wrongs. We welcome the measures announced, including improvements to access to adoption records and better support from the NHS. Those are positive steps, and we hope they will make a real difference to people who have spent decades searching for answers and trying to reconnect with their families.

I have some questions for the Lord Privy Seal. First, on mental health support, many of the people affected have lived with the trauma for more than 50 years. Some have struggled with anxiety, depression and unresolved grief throughout their adult life. Others may now feel able to come forward only because the Government have finally acknowledged what happened to them. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what dedicated funding will be available for specialist trauma-informed mental health support? Just as importantly, how will the Government ensure that survivors can access that support wherever they live, rather than being left to rely upon overstretched local health services?

Secondly, on the adoption records, we know that many mothers and adoptees still face long delays and unnecessary barriers when trying to find information about their families. Records remain scattered across local authorities, charities and voluntary organisations, many of which are already under significant pressure. Can the Lord Privy Seal say a bit more about the Government’s ambitions for a properly funded, centralised digital system that will bring records together, making it easier and more consistent for families to access information and where possible reconnect?

Finally, the Joint Committee on Human Rights encouraged the Government to consider the approach taken by other countries, including Ireland and Australia, where financial redress has been introduced. We recognise that decisions on compensation are ultimately for the Government. However, can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that Ministers will continue to examine the experiences of those countries carefully and keep the question of financial redress under active consideration?

This was a deeply shameful chapter in our history. It affected not only mothers but children, fathers, grandfathers and whole families whose lives have changed for ever. Although we cannot undo the suffering that was caused, we can ensure that those affected are treated with the dignity, compassion and respect they should always have received. The Government’s apology is an important milestone; this should also be the beginning of a wider commitment to justice. Survivors deserve support, straightforward access to the truth about their own lives and confidence that the Government will continue to work with them in the years ahead. This is how we can begin to rebuild trust and ensure that this painful chapter is never forgotten and never repeated.

Children’s Social Care: Enduring Relationships Strategy

Debate between Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Baroness Cash

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House and for her kind words to me earlier. I look forward to working constructively with her in the coming months, in the interests of all children and young people.

We on the Conservative Benches welcome this Statement. Indeed, it was the previous Conservative Government who commissioned the review by Josh MacAlister on which this Government’s social care strategy is based. Children who enter care have often experienced circumstances too horrible for us to imagine. As they enter adulthood, as the report reminds us, they report much higher levels of loneliness and isolation, often lacking a single loving or supportive relationship. It is now well established by the evidence that higher numbers of adverse childhood experiences correlate with poorer life and health outcomes, so we will support, where possible, reforms to improve the care system.

I have some questions today. I particularly welcome the Minister’s focus on kinship care, but I wish to raise some points about the target of 10,000 new foster places—a laudable and necessary target. Surely some proportion of this is more easily achieved through the family. Currently, the proportion of fostering households through kinship care is just 20%, but finding foster carers among a child’s kin could be the surest and most efficient way of getting children into a placement in which they already feel a sense of safety and belonging. The biggest barrier is qualifying as foster carers, even though there are significant advantages to a child which might justify a less than perfect score. This would of course have to be done without compromising safeguarding, but it must merit further exploration. Will the Minister commit to revisiting this in this Session?

We recommend the expansion of regional care co-operatives, particularly to encompass children currently on, or at risk of, a deprivation of liberty order. However, I am concerned about the funding of these RCCs. The two RCC pathfinders in Greater Manchester and the south-east received £3.46 million in programme funding and £5 million in capital funding between them. The Government’s paper cites over £10 million to support the expansion of the six new RCCs. Unless I have misunderstood, that is a large discrepancy in per-RCC terms. Can the Minister tell the House whether she believes that this funding will be enough for all the new co-operatives or whether she expects more to be announced in the future?

We welcome the Minister’s resolution to secure the best possible outcome for care leavers, who too often, as I have said, have not a single enduring relationship in their lives. But there are some unanswered questions about how the new enduring relationship metric will be applied, and I would be very grateful for more information from the Minister. Will support for those who score lower be increased? What form will that support take? Will it allow for early intervention before those identified vulnerable individuals have left care? More information on all this would be very welcome. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I also welcome the Statement. It is important that we in this House send a strong message to young people in care that we are on their side. I know that on many occasions my noble friend Lord Purvis, who has just left his place here, has referred to those young people as having the richest parents—the corporate parents of the state—but often the state, particularly at the local level, has not been there to support them, so we welcome this enduring relationships strategy for children in social care. We have long believed that every child, no matter where they are and what their circumstances are, deserves the best start in life. That is what we want for our children. We the state, at both a national level and a local level, are the corporate parents, and if that is good enough for our own children, it should be good enough for the children under our responsibility.

We have long advocated for children in care because they have often been the ones who are overlooked, particularly those who reach adulthood but clearly still have issues. This overlaps with the debate that I am sure we will have following the Milburn review on NEETs, because those who have been in care are often overrepresented as NEETs. I am sure I will come back to that topic at a later date.

For too long, we have talked about the fact that some young people live in broken relationships. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Tyler, who wanted to be here but could not, because she has long campaigned for children. Often, one sibling is in care and the other is not. Maintaining that relationship is something for which she has campaigned for many years. I thank the Minister for her efforts to support the efforts of my noble friend, so that we were able to get that into the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act in the last Session of Parliament. That was an important change in the law and guaranteed that children in care are supported to stay in contact with their brothers and sisters. We want to make that upbringing closely mirrored to the ones that we all had and that, for example, my children are having.

Kinship care has a vital role in society. So often, that support is something that holds families together, and we have long called for the Government to support it financially. While they are there to support foster carers, we feel that kinship carers should also be better financially supported. Although we support the Government’s intentions, we must remind them that kinship carers still lack financial support. We tried to fix that during the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, but on that occasion we did not succeed.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. The Government mention a new financial allowance pilot for kinship carers. Will the Minister explain why the Government did not support the kinship care amendment to the Bill in the last Session? Similarly, the Government state that their goal is to shift children’s social care towards stronger families and stable homes, and that is welcome. But when a relative or close family friend willing to take on a child is located, they often face immense financial barriers. When will the Government guarantee financial support for kinship carers on a par with that for foster carers?