All 1 Debates between Lord Waddington and Lord Hill of Oareford

Children: Adoption

Debate between Lord Waddington and Lord Hill of Oareford
Tuesday 10th May 2011

(13 years, 7 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Waddington Portrait Lord Waddington
- Hansard - -



To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they propose to take to ensure that children do not lose the chance of being adopted as a result of the closure of adoption agencies following the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007.

Lord Hill of Oareford Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the Government are committed to adoption where this is in a child’s best interests. We have been monitoring the effect of the introduction of the regulations, and have made it clear to local authorities that they should work with the voluntary sector to maximise the number of successful adoptions. My honourable friend Mr Loughton is leading a drive to speed up adoption and remove potential barriers—for example, for children from minority ethnic backgrounds.

Lord Waddington Portrait Lord Waddington
- Hansard - -

I thank my noble friend for his reply, but in light of the Times report of 2 May that five of the remaining Catholic adoption agencies have gone out of business rather than abandon their Christian beliefs, with the likelihood that this will make it harder for some of the most vulnerable children to be found a home, should not common sense and tolerance come before political correctness? With gay couples able to go to any number of agencies specialising in gay adoption, should not the law allow the Catholic agencies the same freedom of conscience as was allowed to conscientious objectors during the war?

Lord Hill of Oareford Portrait Lord Hill of Oareford
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I understand the point made by my noble friend and know the strength of feeling that he brings to bear on this. The department has approached adoption from the point of view of what is in the best interests of children by trying to have as a wide a pool as possible of potential adopters. No one on this side of the House is keen to do things that are driven by political correctness. That is one of the reasons why we are looking, for example, at the adoption of minority ethnic children. I understand the points that my noble friend makes, but at the moment we have no plans to respond directly to them.