Historical Forced Adoption

Statement

My Lords, I shall repeat a Statement from the Prime Minister. I do not always repeat Statements; I just take questions. But given the nature of this Statement —in fact, it is an apology—it is appropriate to repeat it in full:

“This morning in Downing Street, I met some of the mothers and adult adoptees harmed by historical adoption practices in England. They are here with us in the Gallery today, and I had the chance to talk with them privately. They are the most remarkable women, and I know the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary courage with which they have shared their harrowing testimonies and fought for the truth time and again.

I have to confess that, as I said to those mothers this morning, I found it hard to read the testimonies and to hear their stories. I found it particularly hard as a dad, but how much harder it must have been for them to go through that, to set out their testimonies and to tell their stories over and over again. As they said to me this morning, this is something which is so intensely private having to be public. The courage and resilience they have shown, and others alongside them, is absolutely incredible, and I want to mark that.

What happened to them, and to tens of thousands of mothers, children and families, should never have happened. It is a stain on our history. Mothers—many young, vulnerable and without support—were coerced, bullied or misled into feeling they had no choice but to have their children taken from them. What a thing to do.

These were not isolated or accidental acts. They were practices embedded within systems across local authorities, across voluntary and faith-based institutions, and in health and social care services, including parts of what is now the NHS. They were all institutions that operated with power over people’s lives, yet they did so without compassion, without consent and without dignity or proper safeguards.

These practices were particularly prevalent between 1949 and 1976 but also extended beyond those years. In some cases, women, including those placed in mother and baby homes and other institutional settings, were cut off from their families, relationships, education and employment, and subjected to harsh and isolating conditions. Some experienced treatment that amounted to exploitation and abuse.

Many were made to feel ashamed—that came through very, very powerfully in the discussions I had this morning —silenced, and unworthy of care or dignity. Children grew up believing that they were unwanted. Young mothers were told that they were immoral and that their babies were better off without them. As they told me this morning, that lasts a lifetime and has a huge impact.

Ann Lloyd Keen, who is in the Gallery and is of course formerly of this House, described to the Education Committee how she was stitched without anaesthetic, and was told:

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.

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.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments and their welcoming of the Statement. The noble Lord is quite right: the apology is the start of a process. I think we all agree that everyone has waited too long for this.

Whenever I read about this or speak to women I know who have been affected, I always go back to that frightened young woman who finds that she is pregnant, and society and, often, her family are not willing to support her. Society as a whole was complicit in this, in the way that we, as a whole, treated women who were single, young, scared and did not know where to turn. The very organisations they thought could help them were the ones they suffered most at the hands of. We have just to hear these stories. I think we all felt quite emotional hearing some of those tales; just imagine living through them. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord are right to pay tribute to those women and the adoptees for what they went through.

There are a number of issues to address. The noble Baroness talked about behavioural change in public sector employees. It was not just public sector employees; this was across society. I remember speaking to one lady who told me that her relationship with her mother never recovered because her mother allowed her—indeed, forced her—to go into a home. The repercussions have gone through family life through generations. There is nothing you can do or say that can change the hurt that has been done, but we can try to do something to make a difference.

The noble Lord is right to challenge us on records. Records are held in different formats by different organisations across the country. Bringing them together will be quite something to achieve. To get them in one place is crucial.

The noble Lord asked about compensation and redress. We are led by those who have been affected. There are three big things in this package of support. One is improving access to and safeguarding adoption records, getting them into one place so that they can be accessed. There is also expanding access to specialist services, including mental health services, but also to reconnection services to help those who want to trace their families, and improving access to NHS services. This is not about individual compensation. We are seeking to give the people the support they need. I do not think there is any money in the world that can address the hurt and problems that have been caused by this.

My Lords, before we move on, I remind the House that the next 20 minutes are reserved for questions from Back-Benchers only. I know the whole House will appreciate these rules being adhered to, to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible get a suitable opportunity to ask questions to the Lord Privy Seal.

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for the tone and manner in which she repeated the Prime Minister’s Statement in your Lordships’ House this afternoon. She will be aware that, in 2022, the Joint Committee on Human Rights described forced adoption as

“the violation of family life”.

I am glad that its recommendation that the state should recognise its culpability has been accepted. It has been a pleasure to interact with Helen Hayes, Member of Parliament for Dulwich and West Norwood, who is the admirable chair of the Education Committee in another place.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that our 2022 report called for more concrete action? It asked for much wider provision of counsellors to provide post-adoption support, help for families to access adoption records and find out important medical information, and improvements in the way in which intermediaries operate to support contact between family members when that is wanted. It also called for the Government to find ways to alert those mothers who wish to be told in the sad and painful situation where an adopted child has died. Actions are always more convincing than words when harm has been done. Will the Lord Privy Seal write to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to say how the Government are now addressing those challenges?

One of our other recommendations—following a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash—is the early implementation of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal can tell the House why that legislation continues to be stalled when we hope to see the so-called Hillsborough law on the statute book to stop the circling of the wagons, as the Prime Minister rightly put it.

I am grateful to the noble Lord and value the work and findings of the JCHR and Joint Committees. That, along with the Education Committee’s work, has informed the package that has come through. For me, the first step seems to be to have as much information as possible in a central place. The noble Lord will understand how challenging that is going to be. The determination and work going into that now to ensure that that can happen will address a lot of the points that he raised.

On the Hillsborough Bill, the only delays have been to get it right. The noble Lord will know from his experience and the people he has spoken to the complexities in this area. When I was a Northern Ireland Minister, a very long time ago now in the previous Labour Government, I initiated a report into the deaths of a number of children who died in hospital from a condition called hyponatraemia, where it was felt that full information was not given to the parents. A report followed from that. The reason why I am never entirely happy with public inquiries is that it took something like 17 years to produce the report—I was in your Lordships’ House before it was published. One of its first recommendations was a duty of candour. Part of that is not to say that people are not giving information; it is to protect those who want to come forward with information because they are doing the right thing and their duty. It is a complex area. The only delay is in trying to get it right and make sure we address the points that have to be addressed. Such a lot of that has to work properly. If it is ineffective, it serves no purpose. We want to get that right.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. The Statement referred to Northern Ireland. Today, the report from the independent panel was published, which will lead to the public inquiry. That panel found systemic failures by the state, which led to a series of serious human rights issues. What interaction will take place with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that these women and children who were forced into adoption will receive their proper human rights?

My Lords, as the noble Baroness references, this was a Statement that covers England only. There was an apology from the Scottish First Minister in March 2023, and the Welsh Deputy Minister for Social Services issued an apology back in April 2023. It has taken longer here. I am pleased that work is going on in Northern Ireland now; that is important and I reference that. It is for the Northern Ireland Executive to bring this forward. Clearly, families are not static; they move across the UK. It is important that all the devolved Administrations work together with central government to ensure a joined-up approach, particularly where records are concerned. I hope that this can be taken forward.

In 1997 and 1998, I served on the Health Select Committee, along with Ann Keen, under the chairmanship of David Hinchliffe, on the inquiry into child migration. That report led the way, not least in the sense that it promoted the responsibility of the state for what had happened. I thought that was helpfully reflected in what the Prime Minister’s Statement had to say. Gordon Brown made a formal apology in February 2010. In July 2010, as Secretary of State, I instituted the family restoration fund, which, in the subsequent two years, brought 300 former families together. Will the Lord Privy Seal ensure that, in the further work now to be done in supporting those who have been subject to forced adoption, the learnings from the family restoration fund, and indeed the Child Migrants Trust, are taken on board? There is significant substantial overlap between those who were forcibly migrated and those who were subject to forced adoption.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and will certainly take them back, as so much can be learned. He and I knew Ann Keen and David Hinchliffe. People started to speak out a long time ago and it is sad that this has taken so long, but we are here now. His comments are very helpful and I am happy to take them away.

I declare something of an interest here. Back in 2012, as a volunteer, I designed the Movement for an Adoption Apology website and its logo. That was when campaigners came to the Green Party asking for the apology that we have finally secured. It spoke to me particularly because I believe that, as a newborn baby in Australia in 1944, my father was affected by a similar kind of behaviour. That is a reflection of the fact that this is something that comes down through the generations. It has an impact beyond the mothers and babies directly affected, with familial impacts further down.

I thank the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister for this powerful, appropriate and rightful Statement and the tone in which it has been presented. My question specifically is the reference to consulting on

“requiring existing records to be retained for 100 years”.

We know that a lot of institutions and organisations may now rightly feel ashamed of their past behaviour. What sort of timeframe will there be for the consultation? Is there anything that the Government can do to make sure that records are not destroyed or thrown away in the meantime, so that they remain accessible until that process is put into effect?

I do not know whether the noble Baroness heard that part of the Statement, but the Education Secretary has written to local authorities and adoption agencies where we have information to say that they must keep the records, so that work is starting now. Times have changed, and we want organisations that have records to offer them up and bring them centrally to ensure that as much information as possible is available.

One hundred years seems the appropriate time, but the noble Baroness is right to reference the impact on families through generations. I am of an age where I can remember friends from school—not many—who had children. It was sometimes with the love and support of their families, and they kept their child and we saw them at school and at events. But there were others who went away and you did not hear anything about it—they just disappeared for a while. I am sure I am not the only one in this House who has those kinds of memories. Thinking back, we did not really understand then what happened. But, for them, all those years later, they will still be living that. So, the retention of records for 100 years is appropriate.

We do not want a particularly long consultation; we want to ensure we can get on with it as quickly as possible. I cannot give an exact timescale, but I can assure the noble Baroness that there is nothing here that anybody wants to see any delay on.

My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister’s apology last week and thank the Lord Privy Seal for reading it with such empathy and compassion. The House will be aware, I am sure, that last month, Archbishop Sarah issued an apology for the Church of England’s involvement in these practices, and specifically for the pain, trauma and stigma experienced—and still carried—by many people as a result. She said what the Prime Minister also said in his apology: “The shame is ours, not yours”. Today, I add my voice to the apology to all people who experienced loss or received poor care in homes affiliated to the Church of England, whether mothers or adoptees. We are deeply sorry.

The diocese of Winchester ran a maternity home alongside a small number of other shelters. Today, I pay significant tribute to those people for whom this was lived experience and who have shared and recorded their own painful and very moving stories with us with great courage and grace over many months. As a result, we are holding a service at St Bartholomew’s church this Saturday 11 July so that people can gather together to reflect, lament and be present for the unveiling of a plaque.

To anyone listening who is affected, please know that you can speak to your local vicar or contact your local diocese. They will, I trust, listen sensitively and offer pastoral support and, in some cases, may suggest you seek specialist services. Pastoral support matters, but in some instances, access to professional therapeutic services will be required. Could the Minister describe what financial support might be allocated to increase capacity among professional providers of such support?

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the way that he and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury have issued their apologies as well. When we—rightly—say the shame is not theirs, it is ours, we ought to say how much pride we have in those women who have spoken out. This is not an easy thing to do, because many of them still feel the shame of all those years ago. Society has moved on, but we should recognise the pride we take in them, and they should feel pride in themselves for the way they have campaigned to get to this point.

A number of areas have had extra funding, including an improvement in the adoption and care services we have at present. We have made improvements in mental health provision as well and have increased mental health spending to a record £16.1 billion. The need is there for this, particularly in this area. I have already outlined some of the specialist services, particularly by working with the NHS, that will be available.

I hope that as more women come forward, the shame they felt in the past will start to recede for them. To carry that shame for so long must be so debilitating in everyday life. So, I hope that by moving forward, we can try to change the culture of how these women feel, because they have carried too much and too heavy a burden for far too long.

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal and the Prime Minister for the tone and the detail in this Statement. However, the NHS was 68 on Sunday and many of the babies were born in NHS facilities. I was 19 when a baby was taken away from a young person at Princess Beatrice Hospital in London, against her will but with her mother’s support, because they felt completely unable to look after the child. I believe that child was adopted by a family who were desperate for a child. Many of the people who adopted these children were actually kind and loving, and many of the families that gave up children because no one knew how to support them were in great distress. I am convinced that what we did was wrong, and that there will be some people who will not be convinced that NHS mental health support is necessarily the best solution; for some people, NHS counselling may not be appropriate. Is it that the NHS will provide the service or will it ensure that the service is delivered—that is, possibly deliver some services through independent counselling services as well as the mainstream NHS?