Downing Street Says

The PMOS gave the journalists some words from the Prime Minister on adoption. The Prime Minister said that:

"These new regulations provide a massive step forward in ending discrimination against gay people. They build on previous measures, such as equalising the age of consent, ending Section 28, and the introduction of civil partnerships. Now we want to ensure equality in the provision of goods and services, such as hotels and housing. This is about regulations which will extend further anti-discrimination legislation. We are clear about what we want to do. There is one last aspect within the new regulations to resolve, and it concerns adoption. I have always personally been in favour of the right of gay couples to adopt. Our priority will always be the welfare of the child. That is why the Adoption Act in 2004 sought to extend the field of potential adoptive parents to include unmarried and gay couples. Catholic adoption agencies represent one third of the voluntary sector operating in this area, and have a proven track record with the most difficult to place children. Both gay couples and the Catholic agencies have high levels of success in adopting hard to place children. It is for that reason we have taken time to ensure we get these regulations right. How do we protect the principle of ending discrimination against gay people and at the same time, protect those vulnerable children who at the present time are being placed through an aftercare provided by Catholic agencies who everyone accepts do a great job with some of the most disturbed youngsters? We will announce a decision next week, and then vote. I am committed to finding a way through this sensitive and difficult issue".

Asked if the adoption issue was discussed at Cabinet today, the PMOS said that it was not.

Put that the Prime Minister had said that the matter still had to be resolved, the PMOS replied that what the Prime Minister was saying was that he had always had two objectives in this. The first was to end discrimination. The second was to protect the work of the agencies who operated in this very difficult field, and who had been successful in dealing with the most difficult children, and who helped those who adopted the children deal with the adoption in the early phases of the process. As the head of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) had said this morning, it could take some time, as it was not just a matter of completing the process of adoption, and then that was it. Rather, what the Catholic agencies had succeeded in doing was providing continuing help during the period in which adoptions were always vulnerable as children adjusted to new families, and families learned to deal with often quite difficult children.

Asked if it was right to understand that exemptions did not form part of the discussion, the PMOS said that he was not going to give a running commentary on the discussion, as what mattered to the Prime Minister was to find a way through this difficult area. The important thing was not so much the device, but rather, what the device achieved and whether it achieved the duel objectives that the Prime Minister was trying to do. On the one hand: end discrimination. On the other hand: ensure that the work that was done by the agencies at the moment could continue. The PMOS said that it did not help in the discussions that were going on with all sides to get into a running commentary on particular devices.

Asked if we did not have to have a vote, and it was only because the Government had chosen to have a vote, the PMOS handed over the explanation to the BBC24’s political editor who explained that if it was an affirmative resolution, it had to have the required approval of both Houses of Parliament.

Asked to clarify the timescale of aftercare, and why would that be affected by discrimination legislation, the PMOS said that this was a crucial point in that there were some 3000 children who were involved in this. Because these were difficult to place children, the follow-through in terms of the agencies continuing to work with them and those who adopted them went on for quite some time. That was the point that was made by David Holmes of the BAAF on the "Today Programme". This was not something where once the process of adoption was complete, the work of the agencies was complete. If therefore, people ended up in a situation where the agencies felt that for their reasons, they had no option but to close, that aftercare would stop at the point. Therefore, whatever mechanism or device we came up with, it had to protect that on-going work with the children. There was a level of expertise which had been build up by the Catholic agencies which the Government and the Prime Minister were very anxious to continue. It was finding a way in which the agencies felt that they were able to continue, while at the same time, upholding the principle of no discrimination. That had always been the central dilemma, and that had always been the Prime Minister’s aim to try and achieve those two objectives. Even though it looked like they were in conflict, it was to try and find a way through this.

Asked if trying to find a way through meant forever, or for a specified period, the PMOS said that he would decline to answer that type of question. If people were trying to achieve a resolution, it was better to work behind the scenes on it in order to achieve an outcome, which was what the Prime Minister was trying to do.

Put that the argument we were making was for time, and it was not something that could stop instantly, therefore, was this a transition process before the agencies closed, or was it about another process that allowed the agencies to continue in another form, the PMOS replied that whilst he recognised the spirit in which the question was asked it was difficult to answer without getting drawn into the discussions. When the issue involved hard to place children, and the PMOS re-emphasised what the Prime Minister’s statement had said that both gay couples and the Catholic agencies had uniquely high levels of success in adopting hard to place children, it had to be ensured that the aftercare continued. There was a body of expertise that had been built up which the Prime Minister was very keen not to see dissipated. Therefore, it was finding a way in which both objectives could be achieved, and it was worth taking the time, flak, and lots of speculation, as it would be worth it.

Asked if the Prime Minister was willing to accept that in the long term, the agencies might have to close, the PMOS replied that what the Prime Minister would like was a situation in which these agencies felt able to continue and operate with their expertise. What they would decide was a matter for them, but what the Prime Minister was very keen to do was preserve that expertise. What it was achieving was not only placing difficult children, but also, a success in following through. David Holmes recognised both the work of gay couples in this areas, as well as the Catholic agencies. It was unique work, and we did not want to lose it.

Asked if the April deadline was still on track, and who would the Prime Minister meet in the next week before making a final decision, the PMOS replied that he was not going to get into the process. With regards to the deadline, we wanted to see these regulations in and within the original timeframe. However, in terms of the content, what mattered was that we found a way of trying to resolve this issue. It was the last issue that we needed to resolve, but it need to be resolved.

Asked if it had ever been the Prime Minister’s view that an exemption would be the best way forward, the PMOS replied that he was not going to get into the particular devices and views on them. The important thing was to clarify what it was that the Prime Minister wanted to achieve. The PMOS went on to say that this was not about particular devices; it was about what the impact of those devices was. The impact had to be not only one that ended discrimination, but also, one that preserved the expertise in dealing with difficult children.

Asked if there was any level of discrimination which the Prime Minister would be prepared to tolerate in order to allow that expertise, the PMOS said that if people looked at what the Prime Minister had said, what he was about was ending discrimination. What the Prime Minister had also said was that he had always been in favour of the right of gay couples to adopt.

Asked if the aftercare was to last throughout the child’s childhood, the PMOS replied that the agencies would say that it was not just a matter of a few weeks, but it went on for quite a period. This was a classic case where the more people had explored the subject, the more they realised that it was genuinely complex. While applying the principle seemed easy, in practice, people had to work through the consequences of applying that principle. That was what we were doing.

Asked if, at the end of the day, was the Prime Minister prepared to sacrifice a Minister over this, the PMOS said that at the end of the day, the Prime Minister hoped that we reached a consensus which achieved the two objectives we had set out, and that that consensus meant in practice not only an end to discrimination, but also, that these children got the help that they needed.

Asked by the BBC if the Prime Minister had "caved in" to Cabinet opposition over the compromise with the Catholic Church, the PMOS replied that words like "caving in" were irrelevant. What mattered was that there was a resolution which actually achieved an end to discrimination and helped the children. One sided accounts of this debate did not help anyone, as what mattered was that the principle of ending discrimination was upheld, and that the children continued to get the help that they needed.

Asked if there was any discussion with the Church of England ahead of their statement, the PMOS said that the Church of England made their own statements.

Put that some people on the Catholic side had suggested that allowing an exemption was one way of protecting the aftercare, but was that too simplistic, the PMOS said that again, he did not want to get drawn into talking about particular devices. What was important was that we focused on the outcome.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Thursday, January 25, 2007

Adoption

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries