• The government appointed an adoption adviser – former Barnados CEO Martin Narey. 

• The government has published league tables of the number of children adopted in each council area and the time each adoption too. 

• There have also been interventions to the guidelines surrounding the adoption of black/mixed race children by white parents. In principle at least the government feels there should be no barriers to cross-ethnic adoption. 

• There are further measures in the pipeline including a leaner, less bureaucratic process to vet prospective parents. There is talk of the walls between fostering and adoption being broken down. 

• Adoption was in the last Queen’s speech and is firmly on the agenda. 

The problem is that these are really just gestures in a situation that requires dramatic action. The government has shied away from putting in place measures to reveal the real truth. This is why we want to see a government-led, enforcement authority to oversee the behaviours of Local Councils and make things more transparent. We know anecdotally that parents who’ve been approved to adopt a child currently in care cannot do so as their council does not have the resources to finalise the paperwork. Desperate parents are just as confused when their adoption case worker says that the new guidelines do not apply to their council. There are endless examples and while we’re not saying they could all be solved by a central authority, we know that such a body would make councils up their game.  We do however feel that the government is still fudging the issue of hard figures: there is no way of quantifying how many people have been denied the chance to adopt at all stages of the process. We don’t know the reasons for applications being refused. We note that despite announcements proclaiming change, the government has not yet even added a question in the Home Study asking if the prospective parents wish to adopt a child from a different race. This information is essential to understanding where the process is going wrong. The government’s way out is to name and shame councils and cut their budgets. Frankly it’s gutless and pathetic. It should be noted that before the rise in adoption rates, adoption was at its lowest level in ten years. As we say, it’s a long, long game. It’s an even longer one for the children who are waiting. Think about it:

• Most of the children awaiting adoption will never be placed into a family.
• From the age of eight onwards, 99% of children up for adoption will not be placed.

Let’s examine what the government has done: it has introduced ‘Special Guardianship’, giving parental responsibility to a guardian, who tends to be a family member or friend. This is supposed to allow certain steps such as the costly Home Study approval, to be skipped, immediately after the links from the birth parents have ceased to exist legally. It’s a good concept, however in practice it means that while the number of children in foster care has decreased that the number of adoptions has not correspondingly risen. Furthermore,

• Special Guardianship breakdowns are not recorded.
• Successful voluntary adoption agencies have been asked to take on some of the work of poorly performing councils temporarily, thus massaging the figures. 

The number of babies available for adoption appears to have decreased.  The government will say this is because less of them enter the system; however the fact that should not be overlooked is that the time to adopt has not decreased so any babies entering the care system are likely to be toddlers before they are adopted. If they are adopted. Finally we have the ‘defenestration’ of Tim Loughton, who had acted as Children Minister for two years and Shadow Children Minister for seven. Tim and I have had our arguments about how far he could go in the review of the system, however he’s shown more commitment than anyone in what is a very tough position. He championed social work and initiatied controversial reforms to speed up adoptions. And he genuinely tried to do so by involving all stakeholders from campaigning groups-  like ours-  to the children themselves to adoptive parents, prospective parents and social services. Why not let him carry on his work and build on his knowledge and passion? He was making some small, but very significant breakthroughs.

Now Edward Timpson will have to pick up and run with it. I hope he does try and run but I am fearful of the energy being lost, the time lost, and the young lives that are caught in between. Farewell Tim and thank you for caring. The issue is just as urgent, poignant and tragic. We need to run faster.

Sadly this is pretty much how governments have conducted themselves in dealing with pressing issues in both the adoption process and the care system which is a part of it. Sure there has been much murmuring from Michael Gove and Tim Loughton about making ‘big changes’ to the process. The former is himself adopted so I guess I’d hoped for more action but instead, we just get more pronouncements.

So I sit here looking at the same disturbing facts over and over. Black and Asian children find it hard to be adopted into a permanent, stable home. The numbers of children going into care are also increasing  - on average around 1000 each month. Meanwhile there are prospective parents coming forward, many of them ready to jump through the countless hoops that will be put before them. And we have a society that embraces alternative concepts of creating a family, one where even surrogacy is becoming more accepted. So why is adoption so complicated, so bureaucratic, so uncaring and unaware of the people it affects the most? Why isn’t it a leaner, more transparent process that gives hope instead of discouraging those who want to make it work?

The reality is that in nearly four years the government hasn’t even attempted to alter the the forms on the Home Study questionnaire to ask if parents would consider a child of a different race.

You know, I receive calls each day from people desperate to open their hearts to a child who needs a loving home. These people tell me they have been turned down as adoptive parents due to race. I find that even more troubling in a country that spends a fortune on ensuring ‘diversity’ in its workplaces. The number of children adopted last year was the lowest in ten years and England lags behind any other so called ‘developed’ country when it comes to the way it handles the children left to languish in care. Their lives are destroyed before they have a chance to begin. And still the government sits there, intellectually and morally constipated uttering passive words. Non-announcements are not only depressing, they are insulting to the children and those of us who care about making life better for them.

I don’t think we’re any way towards meeting the problem with the reforms it needs. In conversations with both Martin Narey (newly appointed Adoption Czar) and Tim Loughton, the Minister for Children I was impressed with the way both men understood the problem. And I think their intentions are there. However I am not convinced that they are going to generate any substantial mileage in terms of really making any difference – the kind of difference that will change the appalling statistic that out of 4000 children up for adoption in 2010, less than 300 were adopted.

Why is this the case? Again I am loathe to apportion blame on social workers and local authorities as they are merely instruments of the system. It must be said they have used that to make not wholly safe judgements that have tended to be in the interest of keeping families together, rather than finding care and safety for the child. It is the DfE and the government who need to be more accountable though, for their parts in this immoral and often, inhumane circus.

We live in cash strapped times. Councils have always known they can save money, rather a lot of money, by keeping children in care instead of helping them towards adoption. This is going to exacerbate the situation. Sure you can save yourself a bit of money in the short term. And when those neglected kids fail to complete school and end up in prison then what? Because the statistics show us what happens and David Cameron knows it too.

A government that won’t take responsibility for something so fundamental to the well being of children and society is not behaving like a government Government. What we want to see is the government using its weight to enforce any measures with  Local Authorities, Social Workers and Family Courts.

Otherwise Local Authorities will do what they have done before and ignore them and hide behind them. We still won’t have the clarity of direction we need.

That’s why we need a National Adoption Authority which will be able to impose guidelines and ensure there are penalties for not following them. We need much more of course, like a more streamlined process in the family courts that does not aggravate the delays already present in the system. But most of all we need David Cameron to take the lead.

Like yesterday, the situation is so dramatic that it will require dramatic intervention.

Too much time has passed and too little has happened. Tony Blair tried to help the issue by setting adoption targets. It helped a little – but too little to make a real difference and we know targets don’t work.

Tim Loughton has introduced some new guidelines to allow white parents to adopt non-white children. These rules are being ignored by local authorities and social workers. The reality is the intervention of the government has been too little too late. And let’s face it, there is no compunction on the part of local authorities to follow these passive guidelines. There is no comeback or reinforcement from the government.

Adoption with Humanity will soon be launching a petition to ask the government to intervene in a way that will require local authorities and others to act. I will let you know more soon. Because our present system is more than stupid, it is immoral. In a world where thousands of children languish in care while there are safe, loving families who want them, we have to do something. And we are going to try our very best.

When we met, I also discussed with him my campaign, Adoption With Humanity, and these are my thoughts following our discussion about his 19 point plan, and our plans for a National Adoption Authority:

We welcome your report and believe it contains some very sound research and extremely positive ideas for reform. The findings are compelling, indeed you may agree that they are dramatic.

The core of your paper is, we believe, the development and implementation of a completely new ethos behind adoption: one in which the best interests of the child are genuinely given priority and where adoption is seen as a positive way of ensuring that a child is cared for in a family situation; and where those who put themselves forward for this role are accepted and welcomed as a constructive resource.

Many of the issues you have raised and which we acknowledge below, in addition to others which concern us greatly, seem to lead to one central conclusion: there is an authority vacuum.

Looking first at the issues:
A. Problem of delays
1.  The time it takes to bring children into the care system (when they are obviously being neglected)
2.    The length of time it takes a child to be adopted – due to system being too bureaucratic
3.    Social workers’ attitudes in seeking the perfect match (when “suitable” is sufficient)
4.    Appalling delays in courts and with Guardians

B.   Problem of social workers’ attitudes and lack of appropriate training
1.    Professional role – personal opinions vs policies local and national
2.    The key role of social work being seen as the preservation of the biological family
3.    Individual antipathy to adoption
4.    Desire (at almost all costs) to keep children with birth families
5.    Obstruction to “less than perfect” adoption
6.    Issue of misuse of Special Guardianship as quicker and cheaper option when in fact often its use is not compatible with the best interests of the child
7.    Putting off / turning away too many potential adopters

C.  The way the adoption system is set up
1.    Lack of rational control structure across all the elements of adoption
2.    Problem of Government not having control over local authorities hence problem of ensuring any change in policy/guidelines is adhered to (see recent changes in ethnic guidelines…)
3.    Budget structure within LAs plus anomalies like Courts being able to spend LA budgets on additional reports etc with no LA control
4.    Cross charge of real cost of home studies and no more has led to a disincentive to prepare more adopters than are strictly needed by an authority leading to a national shortage of prepared adopters (plus additional delays for a child if prepared adopters are not available when adoption becomes the plan for him/her.)
5.    No proper integration with the court system
6.    Local authorities working independently / lack of co-ordination – may turn down a potential adopter in one authority because no suitable match when the next door authority may have a suitable child available for adoption.
7.    Broad spectrum of standards & policies and achievements of local authorities – effects of leadership/management or lack thereof

From all of these points we are inevitably drawn to the conclusion that there is an authority vacuum, and thus an imperative need for the Government to create a rational control structure to move adoption practice forward in the UK and to be able to ensure that its policies can be realized (and measure that success).

Looking at your 19 points, we believe that the problem warrants action far stronger then just encouragement to address these. Your conclusions make it apparent that the problem with adoption in the UK is a very serious one, and as such we suggest that what is required is a major intervention to ensure the improvements the adoption system is crying out for.

We believe it is time for the government to take a step forward – a major one – and claim its authority over adoption practices by setting up a National Adoption Authority (NAA). This body will have the authority and power to devise new policies and practices that would be enforceable by the Authority over Local Authorities and Courts.

Although this might seem revolutionary, it’s actually purely evolutionary. We strongly believe this is the best way for the Government to take the initiative and create the mechanism to address the issues. Whether we like it or not, the responsibility of tackling huge issues in our society does fall to governments. It is also a way in which we can avoid the compartmentalisation based on old policies and the biases that are so ingrained in our current system, in which it appears that the Government has not been able to enforce its wishes for change.

We have given some thought to the structures and bases for such an authority. We would suggest that the NAA would be governed by a mixed representative body covering the whole spectrum of adoption, including social workers, but also experts such as psychologists, doctors, birth mothers, adoptive parents and adoptees who would offer a thorough view on adoption as seen from all aspects. Its operational team would enforce policies and guidelines set by the government and based on best practice or empirical evidence. It would have authority over all adoption agencies, and have a strong role with regard to adoption courts and the integration of procedures between them, including early and continuous co-ordinated planning.

A key feature which we believe should attend the creation of the authority is the idea of the budget being allocated to the child (similar to a statement of educational needs) and the creation of a separate National budget for the assessment and preparation of potential adopters with the Authority being responsible for the analysis of the correctness of its value and the efficacy of its use.

Another core function would be to take over the “inspection” role which has to date been undertaken by OFSTED. Crucially it would be in a position to gather, analyse and publish statistics and genuinely audit data on the whole of the adoption system.

We believe the Authority should also have a significant role in defining the training curriculum and oversee its implementation. Finally, we believe it should continue the really vital work of the Adoption Research Initiative in providing the evidence on which to base policies in the future.
Financially, we would see the budget coming from the reallocation of the budget for the current policy team at the Department of Education and the relevant budgets granted to Local Authorities. The significant improvements to the system that would result from enforcing standards and policies, shortening time in care, and reducing waste by proper co-ordination between agencies and the courts should be sufficient to create significant improvements without the need for additional budgets.

On the other hand, we are aware the government does not want to create major centralized bodies but is a keen supporter of local solutions. The creation of a National Adoption Authority follows a tried and tested route, particularly familiar to the Dept of Education who currently have responsibility for Adoption in the UK, of having a central policy setting authority and delegated local implementation.

The creation of such an authority would avoid some of the dangers present in other options. For example we are concerned that were one to follow the route of creating a National Adoption Agency, there would be a significant danger of replicating the same attitudes and behaviours – because almost inevitably it would in large part be formed by the same individuals. It is also a more radical solution which would create greater disruption, cost more and take more time – a National Adoption Authority would be a more evolutionary, more easily achievable step and one which we believe should be given serious consideration as the optimum structure to reform adoption in the UK.

Martin’s work in the criminal justice and prison system for twenty years convinced him that putting children in care was the moment a child’s life turned for the worse. He believes the problem with unwanted or neglected children lies not only in the current processes used to deal with them but also the general attitude surrounding adoption. Fundamentally it is not accepted in society. The idea of middle class people parenting working class children is not seen as inherently good but something to be pitied – a kind of last resort even when it all works out successfully. .

In The Times, Martin sums it up: “There is bad use of the research. There is the system itself — hopelessly slow — and there is some troubling confusion in both the legal system and among social workers about the Human Rights Act and how that affects the rights of parents and children.

“On Day One I want to persuade Tim Loughton, Michael Gove and David Cameron to lay down the line that children’s interests have primacy when it comes to intervention, to make clear that the Children’s Act puts children first and the Human Rights Act does not undermine that.”

Martin believes we can double the number of adoptions over the next two years and his report contains 19 recommendations which you can read here.

His proposals include performance league tables for local authorities to avoiding an often followed route where case workers place the child with a member of the extended family. As Narey says in the piece, this is, “often just another branch of the same dysfunctional family.”

In what is bound to be a major talking point he recommends that adoption be offered, as part of counselling, to pregnant women who do not want their child. I can see his thinking, especially as his research indicated that services which ‘help’ women with unwanted pregnancies, do not offer adoption as an option. He is scathing about the way social services appear to go with the flow, telling teenagers they will make good mothers and leaving them alone.

From The Times: “For six months we are all over her telling her how well she is doing and then she is on her own. What we are doing is cowardly. Adoption should be a third option to abortion or keeping the child. It is an attitude that must be allowed to grow. In the US mothers who give up their children for adoption believe they are giving them a great start. Here it is viewed as a success if we talk them out of it.”

After years of muddy compromise that leave children with a minimal shot at a decent life at best, I welcome his recommendations. They are clear, concise and go to the heart of what is wrong. I support the idea of allowing pregnant women to decide for themselves if they would like to have their child adopted as soon as it is born. This would certainly assist in cutting down the time (and misery) for children. Instead of languishing for years in foster care during which their chances of becoming dysfunctional and therefore unattractive for prospective adoptees, they would literally start life from the beginning in a better place.

Bruce Oldfield made this point in the foreword to my book Mexican Takeaway, saying that children do pass their ‘sell by-date.’ People find it harder to adopt older children and when they have been shunted through the system for years, they become more challenging as time goes on. And that’s the main cause of adoption failure, not colour or religious differences as the authorities would have the public believe. If we can make this dramatic change it will be literally life-saving.

I’m behind Martin and congratulate him. He is brave and no nonsense. I am also grateful to The Times for their relentless campaign and commitment to the children in care in this country. We have a target: doubling the number of children adopted out of the care system into loving homes regardless of creed, colour or culture. The government needs to grasp these recommendations and make things happen. Whether they are brave enough to take more than baby steps remains to be seen.

I know Tim wants to see more children adopted with less delay and bureaucracy and in many respects he and I share similar views. I think that the more aligned we can all be on this, the more likely our chances of creating the shift that is necessary to change things. I’ve said this to Tim and he agrees which is one of the reasons he’s happy to talk. But it makes sense. It’s easy to go on television and radio and create a big noise about something but you also have to listen to others. I’m hoping that at the end of our chat, we’ll have an initial plan of how I can perhaps help him move forward and achieve his aims. Stay tuned.