[R Rushbrooke]

I’d like to respond to the criticism in this thread that my article in Population Trends (104 (26-34), 2001) inaccurately summarised adoption from 1927 to 1975 as being typically and intentionally secretive. My critic refers to Jenny Keating’s article in the University of Sussex Journal of Contemporary History (Issue 3, September 2001), but in fact Keating’s findings are similar to my own. Keating writes: “The [1926 Tomlin] Committee … led to the beginning of an effective era of secrecy which would last fifty years.” Also: “The adoption societies ... were single-minded in ensuring the rights of the adopting families to remove all trace of a previous identity from their new offspring” and “the adoption societies obtained their wish concerning secrecy.” It’s true that plenty of people didn’t like the secrecy, but in the main their wishes didn’t prevail.
The criticism of Dr Alexina McWhinnie was unfortunate. Not only is Dr McWhinnie a widely respected authority on adoption, but her research in the 1960’s was one of the main factors that led to the 1975 Act.
Lastly, I think my critic assumed that I work for the Office for National Statistics. Not so. I submitted my research as a member of the public.

On another issue, the question was raised as to who was behind the clause added late to the Adoption Bill (2000) that would have removed the legal right of adoptees to get their birth records retrospectively by giving their natural parents a veto. It was clear from the evidence given to the Select Committee by the representatives from adoption organisations that it didn't come from anyone in adoption.
The answer suspected by many people at the time, including senior figures in the adoption world, is that the fertility industry was behind it. The fertility industry has always been uncomfortable with the argument that donor-conceived people should have the same legal right to their records as adoptees, and clearly it would have suited it if adoptees had had this right taken away.
Using this clause as a precedent, the natural mother’s (or father’s) veto (in adoption) would have become the sperm donor’s veto (in DI), and the adoption society’s adjudication would have become the fertility clinic's adjudication.
Whether it was behind the clause or not, the industry was well aware of its significance for donor conception. In December 2001 the Department of Health, which works closely with the industry, published a public consultation document on donor anonymity in which they set out the arguments for and against removing anonymity. Section 2.7 (para 1) outlines the argument that donor-conceived people should have parity with adoptees. This is immediately followed by a description of the above clause, which at that time looked likely to be made law, and which would have made the argument inoperable.

Rupert Rushbrooke