I have received the following as part of a letter in response to points that I have asked my MP to put to the Right Hon Margaret Hodge MP the Minister for Children and Families who also has responsibility for adult adoption issues.
"....Mr Harritt also raises the issue of access to adoption agency records in pre-commencement adoptions. Our current intention is that an adoption agency will continue to be able to receive and consider applications for the disclosure of information where the of information where the agency holds the case file for that adoption. Broadly, we would wish the agency to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to disclose information as it currently does under regulation 15 of the Adoption Agencies Regulations 1983. We intend to set this out and the steps the adoption should take in additional statutory guidance. Therefore, a person seeking information to facilitate contact with a birth relative in the context of a pre-commencement adoption will have two possible routes: either through a registered adoption support agency or through the agency that holds the case records. We envisage that the new route through an adoption support agency will be more popular, but for those who wish to, they will still be able to they will still be able to apply to the adoption agency that arranged their adoption..."
All very interesting, but very little to do with the question that I had asked the minister to address, which was:
'.....The Baroness Barker has tabled the following question in the House of Lords (no named day)—“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy towards access to personal information relating to individuals who receive, or have received, social care, or who have been adopted; and whether they have any proposals for change”. Please put the same question to the Minister for Children and Families on my behalf. The matter of client access to files for pre-commencement adoptions seems to have been entirely left out of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 despite the requirement that adopted people be given sufficient information to ‘make an informed decision’.
The following two paragraphs are from a letter that I sent to several members of the House of Lords including Baroness Barker at the final stages of the Adoption and Children Bill.
The other proposal in this Bill that worries me is that the adoption agency be made the sole agency responsible for access to records. My experiences with Barnardos have left me exasperated. And you will no doubt have read of the case Gunn-Rosso v Nugent Care and the Secretary of State for Health, fortunately for Ms Gunn-Rosso Liberty took up her case. I have to pay my own legal expenses. I have had Alan Levy QC look at the problems I have had with Barnardos, he described it as " as like a bad episode of Yes Minister" and "Kafkaresque". I have been confronted with sheer lack of professionalism, professional arrogance of the very worst kind, and outright lies. I have tried the formal complaints procedure it just does not work, you get a fair hearing, but then if no one at the organisation likes it nothing is done about it. Barnardos dithered until my time to take the matter to Judicial review had expired then told me it would not contact third parties for consent, in fact all of the parties in my adoption are either long dead or have been found by me. I am still not allowed to know many of the facts behind my own adoption and time in care. Barnardos feels that it can take child care files put them in with the adoption file and use the Adoption Regulations to deny access. I have recently received a few more of my medical records after a ten-year fight. Agencies like Barnardos and Nugent Care are told by their legal liability insurance providers not to give clients access to any information that might damaging to the organisation. It is this governs what we get to see and not care consideration. Responsibility for client access to records should be taken away from the agencies.
Far too much of my life over the past ten years has been used up in trying to unravel what happened to my family. I would guess that at least three solid years maybe more of my life has disappeared into this. If the law does not change in my favour I will have to fight a High Court battle with Barnardos, which may even cost me my home. All I need to know now is why I was taken away from the family my mother left me with, the family that considered me their son, who had two foster daughters who were also taken away from them, There was no sign of cruelty or neglect. From the records that I have seen, it seems one of Barnardos greatest worries at the time was that house where we were lodging was owned by Jews. When things like that appear in files the organisations like Barnardos start to worry about giving access to them...'
Sadly it would appear that Ms Hodge could not even bother to read what I had written and provide a relevant reply that was in context.
In reply to my specific questions about Barnardos Ms Hodge has the following to say:
"...I note that Mr Harritt is currently in dispute with Barnardo's regarding access to his adoption and care records and wishes to know when Barnardo's Counselling Services Project was last inspected by the Social Services Inspectorate. I can confirm that the last inspection of the project by the social Services Inspectorate was carried out between 30 October and 7 November 2000. Mr Harritt asks if the inspection ascertained that the project had reviewed its policies and procedures on access to adoption files. According to the inspection report, "the project had a comprehensive range of policies and procedures for staff, which were updated earlier in the year". My officials have also been in contact with Barnardo's who confirmed that they regularly review their polices and procedures in respect of access to information and will continue to do so as the law changes under the 2002 Act. Mr Harritt also asks if the inspection examined Barnardos provisions for dealing with a situation where adoption files had been lost in the public domain. I can confirm that this particular issue is not covered in the inspection report although the report does note that "case files and other adoption records were stored safely and securely, and could be readily retrieved when required". There are no further comments on this issue..."
So a policy review would have been due early 2003, obviously it is not a policy of which Barnardos are very proud they continue to keep it closely under raps.
Robin Harritt
http://harritt.net
.