Historical Forced Adoption

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: ‘You will remember the pain … you’ve been a bad girl’. Many of those harmed in this way feel a gut-wrenching sense of shame. Ann and others have said that that has stayed with them. She says that she still feels it today. I know that this apology will not be able to lift it completely—it will help a little, I hope, but it will not lift it completely. I say this to Ann, to everyone with us in the Gallery, and to all those impacted and affected, wherever they are in the country—there are many thousands of them, including some who still, to this day, have not been able to speak about what happened to them. I hope this Statement and apology perhaps gives some of them the confidence to speak about what happened to them, because it will help in a small way. The shame is not yours. The shame is ours. I say that on behalf of the whole country and I say it to every single person impacted. We are deeply and profoundly sorry. To the mothers who were told they were unfit, who were prevented from caring for the children they desperately wanted to help and to keep and who have carried this loss for decades. To those who were not given the information they needed to provide informed consent, who faced pressure or coercion and who experienced practices that were unethical. To the sons and daughters, the children who are now adults, who through pressure and coercion within these systems were taken from their families and denied their identity, their history and sometimes their safety. To those who grew up believing they were unwanted, some of whom were even told directly that they were second-class. To those who have carried a burden of loss, confusion and stigma, or who experienced neglect and abuse without the protection or oversight that should have been their right. To those who have experienced lifelong uncertainty, loss or questions about identity and belonging, or whose mental and physical health, relationships and sense of self across their lives has been affected. To the fathers who were denied a voice, excluded from decisions, or separated from their children. To the siblings, grandparents, partners, extended families and future generations who have lived with the consequences of these practices. To those who experienced harm from these practices, even while being brought up in loving homes, by their adoptive parents. To those who were adopted across borders or cultures, who lost connections to their heritage, and racial and personal identity. And to those from ethnic minority backgrounds who experienced racism or were treated differently within those systems, and who as a group were less likely to be adopted or to grow up in stable family homes. I am struck by the words of Debbie Iromlou, who I met this morning. She says she was ‘raised with racist views towards her own biological family’. How do you even begin to comprehend that? To each and every one of those affected, we say a deep and heartfelt sorry. Let me be clear and unequivocal: those harms were compounded by the actions and failures of the state. Governments funded, enabled and relied on systems that were not consistently or effectively overseen. The state did not prevent harm from continuing. The state bears responsibility for the systems it funded and legitimised, which enabled those practices to occur. The state did not do enough to protect mothers, children and families from harm. And for that systemic failing, I am truly sorry. Many of those affected have suffered a further injustice. They have had to fight for the basic human right to know their own story. As Sally Ells puts it: ‘We are treated as if the information about our own lives, does not belong to us’. Debbie Iromlou was told her birth mother’s life would be in danger if she tried to search for her. Barriers were put in place at every twist and turn. Records have in some cases been lost, altered or not made fully accessible to those seeking answers, and the whole process is painfully slow—traumatic and dehumanising all over again. We say we are sorry and we mean it, but sorry is not enough. This must also be the start of real change: working with those affected and their families to improve access to records, and to provide the care and support that people need. So today I can tell the House that we will fund the development of a national online resource, creating a single access point to locate records wherever they might be held across the country. We will consult on requiring existing records to be retained for 100 years, so that they remain available across the lifetime of those affected. Today, the Education Secretary is writing to all local authorities, regional adoption agencies and voluntary adoption agencies, setting out the expectation that requests for records should be responded to swiftly and with compassion and consistency. We will expand access to fully funded intermediary services, with a particular focus on pre-1976 cases, where access to support is currently the most limited. We will establish national virtual peer-led support groups for mothers and adopted adults, to improve access to ongoing, trauma-informed support across the country. We will work with NHS England to ensure that those affected are taken seriously when they seek help. That includes new support for clinicians to better understand the impact of forced adoption and respond appropriately in their care. NHS England will also explore how those who wish to do so can have their experience of forced adoption appropriately recorded in their health record. Finally, to further recognise those affected and ensure that we learn the lessons of the past, we will commission a testimonials project to capture the stories of those with experience of historical forced adoption practices. Through all of this and more, we will continue to meet regularly with those with lived experience. We will be guided by them to get this support right and learn from our past to ensure that nothing like this can ever happen again in this country. Finally, this national apology reflects and builds on the approaches taken by Scotland and Wales, whose devolved Governments have also issued apologies for these practices, which we fully endorse. I welcome the process under way in Northern Ireland to establish a statutory public inquiry into mother and baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. I also thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee for all they have done to shine a light on this injustice. Most of all, I want to thank those who have campaigned for so long to have the truth recognised, including those who are no longer with us to hear the apology they fought for. It should never have happened, and they should not have had to fight so hard for this day to come. Today, finally, I say on behalf of the state and the nation as a whole: we see you, we hear you, and we are truly sorry. I commend this Statement to the House”. My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

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. The Lord Privy Seal will understand that I have some questions about these matters. On the records platform, the Prime Minister said in answer to questions that it would happen as quickly as possible. Can the Lord Privy Seal give the House a meaningful timeline? Data helps nobody who does not know that it exists. Some of those affected have never yet spoken, from shame, about what happened to them. Can the Lord Privy Seal help the House with how the Government will communicate that this information may be available to them? Many babies were sent to homes across our internal borders between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. How will information be tracked between the devolved nations and where many records sit at the moment—and how will they be communicated? On support for victims, there is to be funding of £4 million over three years, which we welcome. But the need will be lifelong. The Education Committee recommended a dedicated mental health support pathway, while the package offers guidance for clinicians instead. Why was that recommendation adopted instead of the mental health support pathway? What will survivors be offered in its place? On redress, the Prime Minister told the other place that the Government are looking at redress schemes. These too we would welcome. Can the Lord Privy Seal expand on what is meant by that, what is being considered and when any appraisal will be published? We are, yet again, shamed as a nation. Giving evidence to the Education Committee in March, Ann Lloyd Keen, already quoted by the Prime Minister, asked a question of her own: “Do you know why we have to keep repeating our evidence?” The Prime Minister, when answering questions on his Statement, identified the reason. He said: “We got this wrong as a state. So often we circle the wagons and protect the decision makers and wrongdoers instead of asking ourselves the question, ‘Where is the injustice here, and how do we put it right?’ That has to change, because it has happened in this case and others ”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/7/26; col. 1052.] All those words are the Prime Minister’s, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. The Prime Minister is right. This House knows only too well the scandals: infected blood, where the risks were known from the 1940s; the Post Office, which prosecuted 1,000 innocent people; the grooming gangs, where 16 years of recommendations were unactioned; and Nottingham, where a statutory duty of candour has bound every NHS trust since 2014, yet here we are again with the Ockenden review finding 10 days ago that 520 mothers and babies suffered potentially avoidable harm, 162 died and nearly half the trust’s senior directors simply refused to engage. It seems, as with this terrible scandal, that codes, duties and even laws are not enough to stop this institutional rot. Even with the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, I fear that deeper cultural change is needed. I ask the Lord Privy Seal, in a collaborative and supportive spirit: what are the Government going to do to change the culture, attitudes and behaviours of our public sector employees so that they start by asking the Prime Minister’s question, “How do we put this right?”, instead of, “How do we protect the decision-makers or the wrongdoers?” Nothing that the state does now can ever right the profound wrongs done to these mothers, their children and their families. But we can and we must deliver the support that they still need. I look forward to Lord Privy Seal’s response.

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. It must be followed by practical actions that help those still living with the consequences of those historical wrongs. We welcome the measures announced, including improvements to access to adoption records and better support from the NHS. Those are positive steps, and we hope they will make a real difference to people who have spent decades searching for answers and trying to reconnect with their families. I have some questions for the Lord Privy Seal. First, on mental health support, many of the people affected have lived with the trauma for more than 50 years. Some have struggled with anxiety, depression and unresolved grief throughout their adult life. Others may now feel able to come forward only because the Government have finally acknowledged what happened to them. Can the Lord Privy Seal tell the House what dedicated funding will be available for specialist trauma-informed mental health support? Just as importantly, how will the Government ensure that survivors can access that support wherever they live, rather than being left to rely upon overstretched local health services? Secondly, on the adoption records, we know that many mothers and adoptees still face long delays and unnecessary barriers when trying to find information about their families. Records remain scattered across local authorities, charities and voluntary organisations, many of which are already under significant pressure. Can the Lord Privy Seal say a bit more about the Government’s ambitions for a properly funded, centralised digital system that will bring records together, making it easier and more consistent for families to access information and where possible reconnect? Finally, the Joint Committee on Human Rights encouraged the Government to consider the approach taken by other countries, including Ireland and Australia, where financial redress has been introduced. We recognise that decisions on compensation are ultimately for the Government. However, can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that Ministers will continue to examine the experiences of those countries carefully and keep the question of financial redress under active consideration? This was a deeply shameful chapter in our history. It affected not only mothers but children, fathers, grandfathers and whole families whose lives have changed for ever. Although we cannot undo the suffering that was caused, we can ensure that those affected are treated with the dignity, compassion and respect they should always have received. The Government’s apology is an important milestone; this should also be the beginning of a wider commitment to justice. Survivors deserve support, straightforward access to the truth about their own lives and confidence that the Government will continue to work with them in the years ahead. This is how we can begin to rebuild trust and ensure that this painful chapter is never forgotten and never repeated.

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. The noble Baroness asked what the support is. Some of it is in place already. FamilyConnect is already expanding the use of the national advice line, because there is no point having information available if it is not easy to access. We are funding intermediary services—in effect, we are funding family-finding services for historical adoption cases, because people need support and help to navigate their way around the information. The more we can get it into one place, the easier it will be to access. Also, through FamilyConnect, we will have a national peer and support group offer, for the support to be there. On trauma services in the NHS, the noble Lord references a specific kind of trauma. We will get this through guidance in the NHS and specific tools to recognise the experience of those affected by historical forced adoptions, so that clinicians can better understand the impact, because it impacts different people in different ways. We need to give clinicians that information and set up a range of support that may be relevant. There needs to be consistency of care through GP services. Something that has always been a problem for those who are forced adoptees is knowing the family medical history, because that will be so important. They may have a medical condition later in life, and knowing their family’s medical history beforehand is crucial. We are going to give the option of a marker and of putting that marker, as the person wishes, on their NHS record so that clinicians can take it into account. All this has to be led by and have strong input from those who are directly affected. We can all stand here and say what we think is appropriate but, if you are part of the cohort, whether you are a mother or an adoptee, you will know how you have been affected and you need to lead on what is needed. Another important part is testimonials, so that people who want to tell their story, either to be acknowledged personally or to do so privately, can be recorded. Look at the mood in this House: when I read out the Statement, we felt the temperature lower. Anyone who heard it in the House of Commons last week will have seen an unusual degree of support across the House, particularly when women gave their personal stories. To be able to do that and bring people together is important. The testimonials are an important way forward. This is the start of a process to recognise the hurt, apologise for the state’s role in it and do whatever we can to try to bring all the measures I have spoken about into being as quickly as possible. There will be absolutely no delay. I do not think that was what the noble Baroness was hinting at. She will know from the tone of the Statement and the work that went on before it was brought forward that there is a determination across government to ensure that we do what we can now to address this and try to give some redress for the problems and wrongs of the past.

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?

First, I am sure the noble Baroness just misspoke: the NHS was 78 on Sunday, not 68. She references the parents who adopted children. I have to say that the focus today has to be on the adoptees and the mothers. It is not that some adoptive parents did not provide a loving home but that there was an idea that the mother could not be the best person. Judgments were made. I know that in my own family, going back a generation or so, there were cousins who were really uncles but they were brought up by the grandmother rather than the mother. That happened quite frequently and was not unusual. Many of us looking back at our family trees and trying to work out dates of birth find that they do not quite work out. It is a bit early to say who should deliver particular services. That is where the clinicians come in, working with the NHS. I am not saying that everything has to be delivered through the NHS, because there may be other ways of doing so. What is important is that it is referenced on a patient’s record, because that is how a clinician will know how to find the best way to support the person affected.

My Lords, I declare a painful personal interest. My mother was working as a volunteer for the Church of England Moral Welfare in the 1950s and I did not fully understand what it was about. I now look back at that inhibited and illiberal period in our society, and this is part of what was so inhibited. The Church of England in those days preached that sex was sinful, and there was a whole range of other issues. Since then, we have become a far more liberal society, and the position of women in our society in particular has changed radically. I look at my daughter’s opportunities compared with those of my sisters and I am delighted. Does the Minister think that we now need to think about the broader social context of the sort of society we live in, now that our liberal society is under attack from misogynistic movements both in the United States and in Europe, certainly very strongly on social media, and that we all in different parties need to defend the principles of private life, toleration and the rights of women as well as of men from the attacks that are coming from reactionary forces on both sides of the Atlantic?

I thank the noble Lord, but I must correct him: I do not think the Church ever preached that sex was sinful. It was only sinful if you did not have a wedding ring; I think it was quite happy about it once the wedding ceremony had taken place. However, the noble Lord is right that this was a societal and cultural issue. As I said, I think parents colluded in that because of the shame it brought on the family, and it is a shocking thing to say that that might have happened in your own family.