News

I've never understood why many people are happy to eat cows, pigs, sheep and certain birds, but then throw their arms up in disgust at the thought of Koreans eating dogs or the French eating horses. I'm not sure I would eat dog, but I don't object if some people or cultures choose to.

As for sexuality, why a couple would want to whip each other within an inch of their lives is simply beyond explanation. But, if that's your bag, then good luck.

In short, like most people, I am a mixture of personal prejudices, likes and dislikes, and occasional irrational impulses. I'm happy to be so, and it doesn't much bother me that other people are like that too - provided that somewhere there's a bedrock of tolerance, understanding and respect.

But what seems wrong to me is where personal prejudice fuels discrimination. Should we allow people to discriminate on the basis of personal prejudices which are rooted in religious, or cultural, beliefs? This is the issue at the heart of the situation at Sefton Council.

Should there be a conscience clause? My answer is "no". Discrimination is discrimination in whatever form it takes. There are situations and places where discrimination can be justified (for instance, religious adoption agencies only placing children with married couples), but the adoption team of a public agency, such as a local authority, should not be one of them.

As accountable public bodies, councils should uphold the laws, rules and principles which society, through parliament, government and the courts, has decided to abide by. These include the concepts of fairness, equality of opportunity and freedom from harassment or discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, disability, religion, age and sexuality.

As professionals working for public bodies, social workers should uphold and promote such concepts and policies. The option of a "conscience clause" shouldn't even be on the agenda.

According to reports, the workers believe same-sex couples can not provide the right environment for bringing up children. Norah Ellis is quoted by the Daily Telegraph as saying: "Adoption is about helping children in care... not about issues of the homosexual lifestyle."

It is true that adoption is about helping children in care - about finding homes for children who have been damaged in some way, either through abuse or neglect, or who have special needs. Many of these children have suffered trauma and have attachment, development and behavioural disorders. Because of this, it is essential to find adoptive parents capable of taking on the unique parenting challenges that such children represent. Adopters and long-term foster carers are a special group of people who are able to provide secure, stable, loving and supportive homes and families to children from care.

However, the idea that good parenting is the preserve of heterosexuals is plainly fanciful. A parent's sexuality is irrelevant to what they mean as a parent to the child. If we look around us, we see more and more lesbians and gay men becoming parents and caring for children. We don't try to stop them raising families. Heterosexuals don't have a monopoly on families.

What is more important to children's positive psychological adjustment are strong and supportive relationships with parents and caring, positive family environments, not their parents' sexuality or sexual orientation. Given the experience many looked-after children have had of heterosexual families, a gay family might be a real bonus.

What is behind the desire to invoke a "conscience clause" to ban same-sex couples from applying to adopt is fear, based on the stereotype of the "homosexual lifestyle". Stereotypes contain some truth, but are by no means representative. A full assessment of a potential adopter will reveal whether or not their lifestyle is appropriate for them to adopt, not some pre-conceived, nonsensical notion of what it is to be gay.

Jonathan Pearce is director of Adoption UK, a charity which supports adoptive parents

Can Sefton Council's handling of this case really be said to be in the interests of vulnerable children? Can anyone be so intolerant as to oppose the introduction of a "conscience clause" to give social workers the freedom to act in accordance with their best judgement?

Care, as a charity which cares for the interests of the most vulnerable in society, enthusiastically supports most of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 as it contains important provisions to improve the adoption process for the 60,000 children in council care. Our concern always has been that the interests of vulnerable children should be paramount in adoption.

In the light of this, Care opposed the amendment to extend joint adoption rights to cohabitees. Our view, based on practical experience of working with damaged children, was that this change in the law was unnecessary. Single people (including cohabitees) could already adopt as individuals. It is not in the best interests of children to be adopted - a permanent contract - by couples who are not legally committed to each other - an impermanent arrangement. Children need stability and all the research strongly indicates that cohabitation is much less stable than marriage. Our view was that couples wanting to adopt a child should be committed to each other through marriage for the sake of the child.

In addition, Care does not believe it was in the best interests of vulnerable children to be denied, in law, even the possibility of having either a father or mother figure. Consequently, Care argued against joint adoption by same sex couples.

Regardless of the personal view individual social workers hold about same-sex adoption, it is clear that there are caring and professional social workers who, from the best of motives, do not think it is in the best interests of children. Although the actions of Sefton Council again raise issues concerning joint same-sex adoption, parliament has already decided that this is allowed. The question is the extent to which individuals should be allowed, as a matter of conscience, not to use the new freedom the law gives.

In placing children for adoption, social workers are required to exercise discrimination and good judgement to ensure that the child and prospective parents represent the best match. The only question is whether or not the discrimination exercised is reasonable. If social workers genuinely think that a joint adoption by a gay couple is not in the best interest of a child, either in single cases or in general, they should not be forced to act against their judgement. To deny this discretion is to pre-judge their professionalism.

It is time to put aside our prejudices and intolerance. Even if the views of the Sefton social workers represent those of a minority, the law does accommodate such views. Their only concern is for the well-being of children. We should trust their integrity and that of others like them.

Roger Smith is head of public policy for Care, a mainstream Christian charity that undertakes several social caring and educational programmes in the UK as well as research and lobbying onassociated issues.