They are going to vote for the party that connects their own concerns and ambitions directly to its policy and programmes.. Sir: John Major is a caring family man and it has to be assumed that his determination to introduce a radical reform of the adoption system (“Adoption law to curb political correctness”, 28 December) is not a cynical piece of electioneering but rather has its origins in a briefing by proponents of “privatised” adoption in the United States. Unfortunately the Prime Minister may be unaware of the complex and sensitive issues which need to be taken into account.
Those professionals engaged in child care, whether social workers, foster parents or lawyers, agree that all children need the security of a stable family life if they are to thrive. Everyone is horrified by the numbers of older children who live in residential homes before leaving care without that stability.The new fashionable solution is to decree that all children who are taken into care shall be adopted if they are not returned home within, say, a year or 18 months. Because fewer adoptive placements than foster placements break down, it is argued that this will provide greater security. Inefficiency by local authorities in finding adoptive homes will be overcome by the use of private agencies.This approach overlooks a number of important matters.

It is not in the interests of all children in care to be legally, and in some cases psychologically, separated from their families. Not all children come into care because they have been rescued from abusive and uncaring parents. Many have loving families who are unable to look after them because of ill health or because of the demands of siblings. They may need to live apart from them but still remain part of the family.While adoptive homes may have a lower rate of failure, it is important to compare like with like.

A toddler or young child is less likely to be disturbed than an older child, and the greater the disturbance the more pressure is placed on the new family. More substitute families are needed but private agencies may not be the solution to finding them. Local authorities have been using private agencies for two decades.This government has already given these problems detailed consideration for the last seven years. A review of adoption law was initiated in 1989, and a White Paper, “Adoption: The Future”, was published in 1993. A Bill was published at the beginning of this year which places the interests of the individual child at the centre of all decisions which have to be made.

Its measures have wide support.If the Prime Minister genuinely wishes to help children in care – and I believe he does – he should ensure that time is made available now for legislation or commit his future government to introduce the Bill in the first session after the election.JOHN MITCHELLFamily Law ChambersLondon EC4. Sir: What is truly “stomach-turning”, to use Governor Chris Patten’s phrase, is the ease with which he can use the press to pillory Peking and exonerate himself for the replacement next July of the sitting Hong Kong Legislative Council by an appointed interim chamber (“Patten lashes `sick’ plan for Hong Kong”, 21 December). The Chinese authorities’ description of their action as “necessary, reasonable and justified” is apt. It is necessary because, consequent on Mr Patten’s actions, the constituency basis on which the council was elected in 1995 did not conform with the constitution Peking, with Britain’s co-operation, had drawn up for Hong Kong when it reverts to China. China insistently warned before the Patten “reforms” were implemented that they meant the sitting council would have to be stood down at midnight on 30 June 1997 – an entirely unwelcome step imposed on Peking by Mr Patten,
It is reasonable because the government of post-transition Hong Kong will need a legislature and because instant elections would overload a new administration.