PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Historical Forced Adoption - 2 July 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

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. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

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, because 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 was never 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.”  

Mr Speaker, 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 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 they remain available across the lifetime of those affected. 

Today, the Education Secretary is writing to 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 funded intermediary services, with a particular focus on pre-1976 cases, where access to support is currently 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 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 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.

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for coming to the House to deliver the statement himself. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, we welcome what he has said and agree that whenever the state makes grave errors, it has a deep responsibility to apologise for what it did to those it has wronged.

One hundred and eighty-five thousand children grew up in Britain without their mothers because of bad decisions and fundamentally flawed beliefs that treated unmarried mothers with a shame and stigma that is mercifully alien to us today. Those decisions and beliefs left a permanent mark on each and every one of those lives: on children separated from their mothers, and on the mothers whose children were taken away. As the Prime Minister said, this is a stain on our history.

Bonds between mothers and children are the foundation of security and identity; indeed, perhaps the foundation of all we have. While I know from much experience that the act of adopting a child is among the greatest kindness one person can show another, and that many of those children will have gone on to be raised by loving families, there can be no doubt that they will also have carried a great grief across many years.

One cannot help but be moved by the powerful testimonies that some have given. I will mention just one mother’s experience: the journey back from the hospital

“was the longest I held my daughter—it was two hours—and it was like everything suddenly made sense. I just felt like this was absolutely right, and I wouldn’t let go of her…a woman appeared and said, ‘It’s time’…and she was taken from my arms and handed over. And she howled—I assume I did…and the following week they sent me back to school.”

Thousands upon thousands of such experiences happened every day in every corner of our country over many years.

Thankfully, in the years since, a huge amount has been done to ensure that such things cannot happen again in our country; change in adoption law and modern courts and legislation make a repeat of these injustices much less likely. We welcome the steps that the Prime Minister has outlined today and the fact that the Education Secretary is writing to local authorities and agencies setting the expectation that requests for records should be swiftly responded to. I am glad that that builds on the steps the previous Government tried to take to improve access to adoption records, offer post-adoption counselling and improve the complaints procedure for agencies. We hope that all these steps will make a difference to some whose experiences lie in the past, and to many in the future.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister two questions. The Education Committee called for an assessment of international redress schemes. Can the Prime Minister confirm whether the Government are considering that? I welcome his announcement of support groups for mothers and adopted adults. Who will be responsible for establishing this service and what budget will be set aside for it?

I thank the Prime Minister very much for his statement and repeat what he has said to those affected: the shame was never yours.

I thank the hon. Member for the tone of his response and for welcoming what the Government have set out today. I also thank him for the care and attention that he has shown personally to this issue and linked issues.

I genuinely believe it is so important that we speak with one voice in the House today, so that those affected know that this is an apology from all of us in equal measure and that the House is united on this issue. I thank him for speaking in that way, because the issue impacts not us in the Chamber but all those who have been affected. To know that the whole House supports the apology that has been given today, and how it has been given, is really important.

On the hon. Member’s questions, we are looking at schemes. We are being guided by those affected as to the support that they think is most important to them, and we will continue to be guided in that way. He also asked about responsibility, which will be with the Department for Education. I am happy to provide him with further information as these things develop.

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

The evidence that the Education Committee heard from mothers and adult adoptees was utterly devastating. I thank Diana Defries, Ann Lloyd Keen, Sally Ells and Debbie Iromlou for courageously reliving their trauma so that we could shine a light on the extent of the injustice they suffered and the urgent need for a meaningful response. They should not have had to work so hard for so long just to be heard and to have their experiences recognised.

I also thank the academics who gave evidence, and especially Professor Gordon Harold and Dr Michael Lambert, whose painstaking and rigorous research helped to prove what mothers and adult adoptees have long known: that the state was culpable for the wrongs they suffered by presiding over, funding and facilitating a system that dehumanised unmarried pregnant women and their babies, and inflicted horrific cruelty upon them.

I thank the Prime Minister for this apology today. It is long overdue and much needed. I thank him for the breadth of the apology and for the Government’s work with survivors to get to this point. Women whose babies were forcibly adopted and who endured cruelty and humiliation in mother and baby homes and in the NHS should know today that the shame of this period in our history rests on the Government and on the religious and community and healthcare organisations who presided over, facilitated and sustained the system; it is not, and never was, theirs to carry.

This apology is a watershed, but it must be only the beginning of putting right the disgraceful wrongs of this shameful period of our history. May I ask the Prime Minister to set out how progress on delivering the support he has announced will be monitored and how survivors will continue to be involved in it? Will he ensure that as the Government progress this work, information on how to access that support will be made widely available?

So many families have a story, and there are so many stories that are still untold with so many still feeling ashamed to speak about this period in their lives and its lifelong impact. They must no longer feel ashamed; they must feel that they can come forward and access the help and support they need.

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she has done and led through the Education Committee, and I also thank all the members of that Committee. I heard about the testimony to the Committee and how difficult and harrowing it was for all concerned. She is absolutely right to thank those who gave their testimony and those who supported its work.

My hon. Friend used the word “dehumanised”. That is the right word, although it hardly feels strong enough to me. To break the bond between a mother and a child is nothing less than dehumanising. It goes to an intense feeling that we all have as human beings. To break that bond is indescribably painful—even to describe, let alone to have gone through—so “dehumanising” is the right word.

As I heard this morning from those in the Gallery, it is about not just the initial act and all the pain and anguish, but the everyday reminders, like when people ask, “Do you have children?” What a difficult and awful question to answer over and over again, and they have all had to come to terms with how they answer that question. It is a question that we might all hear or pose on a daily or weekly basis—it is such a simple, everyday thing, but it is so painful. That really struck me this morning, and there will be thousands of things like that across all the testimonies and stories.

To my hon. Friend’s question about monitoring, that will be done by the Department for Education, and we will, of course, involve survivors as we go forward. I have no doubt that the Education Committee will want to monitor that itself and be updated on it regularly.

My hon. Friend’s point about making sure it is widely known that support is available is so important. Many thousands of people will need the support, and they must know that it is available. As I said in my statement, I am acutely conscious that there are some who to this day have still not been able to speak about this. I hope that by making it widely known that support is available, some may feel able to come forward and get the support that they need.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the Prime Minister’s apology, and we associate ourselves fully with all his remarks, including those about being united as one House in this apology.

I pay tribute to all the mothers and children who have campaigned so bravely and for so long for this apology. Speaking as a mother, I cannot begin to imagine the trauma, agony and shame that they experienced and had to live with. The testimony that they gave to the Education Committee this year is some of the most powerful and harrowing ever heard in this Parliament. The mothers who gave birth were denied pain relief as “punishment” and then given just a few hours or days with their newborn baby before they were stolen away. The children only found out years or decades later what had happened to them, discovering that they were victims of this appalling scandal. That evil has been compounded by the long wait for an apology. It should have come long before now.

It is a tragedy that Veronica Smith, whose daughter was taken from her 60 years ago and who founded the Movement for an Adoption Apology 16 years ago, sadly passed away before she could see her campaign succeed. This apology is a tribute to her and all who fought alongside her. I hope it gives them some sense of closure. I hope it helps them know that the blame does not lie with them, and never did, but with those who did this to them and those who allowed it to happen. That includes the Church of England, the Catholic Church, charities and, of course, the state.

As the Committee heard, an apology in words alone is not enough; it has to mean action to help heal the trauma that this scandal has caused. I very much welcome the steps that the Prime Minister has announced today on adoption records, trauma-informed support and the testimonials project. Will that support include a specialist mental health pathway for all those who need it? Will he commit to a continuing dialogue with the survivors on any further support or redress that they want?

Today’s apology is not the end. It must be the beginning of a better, more caring approach to these mothers and their children.

I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming this apology, and I repeat just how important it is that we are united across this House, speaking with one voice. I thank her for saying that.

The hon. Lady mentioned the long wait for an apology and for justice. It has been a double injustice. There is not just what happened, but then the fight, as is often the case, for acknowledgment of what went wrong. 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. I thank the hon. Lady for drawing attention to that.

We are looking at mental health pathways, which are vital. We are looking at how they need to be tailored, trauma-informed and developed. We will of course continue the dialogue with all those affected, and with the Education Committee and the House.

As an adopted person born in 1972, I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. I have no idea if my birth mother felt forced to have me adopted, but I do know that prior to the birth, she was in a Church of Scotland mother and baby home. My adoptive parents have since died, but I am sure that they would not have wanted to adopt any child who had been forcibly removed from their mother. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that mothers should be supported by the state to look after their children and not forced to give them up?

I thank my hon. Friend for sharing her personal experience—it is obvious how hard that is. To say out loud, in a Chamber like this, things that are intensely personal and private, full of pain and grief, is really difficult. It is hard for some of us to comprehend just how difficult that must be, so I salute her courage and resilience, and all those who have spoken out. To have to speak out about something that is so intensely difficult over and over again is incredibly, incredibly demanding, but I hope there can be comfort not only in that you have been seen and heard because of it but in the fact that others will have the courage too to speak out about what happened to them. I thank her in that regard as well. We must keep up the support and the dialogue, and we will. I thank my hon. Friend again for her remarks.

I agree with everything that the Prime Minister has said, and I join him in his apology. Of course, while historical misdeeds—and these are misdeeds—have got to be condemned, individuals have to be judged by the standards and morality of their own time, not ours. We have to bear that in mind. But I will say this: those of us who claim to be of religious persuasion should remember that our religion should be one not of judgment but of love, and that love should extend to everybody—young mothers, babies, and every frail person—from the very beginning of life to the very end.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, his welcoming of the report and his comments about love. I have to confess that I do not entirely agree with what he said about judging people by the standards of the day. I understand the point that he makes, but I think that something as visceral as this is wrong according to any standards—then and now. I am not disrespecting the point that he makes, but I just personally feel quite strongly that to dehumanise someone in this way is hard to explain—whenever it happened, whatever the standards in place. Otherwise, I agree with everything he said.

I thank the Prime Minister for his really heartfelt statement—I think everybody here could feel that. Does he agree that we must recognise that a lack of empathy and dehumanising approach was adopted in this practice? I am minded that the statement “Don’t judge someone before you walk in their shoes” should apply. Unfortunately, in some service areas, we do not apply that principle, and it is demonising and dehumanising people. We need to recognise and support our common humanity.

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for what she has done on this and on so many other issues. She is absolutely right that this cannot simply be a backward-looking exercise; we have to carry the principles that sit behind this apology into all the other instances when there is disrespect and a lack of regard for people’s dignity. If we commit to that, it will make the apology more meaningful, I am sure.

May I thank the Prime Minister for the incredibly powerful statement? I was lucky enough to bring forward legislation for victims of institutional child abuse in Northern Ireland. As part of that legislation, there was an apology. Those people, like the victims in this case, waited decades for people in important positions to properly listen to them, and I think what the Prime Minister has done today is a massive step forward. Even when the apology took place in Northern Ireland, though, the churches could not bring themselves to move away from the script provided by their lawyers, so I urge every institution that has been involved in these horrendous crimes to properly say sorry. We have heard about the processes that will follow this statement, but may I urge the Prime Minister to use the considerable power that he will have as a former Prime Minister to stay involved in this issue?

First, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will stay involved in this issue; it is a deep injustice. Secondly, I thank him for his work in Northern Ireland, because it was a really important moment. He is absolutely right about the way others address these issues—he gave the example of the churches. If you say that you see someone and you hear someone, you have to see them and you have to hear them. You cannot give an apology that is just lawyer’s script. You have to listen, you have to take it in, you have to try and understand—though you cannot completely because you have not been through what they have been through.

In that regard, I would like, if I may, to thank the Secretary of State and her team for the way that they have gone about preparing this. I know that they have tried their level best to make sure that they have reflected seeing and hearing those who have been affected. It does make a difference, because an apology can be a formal form of words or it can be something that is heartfelt and meaningful. I hope beyond hope that today is received as something heartfelt and meaningful, and I extend thanks to the team in Government who have done so much work to try to ensure that that is the way that today is received.

I must start by thanking the victims and sufferers who came to the Education Committee and shared their harrowing, first-hand lived experiences. It was extremely difficult to hear but—my gosh—it must have been unimaginable to actually live those experiences. But again and again, the victims were put through processes where they had to relive their trauma in an unacceptable struggle for the justice they deserve. I thank the Prime Minister for his unreserved, heartfelt apology, but does he agree that this must be just the beginning, with survivor-led support, specialised counselling, improved access to records and help to reunite families living with this injustice?

I thank my hon. Friend for all her work in this area and for her powerful intervention and question. She is absolutely right about not just the initial injustice, but all the hoops, burdens and barriers that were then put in place; at almost every twist and turn, of every road, fresh barriers were put in place. That is why this absolutely must be the beginning of survivor-led support, and we mark it in that way.

We heard on the Education Committee harrowing testimonies of the cruelty that unmarried mothers and their babies were subjected to. They were shamed, coerced and separated from their babies, causing lifelong trauma for them all. The Government’s apology is welcome yet long overdue, because for many survivors, official recognition of this injustice is an essential step towards healing. Ensuring that survivors obtain information about their personal histories is fundamental, so will the Prime Minister set out a timescale for the national online resource to improve access to adoption records?

I thank the hon. Member for her work on the Committee and agree with her that the apology is long overdue; it should have been given a long time ago, in my view. The point that she makes about information is important, and the online resource will be put in place as quickly as possible. It is not a small matter, because this is information that belongs to those who are affected. It is not information that is provided to them out of some service from the state; it is their information. The fact that barriers have been put in the way of those seeking their own information about their own lives and their own identity is an appalling additional injustice, of which there are very many in these cases.

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on the APPG and for her campaigning, and acknowledge what she has done. As for the number, 185,000 is a shocking figure, but I worry that it may be higher than that. I worry that there are cases that we still do not know about—those where the records are not available and where, as I say, some people feel that they still cannot talk. That rapid access to therapeutic support is hugely important and she is right to highlight it.

To all the mothers and your stolen children who have wrongly carried grief and shame for so long, you were denied the love that you deserved and tortured by a state—and the silence only revictimized you. We are sorry. It is shameful that Barnardo’s and the Salvation Army have yet to apologise and face up to the role that they played in this. My father was haunted by the way in which Barnardo’s played a role and he would tell me of his horror, which he carried for life, of seeing the laundries as he walked around the streets of Dublin.

In addition to those who were cruelly and forcibly adopted, hundreds of babies died—frankly, they were killed—as their mothers were tortured, and they were buried in unmarked graves. Will the Prime Minister, as he continues with his important work on this, put in place an effort to find those graves and to force the opening up of those records so that the mothers who were denied a lifetime of memories with their children can at least now bury them and have time at those graves with them?

I can give that undertaking, and I thank the hon. Member for raising that important aspect. With each question, with each issue, we can begin to understand the very many ways in which the injustice—across a number of different fields and a number of different strands—played its part. For those who lost their babies altogether, that work on graves and on records is really important.

I echo the Prime Minister’s powerful tribute to the women—the mothers—and the families who suffered and struggled for so long for this apology, and who suffer still the legacy of such state failure and, indeed, state cruelty. It shames us, but never them. The moral outrage targeted against unmarried mothers has largely passed, but the Prime Minister spoke about the lack of compassion that enabled the state cruelty; still today, we too often see, increasingly in bureaucratic processes, in technology and in under-resourced state capability, a lack of compassion and understanding. What can the Prime Minister say to reassure us that action can be taken to ensure humanity and compassion from the state?

I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which she draws attention to the suffering. We absolutely have to make sure that compassion is there in everything the state does. We can change rules and processes, but it is a culture; it is about recognising that human dignity matters whoever you are and wherever you are. If that was inserted into everything that the Government and the state did, what a difference it would make! Human dignity is one of the most important things to me and my politics, and that is what has been lacking here. We will do everything we can to turn that around.

I thank the Prime Minister for this long overdue apology and his statement. Nothing can undo the horrific harm and trauma that have been caused. He outlined the national online resource and national virtual peer-led support groups. Can I press him to say what steps will be taken to support those who might struggle to access digital services, and who might be digitally excluded? Will he consider setting up a national hotline, so that everyone can get justice, whether they can use technology or not?

We are setting up a national advice line. It is important that it is national, available and comes in different forms. Digital will work for most people, but not necessarily everyone. We need to make sure that everybody affected and everybody who has not come forward yet finds a way to get that support in the appropriate way. We will take those steps.

I too thank the Prime Minister for this important statement, and I pay tribute to the courage of the women who came forward, including my constituent Ann Keen. I met Ann shortly after I was elected in 2019 —we first met online—and what I sensed in Ann was someone who was not going to give up until her voice, and the voices of the many women who suffered this injustice, had been heard, and that wrong had been made right. Ann has worked tirelessly with many other campaigners. In that cross-party spirit, I pay tribute to the late Sir David Amess, who also led on this issue; he delivered a letter to the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, in May 2021. I still have a text message on my phone from Ann telling me what more I could do. I also served on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we launched our report on this subject in July 2022, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness Harman.

It is right that this apology has come, but as everyone has said, this apology is not enough. What more can be done to ensure that the voices of women are taken seriously? We had the maternity statement the other day. A running theme in all these injustices is women not being believed, women being silenced, and women being told that they are the problem. What more can we do to ensure that women’s voices are front and centre when it comes to matters concerning them?

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the anguish that the mothers must have felt, and the constant sense of shame that was inflicted, including on the adult adoptees; they described that to me this morning. The message of being unwanted is really hard. As they said to me this morning, it is not something you can just offload; it is not something that changes. Again, as we discussed this morning, even where parents and children have been reunited, that has not been easy. It is not walking off into the sunset, as we would all like to believe; it is the extremely difficult next chapter of a journey. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and for reminding us of the work of Sir David Amess on this. She is absolutely right that the voices of women have not been heard in the way that they should have been, and that this is not an isolated incident; it is a pattern of behaviour. We have to do better than this.

My own mother was pressurised into giving up a baby for adoption, and this was handled by the Church. I found out only after her death. She carried her secret to her grave. When I found out, I tried to find my sibling, but drew a blank. I had to pay privately to find him, and we have now been united. Can the Prime Minister assure those affected that the new systems and resources will be given the funding that they need to reunite families?

I thank the hon. Lady for sharing that personal story; we can see just how difficult that must have been, and she has shown huge courage in saying that in the Chamber today. The way she described her mother taking the secret to her grave is very powerful. It is an example of the way in which some people simply feel that they cannot talk about this, and did not talk about this. Those who have passed will never now be able to talk about this. She shows great courage in speaking on her mother’s behalf as well. I am glad that there has been that reuniting, but it should not be the painful journey that she has just described. We have to do better than that, and we will.

I thank the Prime Minister for his sincere and moving apology, and I stand with him on it, as I am sure everyone does, across this Chamber. There is possibly no dry eye in the Chamber. That demonstrates the effect this will have had on all of us, as a society.

The Prime Minister will know that when I was the children and families Minister, I met campaigners on this subject, and victims of the abhorrent abuse that is historical forced adoption. It feels to me, as I hope it feels to them and to everyone from across the Chamber, as though the tide is beginning to turn. I am overjoyed about this apology, but we have already heard that it has been a long time coming. That needs to be recognised. I hope that what comes out of this situation is more caring and more compassion coming through in our society. We lack those, and we will need them more and more as days go by.

The Prime Minister mentioned therapy and new support for clinicians. That therapy and support will need to be there for adoptive families, extended families and, of course, the adopted adults. Will he say more about what the new support for clinicians will be? If he cannot say that now, will he agree for written statements to be made to the House? Adopted children need specialist therapy, in particular dyadic developmental psychotherapy. I press him again to look at that.

I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for the work that she did as children and families Minister; she did a lot on this, and I pay tribute to her for it. She is right about the support that is needed, particularly specialist therapy; I am in no doubt about that. It is important that we are raising funding for the adoption and special guardianship support fund to £55 million. Across this House, we need to keep talking to those affected to make sure that we get this right.

The Prime Minister has done a good deed today, and he is deservedly getting the united response from the House that he requested. He mentioned the admirable idea of putting the documentation online; will there be a facility on the website for people to upload their own stories, if they wish to do so?

One aspect that is being somewhat skirted around is why this happened in the first place. The answer appears to be that there was too much state respect for dogmatic and fundamentalist interpretations of religious doctrine. Can we look at our society today and say that there is not still, in some parts of that society, too much religious repression of women, and too much respect for cultural sensitivities, which are preventing us from tackling that?

Yes, we can and should say that, and I thank the right hon. Member for reminding us that this is not all about the past. If we mean what we say, we have to tackle the present as well. I was struck not just by the dogmatic adherence to views at the time, but the complete lack of empathy, the complete lack of feeling. That is something else. That goes beyond dogma; that is just how human beings treat each other. I have had examples described to me of individual human beings dehumanising other individual human beings, when they did not have to. They chose to act in that way, adding even more grief and pain to what was an awful injustice in any event.

As for the uploading of stories, there will be the facility for testimonials to be there—obviously, only if people want to share them. We are looking at how that could be done.

I thank the Prime Minister wholeheartedly for this apology. Everyone present can see the pain, and the real need for this. I want to ask quite a technical point about the national online resource. Families often end up paying huge amounts of money to try to locate family members. Often, DNA is a way that people are reunited. Is that something that has been considered, in terms of the online resource, in order to help people reunite with family members in cases where records have been lost, heavily redacted or withheld?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this. We are working with all those affected, and with the families. precisely on the issue of ensuring that all the relevant information is put together. It is a difficult job, because it is held in different places in different ways. I cannot stand here and pretend that all the information is available, and that we simply have to get it in one place. It will take a lot of work to get it all there, and some of it may not be retrievable, but we will do everything we can to ensure that it is as complete as possible, as quickly as possible.

The apology today is so welcome, and my heart goes out to all those people who have campaigned and been hurt by the failings of the state. In his statement, the Prime Minister said, “These harms were compounded by the actions and failures of the state.” Just this week in this Chamber, we have heard of that happening to women—when they are pregnant, labouring, or have just had a baby and are vulnerable. The Adjournment debate on Monday night was about diethylstilbestrol—DES—and justice for women who, over the decades, were prescribed a drug long after it was known that it was harmful. Baroness Amos’s report this week says that this is not just a historical problem of misogyny in the state; today, women who are having children are ridiculed and not listened to, and are hurt as a result. I ask the Prime Minister: how can we unwind misogyny from the state?

We have to tackle misogyny in all its forms, wherever it rears its head. It is here with us today, and as she rightly says, we have even heard of it this week in the Chamber, in various debates in which issues have been raised; these issues are constantly raised. It is important that we address this by looking at it historically, up to today, and then forward, in and across the board. I thank the hon. Member for raising it.

I add my thanks to the Prime Minister for this long overdue apology from the Government for the historical forced adoptions in mother and baby homes across the country. It is something that I have campaigned for since coming to this place. For far too long, the horrific experiences of mothers and their children were ignored. Sadly, many passed away before this day finally came. I join everybody here in paying tribute to all the mothers, children and campaigners, and the relatives who have supported them along the way. They have fought tirelessly; I recognise their courage and determination. Today, we take away their shame, because it is not theirs to bear.

Many have been left scarred by the trauma that they endured—a lifetime of feeling unworthy, unloved, judged and guilty. Many babies lost their life due to poor maternity care, and the locations of their burials are not known. Could the Prime Minister consider a way to memorialise the lives lost and give back some dignity? Does he also recognise that even modern adoption practices are inadequate, leaving adoptees and their families ill-equipped to deal with trauma, attachment issues and identity struggles, and that we must learn lessons from all these historical events?

I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. In both respects, we have to find a way of providing memory to those who lost their lives. To those mothers who passed away before today, this took too long. As a result of that, they are not hearing this apology. We need to be clear: that is an additional injustice.

This is long overdue, and so I congratulate the Prime Minister on bringing this forward and for the tone in which he has delivered it.

I would like to raise the case of Jenny and Scott, two constituents who I have been supporting in recent months. They have been fostering a child called Alfie for six years. They have provided a loving and nurturing home to Alfie, but have persistently come up against blocks from the state as they seek to adopt him. With Walsall council in particular, they found it very difficult to gain support so that they could make progress on adopting Alfie and, regretfully, they have now had to instruct the local authority to look at a new fostering placement for him. Does the Prime Minister agree that while a pragmatic balance has to be struck between safeguarding and enabling a loving home to be found, the state must remove any bureaucratic obstructions along the way? Will the Prime Minister support me in trying to secure a meeting with the relevant Minister, so that Jenny and Scott can elaborate on this more comprehensively?

I thank the hon. Member for raising the case of Jenny, Scott and Alfie. I assure him that if he provides the full details, I will ensure not only that the relevant meeting takes place, but that we look at the details of that particular case.

I thank the Prime Minister for his moving statement and the formal apology today. We have heard the heartfelt personal experiences of Members across the House and the experiences of their constituents, and it has been deeply moving. I know that all our thoughts are with the mothers, babies and families separated and with everyone in England who has lived with this trauma. The shame was never theirs, and this apology recognises that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) promoted a Bill, Philomena’s law, that I was honoured to co-sponsor. It would ensure that victims of mother and baby homes in Ireland would not lose care support for accepting compensation that they are rightly owed. In the spirit of the statement today, will the Prime Minister reiterate this Government’s commitment that the social care entitlements of survivors of Ireland’s mother and baby homes will be protected? Will he ensure that we continue to work closely with the Government of Ireland to ensure that British survivors abroad are also supported?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that really important issue. I am aware of the issues, and I will remake that commitment.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today and for the apology on behalf of the state. I acknowledge the visitors we have in the Gallery today and the extraordinary testimonies of Members across this House. So often this Chamber is divided along the lines of party politics, but on days like this, we are united as living, breathing and feeling human beings, and I think the Chamber is at its best in those moments.

My constituent Lynne was forcibly adopted shortly after the second world war. To understand her health concerns, she was eager to learn something of her family’s medical past. She was denied access to medical records for many decades. In fact, it was only a very helpful social worker who sought to try to reconstruct her family’s medical past for her and with her. Could the Prime Minister say more about whether the new national online resource will include details such as family medical history, so that constituents like Lynne might better understand their own health concerns? Bearing in mind the highly time-sensitive nature, given that often the children were born in the late 1940s and 1950s, can he say more about the timescales he expects to deliver this new resource?

The unity across the House and the courage of a number of Members in speaking out has been incredibly powerful. I think this aspect of how this House works is not well known enough, and we all have a duty to show this House when it is behaving well, not just when it is behaving not so well.

The business of being denied access to records goes really deep. Individuals are trying to access records about their lives and their identities, and yet barriers have been put in the way of them accessing their own material. That has to stop. We need to do everything we can to make sure that those medical histories are available, and the hon. Member is absolutely right: we need to move at speed, because we are talking about events, in some cases, of many years ago. We need to move at speed, and we need to remove the barriers. This is personal information—private information—about people and their background and their identity; they are entitled to it. Nobody should be putting barriers in the way of that, but I know that has been done.

I am really grateful to the Prime Minister for his heartfelt statement and apology. As a man of faith, I struggle to see what possible religious justification there could have been to take babies away from young mothers just because they were not married, and I have to feel a sense of shame that religion could be used in such a way. I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to all the mothers, campaigners and members of trade unions, including members of my own trade union, the GMB, for their decades of campaigning to achieve this apology. One would have hoped that the apology could have come sooner, but does the Prime Minister agree that it is never too late to issue an apology for wrongdoing?

It is never too late to issue an apology for wrongdoing—I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned, including the GMB and other trade unions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about what went wrong. The question that should have been asked was, “What support can we give you to be able to bring up your baby?” not the questions that were asked. If that question had been asked, we would not be standing here today in the way that we are.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament when it issued its own apology, and I know how important that was to those families. How will the Government work with devolved Governments to provide ongoing support, access to records and potential redress schemes to those affected?

I thank the hon. Member for reminding us how important it was in Scotland as well. We have to work with the devolved nations on this. It is important that we do so constructively, positively and at speed, because everybody affected needs to know that we are all pulling together and that, where information and support is needed, it will be provided as quickly as possible.

I welcome today’s heartfelt and important apology. The Prime Minister may recall that 16 years ago, Gordon Brown publicly apologised to Britain’s child migrants—130,000 young children who were sent overseas, often without their parents’ consent, to Commonwealth countries around the world. Margaret Humphreys and the Child Migrants Trust, which is based in my constituency, continue to support survivors and campaign for recognition and redress. Following today’s apology, alongside the very important commitments that the Prime Minister has made, will he also consider what more can be done to support the child migrants and to honour the national apology that was made back in 2010?

The 2010 apology was a solemn moment, and work continues to honour the legacy of that apology, just as work will continue to honour and follow through on the apology that has been issued today.

It is barbaric that 185,000 babies were taken from young mothers across a quarter of a century until just 50 years ago, and the Prime Minister is right to say how wrong that was. In apologising on behalf of the state, he acknowledged that, of the children who were taken, some were raised in loving homes by adoptive families. Does he accept that it is possible to say sorry to birth parents and their children while simultaneously being grateful to parents who did their very best to adopt children over that period, many of whom did not know about the circumstances in which those babies were removed from their birth parents?

I do not want to go against the spirit of the hon. Member’s question, but I do have to say this. Too many of those who were adopted were told that they should be grateful for what happened to them, and too many of the mothers were told that they should be grateful that their children would get care they could not provide. That, in itself, was deeply hurtful—deeply, deeply hurtful. I am not suggesting that others did not try to do their level best, but this was not a situation in which anybody affected should feel or be told that they should be grateful for what happened. I am not disrespecting the hon. Member’s question; it is just that, having had the discussions I had this morning, I know that this is felt very, very deeply, so I must therefore say that from this Dispatch Box. Otherwise, I thank him for his question.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and join him wholeheartedly in standing with the victims—those here and those who are not with us. As he said, it is another example of the perpetuation of abuse, because there was not just the initial abuse but the cover-up, the secondary abuse that followed, and the denial and the frustration for victims, their families and friends to get the truth. What more can he say about that and the culture change that can be embedded not just across the state but in every applicable institution, so that not only this stops happening but there is accountability where it does once again happen?

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) said about the Child Migrants Trust, which I worked with before coming to this place. I urge the Education Secretary to look at the work it has done on testimonials, because some of the experience there will be invaluable for victims if they want their stories to be told and recorded.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I think it is really important that we learn those lessons and draw where we can on the examples of other apologies and the legacy. He is absolutely right to highlight the fact that there is not just the initial injustice; there are all the further injustices at almost every twist and turn—those who were adopted being told when they try to find their parents, “It wouldn’t be good for your mother if you tried to find her,” or that they cannot have access to their own records, which would have helped with their identity and sense of worth. All of these injustices build on the initial injustice, and they are not all so historical, either; some of them are much more contemporary. If we are really going to deal with this, we have to recognise that with our eyes wide open.

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, for his very careful and softly spoken words and for the apology. An apology, while vital for healing, is only a first step; it must be followed by tangible, compassionate action. We owe the survivors nothing less than the total truth and structural redress, as well as our compassion for a lifetime of sometimes feeling unloved and unwanted, when that could not be further from the truth. We cannot give their years or their relationships back, but we can be honest and step up. What concrete steps are being taken to guarantee streamlined, free access to original birth records? What co-operation is there with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the other devolved Administrations to ensure that survivors across the entirety of the United Kingdom can and will receive the same standard of tracing services and therapeutic support?

The hon. Member is absolutely right: there has to be tangible action, and it has to be streamlined, as he described. We need to work with the devolved Administrations. What we cannot do now is add a further injustice to all the injustices we have been describing, by doing anything that makes it harder from hereon in for people to get the support and information they need. We need to action what we are saying today, and we will do so.

Rosemundy mother and baby home, a Church of England-affiliated institution in St Agnes in my Camborne, Redruth and Hayle constituency, was a key institution in this scandal. The shame and pain has lived with these families for decades, and many have since taken this pain to their graves. As the Member of Parliament for St Agnes, I warmly welcome and echo the Prime Minister’s national apology and what he said about lessons being learned, so that we can at least try to relieve a tiny fraction of that pain. Does he agree that we simply would not be here today without the tireless and extraordinary efforts of the campaigners?

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and thank him for highlighting the example in his constituency. I suspect there are other examples in all constituencies. We would not be here today without the hard work of the campaigners. Let us be blunt and honest about that. Their work was not heeded quickly enough, in my view. I am glad that we have got to this day; it is an important day for them, but it is also an important day for us, because we need to recognise that this is about the state—how the state responds and how the state acts. It is important for all of us.

I thank the Prime Minister for coming here with this heartfelt apology. I also thank all the campaigners for being here today and for the evidence they gave to the Education Committee. I was proud to be on the Committee when we reopened this inquiry. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Select Committee, to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for her work, and to the Ministers. We heard compelling evidence from mothers whose babies were so cruelly ripped away from them, as many have described, and from those who were adopted—I see Sally in the Gallery; she spoke about a feeling of not belonging. Does the Prime Minister agree that supporting the victims of this terrible injustice is about supporting not just the mothers, but the babies, now adults, who were adopted?

I know the testimony was really powerful, and I thank the Select Committee again for its work. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to see and hear everyone who was affected—the mothers, the now adults who were adopted, but beyond that the extended families and siblings, and those who, sadly, passed before we reached today. If we are going to hear, if we are going to see, we have to hear and see everyone who has been affected by this, not just some of them.

I thank the Prime Minister for this long awaited and long overdue heartfelt apology on behalf of the state. As the mother of an 18-year-old daughter, as each day takes me further from the day I gave birth to her, I hold on more fiercely to the precious memory of her entering this world. I cannot begin to imagine the pain inflicted on the mothers whose babies were ripped away from them. I imagine that they, too, have clear memories that never fade, but instead become even sharper as time goes by. I am in awe of their strength. I am so sorry that they experienced such pain. I thank the Prime Minister for making it clear that the shame sits with the Churches and charities, the healthcare system and the state, not with the survivors. I hope that today goes some way to help families that were torn apart to heal as best they can.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the pain is felt every single day and carried by those affected, and we recognise that. I recognise also that today does not change that. Let us not pretend that all the pain is taken away by this apology; it is not. It provides a degree of justice and acknowledgment by the state, but I am in no doubt that those affected will, unfortunately, have to continue to carry that pain. We will simply do all we can to support them throughout, but nothing can ever lift the pain. We will do all we can to build on the apology given today.

I thank the Prime Minister for his sincere apology to those who experienced this historical forced adoption scandal, and I pay tribute to those in the Gallery today and those who cannot be here. He has talked a lot about those who need to be heard but who may not have been heard, so my question is about constituents of mine, and of other hon. Members, who may not have had the courage to come forward or who are not sure whether they were adopted or were otherwise affected. How can we give them the courage to come forward and know that they will be listened to and heard, and that they will be able to access some of the support services that the Prime Minister has announced?

I hope the apology helps those who have not felt able to talk about this to come forward. On one level, it is a matter of courage, but it is probably more than that. I was struck this morning by the example given to me of trying to read a story in a newspaper about these issues and covering it up, not wanting to be seen in public reading the story, out of a deep sense of shame. I have no doubt that some who have not spoken out feel that they cannot do so, because they cannot break out of that. I hope that today helps them and that making it clear that the shame is ours, and hearing of the courage of those in the Gallery and other campaigners, gives them the ability to come forward. That is important, because if they do, they will find support, and that talking to others who have been affected in the same way will give them a degree of comfort they probably do not have at the moment. It is very difficult for people who have shut these things away to come forward. It will take time, but I hope we have taken one step closer today.

In moments like this, I feel the privilege of serving on both the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Education Committee. The Prime Minister is right to say that it should not have taken two Select Committee reports to get us here today. More important, it should not have taken the victim survivors of this terrible scandal having to retell their stories, retraumatising themselves again and again, to get here. As the JCHR report makes clear, there are some things only a Government can do; for that reason, I thank the Prime Minister from the bottom of my heart for his apology on behalf of the state today, and ask him to set out in a little more detail how he and the Department for Education have worked with survivors to get to the full apology he has given today.

I thank my hon. Friend for his work on both Committees. The work to get us here today has been done in conjunction with all those affected, and we will continue to work in that way. That is the right way—the only way—to proceed, and will continue in that vein. There are many challenges still ahead, but if we approach them by hearing and seeing and working with those affected, we have a better chance of meeting those challenges.

I think the Prime Minister for what he said today and the way he said it. I pay tribute to the bravery of all the people who have been involved in getting us here. A constituent who is an adult adoptee came to see me recently; she was born in 1969, so she is three years older than me. She told me that adoptees are four times more likely to try to commit suicide than non-adoptees, so I really welcome the support for adult adoptees and others in the form of a health pathway for those affected by forced adoption, including the counselling they will need for post-traumatic stress disorder. My constituent also asked me to raise the possibility of marking medical records of adult adoptees, so that those who do not have a family medical history to fall back on can get the screening and support they need.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising those really important questions. We will work with her and others to make improvements and put the appropriate support, screening and information in place.