The Queen's Speech is tomorrow set to include plans to resurrect the new adoption act but contrary to various media reports, is unlikely to include new laws to prevent a rerun of the internet twins adoption saga.

Newspaper reports yesterday suggested that the Bill would include legislation to close remaining loopholes in inter-country adoption law by making it impossible for people to adopt from abroad before being approved by social workers in the UK.

But Adoption-net has learned that it is unlikely to include anything to prevent people such as Alan and Judith Kilshaw from adopting another baby from the US.

The couple, from Buckley in north Wales, caused a storm earlier this year when they adopted twin girls via an American adoption broker they found through the Web.

The baby girls were taken into emergency foster care in front of the world's press after Flintshire social services became concerned about the children's welfare.

Mr and Mrs Kilshaw had not been approved adopt children by adoption authorities in this country but were still able to go to the US and adopt a child because the USA has "designated country" status.

This meant that had Mr and Mrs Kilshaw's adoption of the twins been legal, there would have been little to stop them bringing the children back to the UK.

As it turned out, however, their adoption was ruled void by a court in Arkansas after it was discovered that the babies' birth birth mother Tranda Wecker, of St Louis, Missouri, had lied about her being a resident of the state.

The babies were returned to the US and are now awaiting a ruling by the courts in Missouri as to their long-term future.

The designated country system was introduced as way of facilitating international adoption from countries that were deemed to have adoption procedures and practice of an acceptable standard.

However adoption practice in the US varies widely from state to state and private adoptions are legal whereas in the UK, they are illegal.

So how did the US managed to get itself added to the "designated country" list?

"That's a very good question," said the head of development at the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering John Simmonds.

In the face of public opinion following the Kilshaw case, the Government tried to appear as though it was acting to prevent such situations happening again.

Stories in the media abounded about plans for 'new' laws that would see parents prosecuted, sent to prison and fined if they brought adopted children into this country without first being approved by British social workers.

These stories did the rounds again yesterday. In in actual fact these laws are already on the statute books having been passed as part of the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill earlier this year and do not apply to countries with designated country status.

What are you views on this? Contact us and let us know.

In March the biggest overhaul of adoption law in this country for 25 years was introduced in the House of Commons but it contained nothing that would prevent a repeat of the internet twins saga.

A report in the Western Mail yesterday suggested that the new legislation could thwart the Kilshaws' attempts to adopt another child from America. The couple were reported to have been offered another baby a few weeks ago.

What the new Bill did contain was a clause that would make Internet Service Providers liable to prosecution if they hosted websites illegally carring information advertising British children for adoption.

But this clause in effect makes no change to existing laws which already ban any medium - including websites - from carrying advertisments for children needing adoption unless the information comes from registered adoption agencies.

As John Simmonds said: "There is no evidence that this is happening over here. It's a sop to public opinion in my view."

There are also practical difficulties in enforcing such a law since it would only apply to British ISPs. An ISP based off-shore could carry illegal information about a British child and there would be very little the UK legal system could about it, he said.

Other elements of the Bill include the setting up of a national adoption register, improved support for adoptive families to encourage more to come forward, and an appeals system for couples rejected by adoption agencies.

The Adoption and Children Act was shelved halfway through its passage through Parliament when a General Election was called.

Tomorrow its journey to the statute books is expected to be resurrected when it is included in the Queen's speech.

Media reports appear to be claiming that when it comes back to Parliament, it will close loopholes. But BAAF knows of no additions to this effect and the Department of Health said it could not comment on the content of the proposed legislation prior to the Queen's Speech.

One simple way to close the Kilshaw loophole would be to take the US off the list of designated countries but Mr Simmonds knows of no plans for this possibly for "diplomatic" reasons.

Instead BAAF is pinning its hopes on the US ratifying the Hague Convention which aims to raise the standards of inter-country adoptions across the world by making them more child focused.

However Mr Simmonds admitted the US had so far set no firm date for ratifying the Convention.

With such a wide variation in adoption practice in the US, federal government intervention on this issue is likely to be a tad tricky.

And now that George W. Bush and the Republicans are in charge of the White House, difficult social policies such as this may well have a much lower priority which could mean the status quo remaining for some time to come.

The Kilshaws could yet have their dreams of adopting a daughter from the US fulfilled - internet or no internet.