Plenary, 24 Oct 2001

Meeting date: Wednesday, October 24, 2001

Official Report 359KB pdf

---

Adoption and Children Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2342, in the name of Jack McConnell, on the Adoption and Children Bill—UK legislation.

We have had a number of excellent debates in this chamber with positive cross-party exchanges on how to improve the position of children and young people in the public care system. In particular, members will remember that there was strong cross-party consensus earlier this year when, on 4 April, I announced the setting up of an adoption review and asked the chamber to support a Sewel motion endorsing the principles contained in the Westminster Adoption and Children Bill. Our aim was to tighten up various aspects of intercountry adoption procedures in the wake of the internet adoption of the twins from the United States of America earlier this year. I know that Parliament shared my dismay over that matter.

I am delighted to say that the first phase of the adoption review that was announced in April is well under way and, as I previously announced, I fully expect a report from that review at the end of November.

Simultaneously, we have been implementing reforms of intercountry adoption procedures. New regulations ensure that the approval process for those who wish to adopt from overseas is the same as the process for prospective domestic adopters. The regulations also provide that any child who enters this country for the purposes of adoption will be supervised by the relevant local authority.

The Adoption and Children Bill, which fell because of the general election, was republished last week. I welcome this opportunity to update the chamber on the provisions that will take forward the original Sewel motion. I will also set out the further measures in the bill to protect vulnerable children, and explain why a further Sewel motion was necessary.

Members will remember that the bill follows the Prime Minister's review of adoption south of the border and the subsequent white paper last year. The bill strengthens existing restrictions on advertising relating to adoption. In essence, only an adoption agency can advertise that it will take steps to arrange an adoption. Importantly, the bill makes it clear that the offence that would be committed by breaching those restrictions would be committed by advertising over the internet. As adoption policy is a devolved matter, the Sewel motion was agreed in April to ensure that the new strengthened restrictions could apply on the same basis north and south of the border, thus avoiding any potential loopholes.

The bill also provides that it will be an offence to bring a child into the country for the purposes of adoption if the potential adopter has not already undergone the required checks to establish their suitability. Those provisions also act on issues that were covered by the Sewel motion that was agreed to in April.

UK ministers' plans for the legislation have developed since the original bill was introduced. Those measures aim mainly to reform the adoption process in England and Wales, and will involve the creation of new types of orders on guardianship and placement in that process. I shall ask the review group to follow developments, to determine whether we can learn anything from the new arrangements.

Meanwhile, we would like the bill to retain the mutual recognition of orders associated with adoption properly made by English, Welsh and Scottish jurisdictions. The bill already recognises Scottish procedures. Members will agree that it makes sense for the bill to be amended to continue recognition in Scotland of the new adoption procedures that are to be introduced in England and Wales, through amendment to Scottish legislation. That would mean that the position would be clear for children or families who were subject to the new orders and who moved to Scotland during the adoption process. The purpose of the Sewel motion is to permit the necessary consequential changes to Scottish legislation to be made in the UK bill.

The bill makes provision relating to the list of designated countries whose adoption orders are recognised throughout the UK without further scrutiny when the child arrives. That list of designated countries—broadly the members of the Commonwealth and the European Union—has not been reviewed for a considerable time. We aim to ensure that, at review, the countries on the list have controls over adoption that are compatible with our own.

Agreeing the list of designated countries for Scotland is a devolved responsibility and we intend to work with UK ministers when the list is reviewed. Ministers from both Parliaments would prefer to achieve an agreed UK list. The bill provides for England and Wales to make a list and to set out in regulations the criteria that govern which countries appear on it. The bill will roll forward the existing parallel power for Scotland to make a list, and the Sewel motion will allow Scottish ministers, alongside UK ministers, to achieve our aims.

I commend the Sewel motion to Parliament and move,

That the Parliament accepts the need to provide for continued mutual cross-border recognition of orders properly made by the separate GB jurisdictions in respect of adoption procedures; supports proposals for reform of recognition of overseas adoption orders, and agrees that the relevant provisions to achieve these ends in the Adoption and Children Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.

This is a very short debate on a very important matter. Adoption law is reformed so infrequently that it is vital that we get it right. The impact that it has on the lives of so many children and their families is immense and deserves our closest scrutiny and most urgent attention.

The first issue facing us today is straightforward. Current legislation provides for the mutual recognition of adoption placements, special guardianship and freeing orders properly made according to legislation pertaining in England, Wales and Scotland. It would seem only sensible to amend Scottish legislation so that we can continue to recognise the new orders associated with the adoption process.

With regard to the second issue, some would argue that, ideally, every child who is brought into the UK following the issue of an adoption order abroad should also be adopted under the law here. Even where there are, and have been, bilateral agreements, the practices in some of the countries from which the children have come are so poor that their welfare and safety cannot always be guaranteed. The United States provides a good example. There are 52 states, each with its own laws ranging from the extremely rigorous to the rather shoddy. In the case that was referred to by the minister, it is no accident that the couple who adopted the twins over the internet went to a state where the laws were especially poor to have the adoption order made. Theoretically, they had a valid adoption order and that made it difficult for the UK authorities to take action. It is therefore more than appropriate that there should now be a revised list of countries in respect of overseas adoption orders and that clear and specific criteria should be met.

I note that the bill is to be remitted to a special committee, which will take evidence from key stakeholders as part of its detailed consideration. I very much endorse the suggestion that that committee should take soundings from Scottish organisations to inform its views. Such involvement is probably the best way in which to ensure ownership of, and commitment to, the new legislation. Given that the new clauses will be implemented in Scotland and will inform the work of our adoption agencies, as well as impacting on the lives of children, it is important that any aspects that relate to our experience in Scotland should be understood and acknowledged. We support the motion.

I reaffirm the Conservative party's position, which was stated during the debate on 4 April. The proposed bill aims to increase the annual rate of adoption of children in care by 40 per cent over four years. We welcome that goal in the light of the fact that the number of adoption applications in Scotland had almost halved, from 836 in 1988 to 469 in 1998.

The adoption process can be a particularly intrusive and invasive routine for applicants. We have a duty to get the balance right to ensure that the system assesses safety issues and provides stable and loving family environments for children as quickly as possible. Adoption and child care managers seem to come under the spotlight of intense media scrutiny only when something goes wrong. The minister and Irene McGugan have mentioned the case of the babies for sale on the internet and I will mention the case of the young woman who was asked, and expected, to abort one of the twins that she was proved to be carrying for a childless couple. Those examples are unedifying indeed—the interests of the child should always come first and should always be our prime concern.

I am confident that colleagues south of the border will strive to improve the bill during its passage and will outline their concerns regarding the adequacy of funding. However, they will support the bill and we wish it a fair hearing. We support today's Sewel motion.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the proposals in the motion, which are sensible and will lead to a unified approach to our relationships with European, Commonwealth and other countries on adoption procedures and make easier the relationships between the UK jurisdictions. It is important in this sensitive area that there be mutual recognition of adoption decisions when we can be sure that, as far as possible, the interests of the child are at the heart of the procedures.

One of the first cases that I dealt with as an MSP concerned paternity rights. The wife and the children of my constituent were in England and the differences between the regulations in the two jurisdictions caused pain and distress that should be avoided if at all possible. We will be able to do that if we recognise adoption procedures across the local borders and international borders.

The motion before us today recognises that it is in everyone's best interests for the child to be put at the heart of the thinking as far as possible.

On the issue of overseas adoption, it is important that safeguards be established across the UK to ensure that no case like the Kilshaw case can happen again. None of us likes laws that are made immediately in reaction to individual cases, but, in this case, the potential for further damage was so obvious that it was right that we should try to address the problem. Perhaps it was good that the general election caused consideration of the bill to be postponed as that has given us more time in which to get the legislation right.

It is right that the Scottish Parliament should allow Scottish ministers to act in the best interests of adopted children. We endorse the proposal to allow our ministers to work alongside the UK ministers to put in place the proper international regulations.

I look forward to a full review. As Irene McGugan says, the UK review should take cognisance of Scottish interests.

I pay tribute to the minister for the work that he has done to ensure that this work is taken seriously and to Irene McGugan for her constructive speech, which focused on the needs of children rather than on any constitutional issues that might have arisen over the Sewel motion.

It is important that we recognise that the interests of children must be put first in all adoption legislation. Adoption is not necessarily a service for people who want to have children; it is about what is best for the children. Lyndsay McIntosh mentioned the adoption figures, but I stress that raising the number of adoptions is not an end in itself. We should be more concerned with appropriately assessing the needs of children in our care and those who may be brought from abroad to ensure that the decisions that are made are the best ones for them in the long term.

We have all raised concerns about so-called internet adoptions and the need to tighten up the legislation that covers them. I have certainly been concerned during my many years working in child care that, at times, there has been an inappropriate push to bring children and young people from abroad into this country rather than ensure that the resources for them to be looked after appropriately were available in their own countries. We must bear that in mind when we consider adoption.

The motion is constructive and the debate has been constructive. I hope that we will all take the opportunity to contribute as the process continues in Westminster.

I call Jack McConnell to respond to the debate for the Executive. If you wish, you can have four and a half minutes, minister.

I relish the possibility. I will not be talking about the game last night. That would not be appropriate.

I welcome the all-party support for the motion. It is vital that, in all discussions that take place, we put first the needs of the most vulnerable children and the families who go through the difficult process of adoption. It is vital that we have a system that is easy to understand, through which it is easy to see a route and which works seamlessly north and south of the border where appropriate. That is our aim in the motion. I know that colleagues in the Department of Health in England and Wales share that aim. I believe that we can now achieve that aim.

I confirm to Parliament that we will send to those responsible a list of organisations that could be invited to submit evidence to the special committee that will be established at Westminster. For the Westminster Parliament, it is a great innovation to establish a special committee to consider the bill. That committee will take evidence for 28 days before considering amendments at the appropriate stage. We will at least suggest that Scottish organisations be part and parcel of that evidence. We hope that the special committee will take up that suggestion.

I welcome the support of members throughout the chamber. The bill is a set of important measures. I look forward to the day when we can discuss in this Parliament the initial report of the adoption policy review group that has been established. I also look forward to the second stage of that review, in which we will consider fostering and other legal matters.