Plenary, 30 Jan 2002

Meeting date: Wednesday, January 30, 2002

Official Report 374KB pdf

---

Adoption and Children Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2649, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, on the Adoption and Children Bill, which is UK legislation.

This afternoon, I request members' support for an important legislative change. Who Cares? Scotland recently conducted a small sample survey of a group of young people who had been looked after away from home, in order to assess their experience of the care system. The fact that adoption was discussed with only one child was revealing. The longer a child is looked after in care and the greater the number of placement moves, the less likely it is that that child is able to reach their full potential in later life. Children need a stable and permanent environment to thrive.

In Scotland, a significant number of children who are looked after away from home cannot return to their birth families and await placement with new permanent families. There are possibly around 500 such children, about half of whom await adoption. Against that background, my predecessor, Jack McConnell, set up a review of adoption policy last April.

It is interesting that a number of members who claim to be absolutely enthralled by the opportunity to debate the subject seem to be leaving the chamber. I hope that members will take account of the importance of the issue—I am sure that they will.

Just before Christmas, the adoption policy review group reported to me on the first phase of the review. I am examining the detail of the report and want to reflect further before discussing the full range of issues that are covered. I assure members that I am keen to take the review forward as soon as possible and that I intend to publish the report with my response as soon as I can.

One recommendation in the report needs to be acted on urgently if we are to give young people who are currently in care the best possible chance of some form of permanence. Members will remember that the review group was asked to consider the case for participation in the register that is being put on a statutory footing through the Adoption and Children Bill. The register's main purposes will be to improve the matching process and to tackle delays in finding suitable families in order to offer permanency for children.

The current system does not give our children and young people the best chance of permanence. Although some authorities belong to consortia, we have no Scotland-wide provision to match children with adoptive families. I see the proposals as part of a package of measures aimed at making improvements throughout Scotland. Currently, the opportunities for potential matches between families and children are not maximised.

After careful consideration of the options and public consultation, the adoption policy review group concluded that participation in the register would assist in improving the life chances of looked-after children. There were concerns about moving children outwith local or Scottish boundaries. However, with the operation of the register, there will still be an opportunity for children who await adoption in Scotland to be found local families, as matching through the register is not planned to start immediately.

A register will be of particular benefit to children such as disabled children and children from ethnic minorities for whom it might otherwise be harder to find placements and good matches. I worked with children and young people for years and know the situations in which they can find themselves.

The "Be My Parent" process identified children such as the 20-month-old child of mixed ethnic identity who had a severe skin condition and required an adoptive placement and the six-year-old with a need for specialist support services for whom a placement outwith the immediate local area had to be found. Those are real children with real needs. They are the Parliament's real priorities, which so many members talked about during the previous debate.

We intend that the operation of the register will be straightforward. In the pilot scheme in England and Wales, three months was allowed for a local match and a further three months for a regional one if the agency was a member of a consortium. For families, the periods were six months and a further three months respectively. Children were registered for adoption and registered adopters were placed on the register as soon as they were approved, but the information went live only when the adoption agency asked for it.

Once the information went live, the best options for national matches were identified and assessed by social workers at the register before the agencies dealing with the children or families were contacted with the match details. Agencies were then sent the information to consider whether a link would be pursued. If the link was not pursued, the information would go live again on the register. The pilot scheme is being evaluated.

To enable us to join the register now, the Adoption and Children Bill must be amended to allow us to be in at the beginning of the process. To enable that to be done, I seek the chamber's support for the Sewel motion. I make no apologies for asking the chamber to support a third Sewel motion on the issue. The two previous Sewel motions on the UK bill have meant that we can tighten up provisions on inter-country adoption to protect children and babies and preserve children's rights in relation to legal processes. The amendments that the chamber agreed should be sought were made at the House of Commons committee stage of the bill, which has just finished. We could not consider the register earlier, as I did not wish to prejudge the findings of the review group.

We now have an opportunity to help such children again and to give them a better chance of permanency. We need to take this opportunity to join the register. We need to do that at the House of Commons report stage, as it is unlikely that there will be another Westminster legislative slot in the near future.

The Adoption and Children Bill sets out the framework for the adoption register, but Scotland will be firmly in the driving seat in relation to what happens here and will have equal responsibility with England and Wales in determining the operation of the register. That will enable us to take full account of the different legal system in Scotland and to ensure that, once again, we do what is best for Scotland's children.

I move,

That the Parliament accepts the need for Scotland, along with England and Wales, to participate in the Adoption and Children Act Register to be established by the Adoption and Children Bill and agrees that the relevant provisions to achieve this end in the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.

The minister cannot fail to be aware that the SNP has no great enthusiasm for Sewel motions. As she acknowledged, this is the third Sewel motion on the Adoption and Children Bill. It is not unreasonable to expect the Scottish Parliament to generate its own legislation on relevant matters. As time is short in this debate, I will not make any further comment on that, although I cannot promise the same for other SNP contributors.

As in the previous two debates on the reform of UK adoption law, we support the intent behind the motion, while deploring the process. We recognise that the new procedures will, if they are effectively implemented, be of significant benefit to the many children and families involved in the adoption process in Scotland. The proposed register should enhance co-ordination nationally, which is important, and it should speed up the matching process. The important factor is the ability to match more children, without undue delay, with a safe and loving family who will support them throughout their childhood and beyond.

A local placement will often, rightly, be the preferred option, not least if links to birth families are to be sustained. In those cases, current arrangements will suffice and should not be compromised by the bill. I recall from previous experience what a complicated and time-consuming process it is to cast the net wider when such a placement is not possible or desirable. A national register would be a tool of significant assistance. The fact that the time taken between decision making and matching can be monitored will also help agencies to improve their performance.

I approve of the in-built safeguards, which will prohibit information exchange without consent and deny public access. I also welcome the encouragement given to voluntary adoption agencies to make use of the register.

The minister confirmed that the adoption policy review group has recommended that Scotland should participate in the register that will be established by the Adoption and Children Bill. I am particularly interested in the group's other recommendations as well and hope that in the not-too-distant future we can have a longer debate, particular to Scotland, about the whole issue. As they stand, the measures will go only so far in bringing about the changes that we need to increase the number of successful adoptions. I hope that a mechanism will be put in place to enable the wishes of the Scottish Parliament to be reflected in the operation of the register.

I reaffirm my party's position on the bill, as stated during the debates of 4 April and 24 October last year, which is that thousands of children could and should be adopted more quickly. Every week makes a difference to the rest of their lives. Their welfare goes beyond party disagreements and calculations. I understand why the SNP objects to Sewel motions, but on this occasion I have no such difficulty.

It is important that, when seeking suitable adoptive parents, we do not compromise the needs of the children. However, a balance needs to be struck. In seeking to provide stability and security, we must ensure that the least upset is caused to the parties involved. If the bill provides for a right of appeal for those whose adoption application has been turned down previously, that could widen access for those who might be considered adoptive patents.

The interests of the child must be put first. I welcome the fact that the bill makes it an offence to bring a child into the country for the purposes of adoption where the potential adopter has not undergone the required police checks to establish their suitability. We do not want a repeat of the cases that Irene McGugan and others mentioned in the previous debate, including that of the Kilshaws.

I assure members that our colleagues in Westminster did their utmost during the passage of the bill to outline areas where lingering doubts arose. We support the bill and wish it every success.

I call Ian Jenkins. Members may take a little more time, if they so wish.

It will not be necessary to detain the chamber for any length of time. It is clear that there is broad agreement that the terms of the motion are sensible, practical and correct in principle. I welcome the minister's clear commitment to looked-after children.

The proposals for the register will lead to a unified approach towards adoption across the United Kingdom. They recognise the importance of the place of adoption services in the spectrum of care for children and young people. As has been said, adoption is a sensitive area and it is important to have proper principles and procedures behind adoption decisions. The interests of the child must be at the heart of those procedures. The register will help.

Some members worry about the proliferation of Sewel motions. We need to treat such motions on a case-by-case basis. I have no doubt that the merits of the motion are such that we should have no qualms about the UK Parliament considering the matter.

Members from all parts of the chamber will know of cases in which adoption procedures have been difficult. A recent series of television documentaries demonstrated the complex ramifications of adoption. The programmes examined the way in which adoptive families are selected and the procedures for support when things prove difficult. We have to recognise that each adoption procedure deals with the future of individual youngsters and families. The decisions are life changing. Our legislation must safeguard and protect the youngsters' interests and must recognise the importance of adoption decisions. The register and other provisions in the bill will endeavour to put in place sensible safeguards and measures to maximise the available matches for youngsters.

It is important that there should not be substantial discrepancies between Scotland and England. We should take advantage of the resources that are available without boundaries. Potential adoptive families and children who are in line for adoption do not fit easily or readily into boxes. The proposed register is important, as it seeks to protect children. Given that safeguards for children are being put in place, it would be perverse to place barriers, obstacles or hurdles in the way of the best interests of the child.

I support the motion. I look forward to seeing shortly the report that the minister promised.

We move into the open debate. Speeches may be up to five minutes long.

It is ironic that, when we think that we have only two minutes, we are told that we have five minutes, whereas when we think that we have five minutes, we seem to get two minutes.

Five minutes is not compulsory.

I welcome the Sewel motion. We should remember that another Sewel motion on this subject would not have been necessary if it had not been for the UK general election last year. We have already discussed the matter and I do not think that much more needs to be said than was said in the previous debates.

I agree with the minister that it would be a wasted opportunity if we did not take advantage of the Westminster bill by extending it to Scotland. We have always had separate adoption legislation in Scotland, which largely reflects our different legal system. As a placing social worker and, before I was elected to the Scottish Parliament, as the chair of Fife Council's fostering and adoption panel, I was involved in the adoption process and I know how difficult it is to match the individual needs of some children with the requirements of an adoption placement.

It is ironic that, in the debate on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill, Richard Lochhead criticised the Scottish Executive for introducing legislation that was a London priority and that, in this debate, allusions have been made to the fact that the Executive can be criticised for introducing a Sewel motion that will allow Westminster to legislate on this important matter. I do not think that the process by which the law is implemented matters to children in Scotland; what matters is what is in the best interests of the child. In this case, what is in the best interests of the child is the provision of a national register that will meet the needs of a specific group of children for whom we cannot find appropriate adoption placements in Scotland.

What would the system be like if we did not have the national register? I remember how long it took local authorities to go through the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, not to mention the expense that that process incurred. The BAAF was the only organisation that had a national locus and that could locate the placement that was required to match the specific needs of some of the children.

One of the main criticisms of our adoption process is the length of time that it takes to place a child once the decision has been made that adoption is in that child's best interests. In too many cases, we missed the boat because, by the time an appropriate placement was found, the child had passed the optimum age for adoption. If we are serious about providing for some of the most vulnerable children in our society, a national register is the way to go.

The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 places a duty on local authorities that are considering a placement to take into account the linguistic, cultural and racial background of the child. It is not always possible—particularly in the smaller local authorities—to get the exact match that the law asks for. As people become more mobile, the exact match that reflects the child's needs and that meets the requirements of the law might be found in another part of the UK. It would be wrong if we did not take this opportunity to ensure that that can happen.

A national register is clearly the sensible way to go forward. I congratulate the minister on recognising that and am glad that we are doing something about the matter at long last.

When Ian Jenkins said that there was broad agreement about the Sewel motion, he was right in so far as there is agreement that this topic needs to be dealt with. However, there is no broad agreement on the use of a Sewel motion, of which today's is the 31st, I think. Increasingly, the Executive does not want the Scottish Parliament to do its job; it wants the Parliament's job to be done for it. If Scott Barrie holds the view that he expressed on that subject, he should not have bothered to get himself elected.

Not yet; I have not even started.

The First Minister has argued that we should do less but do it better. However, Sewel motions simply give us less to do. They take away decision making from Scotland and hand it to someone else. The Sewel motion is a flawed procedure.

Does Michael Russell accept that, as I clearly outlined in my opening remarks, we are using the Sewel motion as a device to get the best results for the children of Scotland, that we will continue to be actively involved in the delivery and implementation of this policy for the children of Scotland and that the use of the Sewel motion in no way lessens the value of what we are doing?

I certainly accept that the minister's intentions are honourable. I hope that she will extend the same courtesy to me. I will not accept the calumny, which we hear often and of which we saw some sign from Labour members this afternoon, that because we oppose the means by which the bill is dealt with, we oppose its substance. We do not. We oppose the means by which it is dealt with and we are right to do so.

The First Minister (Mr Jack McConnell) indicated disagreement.

Mr McConnell keeps shaking his head. I wish that he would think about his responsibility to the electors of Scotland and about what the Parliament is for.

Sewel motions came about in the first year of the Parliament. There were four in that year. The then Minister for Parliament negotiated them with me, as I was the SNP business manager. They were supposed to be exceptions, not the rule. However, there are now more than 30 of them; they are becoming almost weekly occurrences. The Administration is not pushing hard enough to devise Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. The Administration is not taking the Parliament seriously enough. The Administration lacks ambition to think through the implications of what it is doing.

I will give an example: the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. The chamber blithely, and, I have to say—

You have made your point, Mr Russell. You should begin to move on.

To be fair, Presiding Officer, I am making a substantive point about the use of Sewel motions. On occasions such as our consideration of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, we have given away the right to legislate only to find that legislation has not then been passed. That also happened with aspects of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.

Mr Russell, you must now get back to the motion on the Adoption and Children Bill.

If we cannot debate the flaws in the Sewel motion procedure when a Sewel motion is before us, we are not addressing the substantive issue.

If I am not allowed to make my points, I will be brief. I do not want to hear any more interventions.

If the Parliament will not look out for the job that it is elected to do, no wonder the people of Scotland are getting tired of it and the Administration.

I wish to make brief and, I hope, constructive points about Sewel motions. If you think that I should not, Presiding Officer, I will not.

I will take a brief comment, but I would rather get back to the subject of adoption. If members want to deal with Sewel motions, they can lodge a motion on the subject.

I support the bill fully. However, there are some problems with Sewel motions. First, we pass a Sewel motion before the Westminster scheme grinds into action. Westminster members may then amend the bill quite severely and, if they do, we are stuck with it. We are signing a blank cheque and should give some thought to that. Secondly, I will propose that the Procedures Committee consider the possibility—

I point out to Donald Gorrie that, if Westminster amends a provision that relates to a devolved issue, that provision must be brought back to the Parliament. That is clear.

If that is the case, I withdraw my first point.

The overall point is that there is concern about Sewel motions. We should consider having a fast-track system so that we can address the issues. I suspect that knowledge of the Adoption and Children Bill in the Parliament is pretty slim. If it were a proper Scottish bill, a lot more thought would be given to it.

We need to address that issue. I do not necessarily accept all Mike Russell's arguments, but there is an issue to address and I hope that we will do so. I support the bill strongly.

For those of us who argued for a Scottish Parliament in forums such as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, in which those members who have been most vociferous this afternoon did not even participate that effectively, it is shocking that the vast majority of Mike Russell's speech did not mention children but concentrated on the constitutional arrangement. I say to Mike Russell that children face enough barriers to adoption without our putting up another one at the border through constitutional arrangements.

Will Frank McAveety give way?

I will give way in a minute, but I want to elaborate first.

The central issue is how we adapt legislation to meet the needs of needy children not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. We have been modifying a particularly clunky adoption system for a long time. We need to find much more effective ways of refining that system, so that children are placed with more suitable adoptive parents.

Like other members, I have gone through the process of being a prospective adoptive parent and have experienced the agony and pain that is involved in the waiting process. Quite frankly, I do not think that families in Scotland will be concerned about whether a Sewel motion brought an end to the delay or whether that was delivered through the Scottish Parliament.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not give way. I am quite angry, because of all the issues that we should care about—

The member said that he would give way. What he has said is a total misrepresentation.

The misrepresentation is to claim that Labour members do not care about the institution of the Scottish Parliament. That is wrong. We are not labouring the issue by claiming that the constitutional arrangement involving Sewel motions is more important than the primary interests of children. We are trying to identify ways of modifying—

That is a misrepresentation.

If Mr Russell would like a monologue, we can have it outside the chamber.

I am happy to say that the debate in future will be about how we adapt the policy through Sewel amendments, when that is appropriate. As the minister identified in her key contribution, we will then examine the overall review of Scottish policy on adoption and looked-after children so that we shape the policy to the particular Scottish interests that really matter.

Instead of being obsessed about his location in these islands, Mr Russell should be concerned with how to do the best for children. I am delighted that we have the chance to do that.

I thought that it was important to stress my frustration and anger at Mike Russell's contribution before moving on to the core of my speech. Adoption has been neglected for too long. It is a pity that some folk have not raised the issue to a reasonable level of debate. How do we maximise the recruitment of families to ensure that children who, for whatever reason, have not been placed can find the opportunity to be placed?

The main reason for the Adoption and Children Bill is the internationalisation of adoption, which has taken place largely as a result of the development of the internet and the increase in the incidence of infertility, which has made many families unable to have children. Furthermore, barriers to placement have already been put up, some at local authority level. I hope that we will consider age restrictions and other restrictive factors in the overall review.

To make the register work effectively, we will need the consent of local authorities and adoptive agencies in that process. I hope that there will be cross-border co-operation. As Scott Barrie indicated, because of the mobility of children or the individuals who look after them, it is important to find ways of making the relevant connections across the UK. I welcome the motion, which—with due respect to Mr Russell—is not about constitutional arrangements; it is about children. I hope that Mr Russell will reflect on that.

I thank Lyndsay McIntosh for her support for the motion. I thank Irene McGugan for her comments, although I am not sure that I can say the same for her colleague's comments.

The Sewel convention has led to this important debate. My colleague Cathy Jamieson has outlined some of the reasons for that. Frank McAveety added to the debate his personal experience and his knowledge of what has happened to parents and children in the past.

The point about the Adoption and Children Bill is that it will allow us to be part of a UK-wide register. It will allow children to be placed into adoptive situations more quickly. By reducing the time that people have to wait to adopt children, the register will help to prevent the kind of heartache to which Frank McAveety so eloquently referred.

It is worth saying that, although Sewel motions have not been the subject of this debate, they were largely the subject of the debate on fur farming. Sewel motions are used in the Scottish Parliament for three reasons. First, they are used in situations in which it is more effective to legislate on a UK basis, to bring us into a UK-wide regime. Secondly, they are used where we believe that the provisions in a Westminster bill should be brought into effect in Scotland, but where there is limited time in the Scottish Parliament. Thirdly—

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not allowed to go into the wider issue of Sewel motions in my speech. You stopped me twice. The Minister for Parliamentary Business, however, is being allowed to do so. Is there an inconsistency?

There is no inconsistency as yet, Mr Russell. You spent two minutes and 48 seconds of your five minutes dealing with the issue; in the same way, I am watching how the Minister for Parliamentary Business divides her time.

I am sure that you are, Presiding Officer—I had taken that on board.

It is worth trying to respond to some of the serious points that Mr Russell made. In making them, he was calling into question the Executive's judgment in bringing forward an important item in this manner. That has to be put on the record, because this is an important issue. It must not be overshadowed by any discussion on the constitutional arrangements or on the individual mechanisms that are being used in this case.

In her remarks about Sewel motions, the minister referred to a lack of legislative time in the Parliament. Is she aware that there has just been a one-and-a-half-hour debate on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill—which will ban something that does not even happen in Scotland—during which many speakers admitted that they were padding out their speeches to fill the time?

Minister, you said that you would set the record straight and I think that you have done so. I wonder whether we could get back to the subject fairly quickly.

I will certainly do so, but, to answer Mr Lochhead's point, I think that it is worth mentioning that, in the press today, Mr Russell commented on our education system. I took the opportunity to find out how many debates the SNP has called for on education. In the past eight months, there has been only one such debate. That is the significance that the SNP attaches to issues of importance to children. The difference is that the Labour party and the coalition are introducing legislation and discussing issues that matter to the people of Scotland, particularly to a vulnerable group of young people.

Could the minister tell us how many debates on education the Executive has secured, specifically on the key issues of attainment and assessment in education, which the Executive is avoiding?

Yes. In fact, the Executive—

As expressed as a percentage of the time allocated.

I always understood that the parliamentary process allows the member who is on his or her feet—and not members who are sitting down—to speak. Then again, we are not surprised at Mr Russell's attitude.

The Executive has not only introduced legislation on the issues that are of importance to Scotland and its people, particularly its young people, in education and in other areas; it has addressed those issues through measures other than legislation. Legislation from this chamber is not always required to make a difference, which is what the Executive is intent on doing. We will use whatever processes work, including Sewel motions, to deliver for the people of Scotland.

Mr Russell got his arithmetic slightly wrong. Even if we include the two that are to be passed today, there will have been only 30 Sewel motions to date. Perhaps education is something that the SNP should not major on.

Scott Barrie made some interesting comments based on his time as chair of the adoption panel in Fife and I know that he takes the issue very much to heart. I think that his contribution assisted us greatly in developing the ideas that the Sewel motion sets out.

Much has been said about Sewel motions and about the way in which we do business. We make no apologies for what we are doing. Through an important bill, we are helping a vulnerable group of young people. We will help them by using a Sewel motion if that is the best method to effect change.