Education, Culture and Sport Committee,

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 1, 2001

Official Report 109KB pdf

---

Adoption Policy Review

Members have in front of them a Scottish Executive memorandum on the review of adoption policy. I invite members to comment on the proposed remit and objectives of that review. Comments on the review from the Justice 2 Committee have also been circulated.

I presume that the memorandum follows the ministerial announcement and subsequent debate in the Parliament, as it confirms what was said then. The content of the memorandum appears to be okay, and the questions that the Justice 2 Committee raises also appear to be all right. I am comfortable with the review's remit.

I was also going to make that point. The memorandum contains nothing that we were not made aware of during the debate. However, recognition is missing of the fact that an amendment to the motion for debate was agreed. That amendment requires that a review of adoption legislation take place, in addition to and following the review of adoption policy. It is appropriate to place that on the record, in order to underline the fact that the Parliament's decision was to amend the motion. Both the Minister for Education, Europe and External Affairs and the Scottish Executive accepted the amendment, and we should not lose sight of that.

Paragraph 8 of the memorandum suggests that there are other issues that we might think "worthy of consideration". Indeed. The memorandum suggests that those topics

"can be examined in a second phase of the Review".

Should not we obtain further information on a second, a third or any other phase that is proposed for the review? No further detail is given on when that work might follow after the initial inquiry and it would be useful to know how many phases there might be and therefore how long the extended period of the review might last before we reach a final position.

I agree with Irene McGugan that we should have an outline or timetable for the review, so that we can see what we are working to.

We should also consider where we might be able to influence some of the issues. We do not want the review to go down a specific road, only for matters to be referred to us for discussion, as I suspect that we will want to influence certain areas early on.

There has been a unanimous resolution of the Parliament and a great deal of cross-party support for the review, with interesting ideas coming from all parties. In the light of that, and of what Cathy Peattie has just said, would it be appropriate to suggest that the committee meets the review group—formally or informally—early in the process, to discuss the issues on the record? That way, everybody could be made aware of the issues and we could exchange views on a matter about which we all have concerns.

Absolutely. That is a very helpful suggestion. I shall write to the minister, suggesting that course of action.

The Justice 2 Committee is interested to hear our views on the points that it has made. Do members have any comments? The points seem sensible to me. Perhaps it would be useful to highlight them in our response to the minister.

Members indicated agreement.

I shall copy my letter to the minister to Pauline McNeill, the convener of the Justice 2 Committee. We can liaise with that committee on this matter, as it will take the lead. I shall also copy my letter to the minister to committee members.