Official Report 251KB pdf
Education (Disability Strategies) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003<br />(SSI 2003/10)
We have two statutory instruments to consider under the negative procedure. The first is the Education (Disability Strategies) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003. Abbie Maxwell from the Executive is here to answer members' questions.
The committee should thank the Executive for picking up on an earlier drafting error.
I thank Abbie Maxwell for coming to the meeting. I am sure that she wishes that every visit to the committee could be as pleasant. There are no strong objections, so do members agree that they do not wish to make any recommendations to the Parliament?
Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SSI 2003/19)
We come to SSI 2003/19. The purpose of the regulations is to implement the 1993 Hague convention on the protection of children and co-operation in respect of intercountry adoption, which was concluded at The Hague on 29 May 1993. The UK plans to deposit the instrument on 1 March 2003, with the convention taking effect in June. Gerald Byrne and Alison Provan from the education department and Craig Harvie from the Executive's legal and parliamentary services are here to answer members' questions. Members have received a response from the Subordinate Legislation Committee—we are grateful to it for keeping us informed—which highlights several issues.
This week, for the first time, I had the pleasure of being at the Subordinate Legislation Committee, so for once I know what the committee is talking about. Two concerns were raised. The first was about the fact that, although regulation 6(2) imposes obligations on certain agencies, it does not include agencies in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. The Subordinate Legislation Committee and the Executive have debated that point. The second concern was whether the words "in writing" cover electronic methods of communication.
The first point concerns taking steps to ascertain whether an applicant has criminal convictions. It is important to bear in mind the fact that the procedure for vetting applicants is split into two stages. First, we must consider the eligibility of the applicant. Secondly, the adoption agency will determine their suitability. The policy has been determined that, under the initial eligibility criteria, which include the applicant's age and, in certain cases, their marital status and domicile, there is an automatic bar if applicants have a conviction of a certain type within Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland. I understand that the reason for that was to have alignment between the various jurisdictions and to be consistent with the operation of the domestic regulations.
The Subordinate Legislation Committee was just being picky—
I am sorry if I ranted on.
It was not my interpretation that the Subordinate Legislation Committee was being picky.
If the other jurisdictions are included, should not the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands be mentioned, too? That would ensure that the provision in regulation 6(2) that applies to the rest of the United Kingdom would also apply to the rest of the British isles. That is all that we are looking for.
Throughout the drafting of the regulations, issues have been raised about the use of the terms "United Kingdom" and "British isles". The intention is to follow through the intent of the Hague convention, which refers to the British islands. The use of the term "United Kingdom" comes into play only in relation to immigration matters. The intent has been to give effect to the immigration legislation.
That is not the point.
Technically speaking, should not those jurisdictions have come under the regulations by name? That is all that the Subordinate Legislation Committee was asking. Although I recognise that some sensitive issues are involved, surely it would have been possible to stipulate that England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were included.
That is a fair point. However, the regulations are also aimed at giving effect to cross-border reciprocity. The fact that England, Wales and Northern Ireland introduced similar regulations to ratify the convention at the same time means that those three jurisdictions can impose reciprocal obligations, whereas the Channel Islands, for example, was not party to the process, as it did not introduce its own regulations. I am sorry—I missed the point.
That is the kind of explanation that the Subordinate Legislation Committee sought. I am sorry, Jackie; you were in the middle of a point.
We have not had a response to the question whether the words "in writing" cover electronic forms of communication.
The Executive's current view is that the use of the term "in writing" would not automatically include electronic communications. It is our intention that the applications would be made in writing on a form and that supporting documents would be lodged.
Given the advances in new technology and the fact that, even within the Parliament and the Executive, we are encouraged to fill out forms electronically, why have you chosen to exclude such forms of communication in this instance?
One point to consider is that many of the records in such cases would continue to be in paper form—for example, the home study reports that we would receive from social work departments and the criminal record certificates that we would obtain from Disclosure Scotland. We would build up a substantial paper file. Having the initial application in writing would start that process off and would allow us to continue to have a paper trail for such cases. We would expect to receive the relevant documents largely in paper form and they would be sent overseas in paper form. There would be no advantage in the initial stage being the only part of the dossier that was in electronic format. We would end up with a substantial bundle of paper in the traditional way as the case progressed.
It has been acknowledged in an awful lot of subordinate legislation that electronic and other ways of working are acceptable.
As other methods develop, I am sure that they will become acceptable. However, as things stand, we will end up with large amounts of paper for intercountry adoption cases.
The third point is about the reference in the preamble to the "Adoption Act 1978". Should the reference be to the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978?
We have just spotted that. The preamble cross-refers to the footnote, which refers to chapter 28 of the 1978 act. I confirm that that act is the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978.
What a wonderful committee the Subordinate Legislation Committee is.
We could have saved the Executive's representatives quite a lot of time and trouble if the regulations had been laid before the Subordinate Legislation Committee a wee bit earlier. All that we have just done could have been done by letter. However, because the Education, Culture and Sport Committee has had to consider the regulations on the same day as the Subordinate Legislation Committee has, the process is awkward.
We appreciate that and the fact that the regulations are lengthy. Unfortunately, we have been trying to choreograph the procedure with the other jurisdictions—that has been part of the problem.
I understand. Thanks.
I am not picking up any strong feelings from the committee, although Ms Baillie enjoyed herself on the Subordinate Legislation Committee—the Siberia of the Parliament.
It was very interesting.
I am glad that you enjoyed it.
It has a very good convener.
She is a good friend of mine; I follow her every move.
Thank you.
Next
Petitions